We stand at a cultural crossroads, the intersection of the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death. At this critical juncture, the choices we make matter, now and forever. Therefore, the members of Life is Worth Living, a lay apostolate, have chosen to promote the Culture of Life.

Our mission is to strive to affirm -- in thought, word, and deed -- the infinite preciousness of human life; to encourage service to others rather than radical self-interest; and to promote a climate of public opinion that recognizes the right of all human beings to life, respect, compassionate care, appropriate medical treatment, and equality under the law.

 

Urgent Euthanasia Update

posted by Webmaster
Sunday, August 31, 2008



Help Stop Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
Human Life Alliance Weekly Wire, August 14, 2008


In Washington state a measure will appear on the November ballot allowing voters to decide if they should become the second state in the U.S. to legalize assisted suicide. Currently, Oregon is the only state where assisted suicide is legal.

In California, Assemblymember Patty Berg, has repeatedly tried to legalize assisted suicide. Her bill AB 2747 is being opposed by pro-life forces in the state.


You can make a difference educating people about end-of-life issues. HLA's Imposed Death can help people in your community understand important end-of-life decisions.


If you are in California or Washington state, please contact us about our rush-delivery services. Don't spend another day without this life-saving resource at your fingertips.

To request copies of Imposed Death click here

Labels:


Link to this post  1 Comments
 
 

Mexico has the disreputable distinction of being the first country in Latin America to legalize abortion on demand

posted by Julie Grimstad
Saturday, August 30, 2008


Spirit & Life
"The words I spoke to you are spirit and life." (Jn 6:63)
Human Life International e-Newsletter
Volume 03, Number 33 | Friday, August 29, 2008
www.hli.org

Montezuma's Abortion Revenge

Men like Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata may be remembered as some of the worst criminals of Mexican history, but yesterday's vote of the Mexican Supreme Court will make Villa's and Zapata's killings seem like so much child's play. Reminiscent of the US Supreme Court decision in 1973, eight (out of eleven) Supreme Court justices of Mexico legalized abortion yesterday, August 27th, and consigned themselves to the annals of history as the worst of their country's killers. They gave Mexico the disreputable distinction of being the first country in Latin America to legalize abortion on demand, and in fact, if the likely "domino effect" of abortion legalization in the Hispanic world follows, they will be guilty of the innocent blood of a whole continent.

Criminals are apparently not bound by logic or popular convention. Despite recent surveys of millions of Mexicans indicating that at least 65% of the people were totally against the legalization of abortion, the Supreme Court just simply ignored them - which is another way of saying that democracy is essentially meaningless in Mexico. And, despite the specific wording in the Mexican Constitution that enumerates a right to life "from the moment of fertilization," something the US Constitution could only dream of, the eight enlightened gods of law sitting on their lofty thrones simply declared that right null and void - which is another way of saying that the rule of law is meaningless in Mexico too.

These eight justices have now, arbitrarily and inhumanely, unleashed a plague of killing that will destroy the Mexican family, the already-plummeting fertility rate and the degrading morals of Mexico's youth. The Mexican bishops said it correctly in their televised ads prior to the killer decision that "when a society opens up a debate on abortion, what they are doing, in effect, is debating the very future of a nation." Yes indeed; and not only the future of Mexico, but of the whole Hispanic world.

I have continuously tied the business of abortion to the satanic work of child sacrifice which has tried to rear its ugly head in every age since biblical times. Abortion is a demonic industry, and every society that opens its doors to the killing of its infants becomes slowly possessed by these demons whose thirst for innocent blood will never, ever, be sated. Mexico was at one time home of the devilish Aztec religion which practiced bloody human sacrifice until Hernando Cortes and his troops defeated the Emperor Montezuma in the 16th Century thus preparing the way for the total Catholic evangelization of that land by Our Lady of Guadalupe. Yet, demons don't live in time. They live in the sinfulness of the human heart, and they have been given a new birth in Mexico once again.

