Not a Catholic. Is it common to deny Communion to a Catholic Church member for any reason?

https://www.scnow.com/news/local/joe-biden-denied-holy-communion-at-florence-church/article_4dfe451b-e181-5cdb-9da1-feae72795f0c.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR2pUurJWA7hMew3cmQwJgNPZGG9OyGxdX72A928xgLVR4ZokVt0Vg-mvQM

So priests have a mechanism to hold parishioners accountable to church doctrine but it is rarely used. Is this because priests are "iffy" on the doctrine (abortion)? Protestant churches who are vocal and take a stand about particular beliefs have split. Is the concern that liberal
Catholics will leave the church if priests don't allow abortion supporters to take Communion? Just curious why all priests do not take a stand if they truly want to end abortion. I was not aware they had this option

AstroAg17 said:

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication_of_Catholic_politicians_who_support_abortion

This page describes exactly that. It looks like it's happened a handful of times. Noteably Pope John Paul gave communion to someone with similar views in 2001. To my reading, political denial of communion is a rare and slightly unpopular occurrence which does not have the support of Catholic Church leadership.

Biden is personally against abortion but doesn't feel he should impose his beliefs on his constituents. Does the church consider that a mortal sin? I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

---

According to the catechism it does:

Quote:

---

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

. 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

---

Thank you that is very clear. I am surprised that anyone who supports abortion WANTS to be a member of the Catholic Church since the doctrine is so clear. The proponents/opponents of gay marriage in the church seem to want to attend churches that align with their beliefs. Fascinating to me that such a polarizing issue (abortion) has not created a division in the church. I am impressed with the moral certitude of this priest.

ETA:full disclosure, I am Protestant and pro-life and have always assumed that Catholic priests are very strong pro life advocates

bloom said:

---

Thank you that is very clear. I am surprised that anyone who supports abortion WANTS to be a member of the Catholic Church since the doctrine is so clear. The proponents/opponents of gay marriage in the church seem to want to attend churches that align with their beliefs. Fascinating to me that such a polarizing issue (abortion) has not created a division in the church. I am impressed with the moral certitude of this priest.

---

While it does seem to be clear cut, it is not always. The Sacrament of reconciliation (commonly known as confession) is available for all sinners. And it is not the duty of priests to judge every ones soul before the reception of Holy Eucharist. That is technically up to the person receiving. And since it is private, no one else would know whether absolution was granted or if they are unrepentantly receiving Holy Communion. . So, someone could technically confess, Be absolved and receive and no one else would be none the wiser.

However, there is much consternation among Catholics that these public officials don't seem to be too repentant if they continue to espouse political beliefs that advance abortion. It has been the cause of many debates as to why the Bishops and clergy don't take a more defined stance.

AstroAg17 said:

---

That seems fairly clear. Why then does the Catholic Church not do this systematically? To me it seems like that's clear grounds for formal excommunication for a large number of politicians.

---

10% giving the benefit of the doubt, 90% politics.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Politics in what way? To avoid the perception that the Catholic politicians are an extension of the church?

---

That is one. Separation of Church and State, tax exempt status, the basically progressive stance of many bishops and Parrish priests are a few of the others.

jxs40 said:

---

AstroAg17 said:

---

Politics in what way? To avoid the perception that the Catholic politicians are an extension of the church?

---

That is one. Separation of Church and State, tax exempt status, the basically progressive stance of many bishops and Parrish priests are a few of the others.

---

That one too. Some are very left wing, priest run the gamut of political spectrum. Some self justify all the other "goods" of the political outweighs the "bad". They excuse certain shortcomings like anyone else does when facing who to vote/ support/ hold accountable

Is a politician considered to be in "formal cooperation" in an abortion? It doesn't seem like it to me.

As I said elsewhere

Abortion is evil and should be stopped. Murder, is murder, period.

Churches who punish parishioners in order to effect political changes, or coerce elected officials into supporting a particular political stance, should lose their tax exempt status, as they have become political entities. This includes any christian/muslim/jewish/other group, period.

Churches who's clergy are convicted of crimes, or found responsible in civil court, and whom defended or retained said clergy. Should lose their tax exempt status.

Sounds like the priest was within his rights to do this, but violated the basis for being non political entities by doing it to punish a democratically elected official in the US.

AstroAg17 said:

---

This is the damning (get it?) passage:

The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

---

That's the law. A person isn't the law.

Amusing, y'all are quick to the defense here, but if bored the point.

It's fine they have an opinion, and the withholding would not be an issue for a regular individual.

