| Chaput to Pelosi: Don't Present Yourself for Communion |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 2/20/09 |
|
In my Window this past Monday, I predicted that if Archbishop Niederhauer of San Francisco did not make a public statement about Speaker Pelosi, who resides in San Francisco, some other bishop would. That is precisely what has happened. Whether Archbishop Niederhauer finds that embarrassing, as I suggested he would, I don't know. Yesterday on Fox's "Neil Cavuto Show," Archbishop Chaput and Cavuto had the following exchange, as reported by the Catholic News Agency:
Chaput also corrected Cavuto on an important point:
As this year drags on, with the new Congress and the new administration, I would guess that more and more bishops will be talking publicly about communion and pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Pelosi and Vice President Biden. Pelosi made a huge miscalculation by asking for an audience with Benedict XVI -- she gave him the perfect opportunity to reiterate the teaching of the Church in a way that appeared aimed directly at Pelosi, pro-abortion Catholics in Congress, the Obama administration, and all the Catholics who support them. Pelosi is not likely to learn any lesson from this encounter, just as she didn't from her now-famous church history lecture on "Meet the Press." Like Biden, Pelosi insists upon pumping up her Catholic identity whenever she gets a chance, thus provoking the response of those in authority to teach faith and morals. I am sure that Pelosi is surrounded by Catholic admirers who urge her to continue making an issue of her Catholicism, but they are only pushing her, and the bishops, to an inevitable show-down at the altar.
Readers have left 7 comments. That's an interesting way that Chaput put it -- "if you don't accept what the Church teaches." That would seem to set out a doctrinal-assent test for receiving Communion, which would cast a much wider net than the cooperation-in-grave-moral-evil test. Frankly I think the latter is the more accurate and more prudent way to go. It puts the emphasis on an objective judgment of the individual's fitness for receiving Communion, rather than on the unity of believers ("Communion means agreement"), which is too easy to misunderstand or downplay as mere moral symbolism. It's likely that Chaput was just dumbing things down for this reporter, but still: one must be careful with words. Written by Todd M. Aglialoro Having read Chaput's Render Unto Caesar, he was dumbing it down for the FoxNews audience. Written by AREADER I find the lack of one voice from our bishops on this matter very disconcerting. It really should be a source of great embarrassment to the bishops who have these dissident Catholics in their dioceses and who do nothing to stop it. I agree that the more the Pelosi and Bidens of the country tout their 'faith' the more it forces the bishops' hands. I have been saying for some time that it was actually a good thing that Obama selected Biden, and Pelosi was made Speaker of the House, because of the prominence it brought to the scandal. Now, Obama has selected Kathleen Sebelius for the head of HHS, if I'm not mistaken. This woman is 'pals' with the most radical abortionist in the nation, Tiller. I believe the bishops of Kansas have been outspoken as Archbishop Chaput, but what of D.C.? Her appointment to national prominence is another push to our bishops. Will they finally stand as one? The dissident politicians are creating scandal, but I believe our bishops are contributing to it by not speaking with one voice even moreso. I have signed the petition at pewsitter to ask them to finally excommunicate any who dissent on this most fundamental Church Teaching. But they have to do it with one voice. Why is this a problem? Written by Pamela I do not believe that withholding the Eucharist from Speaker Pelosi is an appropriate response to her disagreement with the bishops. Almost all Catholic politicians disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on some important issues (capital punishment, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stem-cell research, torture, etc.) So unless Bishop Chaput wants to withhold the Eucharist from all of them, he should not say that a politician who is not in communion with the Church should not receive the Eucharist. The argument can certainly be made that abortion, as an intrinsic evil, is different than capital punishment and wars (but not stem-cell research or torture). However, there is a major ethical difference between supporting an intrinsic evil and supporting another person's right to choose that intrinsic evil. Pelosi, and other pro-choice politicians, are certainly not in favor of abortion. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would say that they want to provide choice, while hoping for life. Abortion is an intrinsically and gravely evil action. Supporting a person's freedom to choose that evil is not. The answer is not to remove the source and summit of love from Speaker Pelosi's life. Written by Joe Ms Pelosi is shameless in her support of the murder of innocent human life. She was shameless in her presenting hereslf to the HOLY Father. She is equally shameless in her approaching communion and receiving the Body and Blood of Him who died so that we might live. There is something very perverse about this woman that prevents her from experiencing shame. My guess it's a serious character defect having to do with pride. It's a shame that a woman with so many God-given talents uses them for such destructive ends. Shame on her. Written by Deacon Ed Abortion is an intrinsically and gravely evil action. Supporting a person's freedom to choose that evil is not. There is a very real difference between "supporting a person's freedom to choose" (boy, is that loaded pro-choice language or what?) and "actively supporting and promoting abortion and contraception through the law," which is what Pelosi actually does. Written by Andy Joe wrote: However, there is a major ethical difference between supporting an intrinsic evil and supporting another person's right to choose that intrinsic evil. Joe-- that is always the Catholic politician's pro-choice argument. It is a cop-out. Substitute the word slavery for abortion. What if Pelosi said, I don't support slavery but I will support another's right to own a slave. Slavery was evil. Abortion is evil. By supporting another person'ss right to choose abortion, Pelosi and Biden are supporting abortion--an intrinsic evil. Joe: Who will support the baby's right to choose life? Written by Margy Nagel |
|
 |
