By Tim Rohr
In addition to AG Moylan's efforts to lift the injunction on the 1990 "Belle's Law" and the ACLU suit over the in-person requirement relative to the law requiring informed consent for abortion, there are now two new bills aimed at radically legalizing abortion (Bills 106-37 and 111-37).
And then on top of that, Lt. Governor Tenorio has just signed on to a national statement defending access to the chemical baby killer - Mifepristone.
Note: News stories, including the one just referenced, refer to Mifepristone as "medication." Medication is stuff that supports life. Mifepristone is stuff that supports death. Calling a baby-killing drug "medication" is like the Nazi's telling six million Jews they were just going to take a shower.
Today, on the Ray Gibson show, towards the end somewhere, a woman caller protested the Lt. Gov's signing Guam onto the aforesaid statement. She argued that there are many Catholics and Christians who don't support abortion. I always cringe when I hear that argument because that's exactly what the pro-aborts want us to do: make it about religion.
It ain't about religion. It's first about the demonstrable scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent, helpless, defenseless human being whose screams while being chopped to pieces we can't even hear. And second, it's about whether we, as a society, are just fine with that.
Ray challenged the caller with something to the effect that these religious groups better get off their $#!& and start doing something to stop the mounting avalanche of baby-killing moves by the people we elected. And doing the wave on Marine Corps Drive once a year is probably not what Ray had in mind.
Truth be told, I'm not optimistic that any church will stand up to the pro-aborts. The caller said something about how Catholics are against abortion. On paper, yes. But not in practice. For decades the majority of abortions were obtained by women (there, I said it) identifying their ethnicity as CHamoru (previously Chamorro). Historically, ethnically, culturally...whatever, that means the majority of abortions were procured by Catholics.
Moreover, the most virulent pro-aborts are Catholics. And I don't mean just in Guam where the leading pro-aborts, LLG, Josh Tenorio, and Jayne Flores, are all Catholics (and apparently now Sen. Barnes given her sponsorship, if not authorship, of the meanest baby-killing legislation every seen in Guam - The Health Protection Act of 2023 *), I mean Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the list goes on. And it's a long list.
* The Health Protection Act of 2023 is set out in both the afore-referenced bills: 106-37 and 111-37.
What we don't know is if they'll go to hell or not. Of course we don't and it's not for us to know. But what we do know is that their pastors have a grave moral duty to confront them. Out of charity, the first confrontation should be private. However, should the offenders persist publicly in their baby-killing efforts, then pastors have a serious moral duty to the rest of us to call them out publicly.
In short, the first soul at risk is the pastor's.
Lest any Catholic pastor be unclear on the matter, they (and we) would do well to study what then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) wrote, personally, in English, and to the U.S. Catholic bishops in 2004 when the communion-going pro-abortion Catholic, John Kerry, was a presidential contender.
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
by Joseph Ratzinger
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
4. Apart from an individuals's judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2000], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
No comments:
Post a Comment