You cannot take punitive action( deprevation and condemnation are punitive. Just because a particular religion says it's "all out of love", does not mean it's not punitive) in order to coerce a political candidate or elected official to do something. We democratically elect representatives....they're supposed to serve the will of their constituents, of all religions. If one church can dictate what they can and cannot do, they cannot fulfill their oaths of office.

This kind of coercion is wrong, regardless of who does it. If you cannot serve without it, you should not serve at all. If your organization is going to actively interfere with a politician , they should not be off limits.

Of course you shouldn't be off limits for harboring fugitives, and hiding funds from victims, but hey.... decades of that to.

I agree with with the right of the church to speak out as they choose, to withhold communion and speak as a moral authority. I dont agree with their right to interfere with the workings of a duly elected government, or the candidates thereof....for any reason. I certainly dont agree with govt subsidization through tax breaks when they choose to.

I don't see the major distinction between a pro choice politician who rarely gets a say in abortion matters anyway and a pro choice voter, particularly since sometimes abortion laws make it on a state ballot. What about a pro choice judge?

Does the same principle apply to the death penalty? Certainly not drunkenness or gluttony, but to be fair those aren't necessarily life and death.

Again, not Catholic, but the Church does seem to be consistent with their protection of the individual in the ways you mentioned (harboring fugitives, death penalty etc) even when their moral stance is at odds with the US law. This is why it is confusing to me that the Church is not more consistent about serving communion to people who are vocal known supporters of abortion and access to abortion services. It should not matter if the vocal person is a politician or a local parish member. You are correct, politics should not enter into the discussion and I do not know that they did in this or any instance. Biden will openly advocate for increased access and ease of abortion-he is no different than the local guy who holds up a pro-abortion sign in a protest(who should also be denied communion if they are enforcing "policy"). You have to assume that if someone puts their views out on public display that they are fully prepared to suffer any consequences. The whole pedo/molestation thing is really a separate issue from enforcing Church doctrine re:communion. The pedo thing is just a total lack of local member oversight and a massive massive failure to vet the moral fortitude of upper level management

This reminds me of the quote from Hippolytus:

Quote:

---

"The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established brothel, sculptors of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiatorgive it up or be rejected. A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected. A proconsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God."

---

I'm often torn on the closed vs open communion. I see the arguments for both, but I approve of this.

As an outsider here, I see a difference between voting for a secular government's ability to do something, and your personal/religious belief. I've brought that up before and know that many others disagree.

However, I see this as the Catholic church setting up a false dichotomy: If you don't vote for your government to uphold the views of the church, then you can't be a Catholic. So now every Catholic politician has to face the decision of if they want to be a Catholic or a politician. Faced with that decision, eventually you'll find that you have no Catholic politicians.

What about the people who voted for Biden? Surely a lot of Catholics in Delaware voted for him to be Senator and a lot of Catholics voted for Obama and therefore voted for Biden as his VP. Should they all also be denied communion? Are you going to have to turn in your voter's card to receive communion next time?

I see the issue as in our political system we normally have 2 choices. Chances are good that both of those candidate choices have positions on moral issues that a voter will not like. We all have to decide, as imperfect humans, which imperfect human will receive our vote. We, as voters, are not advocating for ALL positions of the person we vote for, we just chose the one we feel is closest to reflecting our values. This is where a Catholic has to weigh their abortion stance, and the Baptist has to weigh their stance on selling booze. We are not out there advocating and legislating. Biden is out there advocating and legislating. I guess you can argue if there is a difference between active sin (legislating) and passive sin (voting for the legislator). Again, the topic fascinated me because I am surprised the Catholic Church in America has not splintered over this issue.

PacifistAg said:

---

This reminds me of the quote from Hippolytus:

Quote:

---

"The professions and trades of those who are going to be accepted into the community must be examined. The nature and type of each must be established brothel, sculptors of idols, charioteer, athlete, gladiatorgive it up or be rejected. A military constable must be forbidden to kill, neither may he swear; if he is not willing to follow these instructions, he must be rejected. A proconsul or magistrate who wears the purple and governs by the sword shall give it up or be rejected. Anyone taking or already baptized who wants to become a soldier shall be sent away, for he has despised God."

---

I'm often torn on the closed vs open communion. I see the arguments for both, but I approve of this.

---

I guess athletes were different back then? They do not seem to fit with the groups mentioned.

And I have thought this through a little more and now think Biden should be able to take Communion. Nobody who feels they are okay to take it should not be denied the unity with Christ.