I have no doubt that the recent appearance and immense popularity of the so-called "Santa Muerte" ("holy death") occult practice in Mexico, whose symbol is the Grim Reaper, has presaged the appearance of the demon of human sacrifice once again. This ancient demon that once ruled Mexican society only needed a few servants on the Supreme Court to ritualize human sacrifice once again - this time in the guise of abortion on demand. And they have already begun to reconstruct the new pagan pyramids of Mexico - in the hospitals and abortion mills where blood sacrifice is being offered as we speak.

In light of this catastrophic defeat for life, I can only repeat the Lord's stinging rebuke of the black-robed leaders of His day who were responsible for the death of the Innocent One: Woe to the eight servants of Montezuma's abortion revenge - their souls are in danger of a worse death than they inflict on those innocent children. We must pray for their eternal salvation. And I must add: Woe to everyone who remains silent while this demon satisfies his blood lust on innocent children anywhere in the world.



Sincerely Yours in Christ,


Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

Link to this post  0 Comments
 
 

E-Letter #106, August 28, 2008

posted by Julie Grimstad
Thursday, August 28, 2008


Dear Members and Friends,
 
I took a month off to enjoy family and summer, so this E-Letter is two in one. There are two crucial items covered herein, which, I believe, urgently require our intense and persevering prayer.
 
Let us pray: O Sacred Heart of Jesus, we place all our trust in You. We know that You want to help us, because You are all-good. We know that You know how to help us, because You are all-knowing. We know that You are able to help us, because You are all-powerful.Therefore, with confidence we ask You to help us, who recognize Your sovereignty over all life, to secure full protection under the law for every human life. Give us the graces necessary to fearlessly bear witness to the Gospel of Life in word and deed. O Heart of Love, make us all one mind in the truth and one heart in charity. May Our Father's Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Amen.  
 
In the Sacred Heart,
Julie Grimstad
Executive Director
 
Item 1. The "Right to Life" of Every Human Being is THE ISSUE, Overriding the Economy, Health Care, the War, etc.
 
Before you read any further, I suggest you read Chuck Colson's Commentary on "The Sanctity of Life" in today's BreakPoint at http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7510.
 
After you have read this Commentary, you can further educate yourself by obtaining a copy of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput's new book Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life. This book has the answers you can give to those Catholics who plan to vote for pro-abortion candidates for public office. It gives you the words to use when you write letters to the editor. It gives you the confidence to confront those politicians who proclaim themselves Catholic but who don't "buy into" all that the Church teaches--such as Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joseph Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. 
 
As Archbishop Chaput said in a recent interview with National Review Online, "Our faith should shape our lives, including our political choices. Of course, that demands that we actually study and deepen our Catholic faith."
 
Item 2. "Brain Death" is Not Death, Nor is "Cardiac Death" True Death. 
 
The preeminent ethical requirement for organ transplantation is the "dead donor rule," which is that patients must be declared dead before they may be stripped of their vital organs. An article in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, this month (Vol. 359:674-675, 8/14/08), suggests that the "dead donor rule" should be discarded. Why? Because, the article's authors are not convinced that donors are really dead.  
 
The article, "The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation," was written by Robert D. Truog, M.D., a professor of medical ethics and anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, and Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D., a faculty member of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Bioethics. Both authors are proponents of vital organ donation, but present convincing arguments that neither "brain death" nor "cardiac death" are really death. In other words, we ordinary people have been deceived for years. "Dead" donors are not really dead.  
 
The authors write that the dead donor rule "has greater potential to undermine trust in the transplantation enterprise than to preserve it." "At worst," they say, "this ongoing reliance [on the rule] suggests that the medical profession has been gerrymandering the definition of death to carefully conform with conditions that are most favorable for transplantation. At best, the rule has provided misleading ethical cover that cannot withstand careful scrutiny." 
 
Truog and Miller suggest that the solution is "valid informed consent." In other words, they think it's okay to kill people for their organs, "under the limited conditions of devastating neurologic injury," if the patient or his/her family has consented. Their proposal opens the door to taking organs from patients who have been diagnosed to be "permanently unconscious." Might expanding the category of eligible donors be the authors' actual motive for writing this article? 
 
Even if that is the case, they are at least being honest. Let's not pretend that living people are dead.  
 
Finally, consider this: The practice of organ procurement for transplantation is unique in medicine. It contradicts key principles of medical ethics. For instance, not a single medical act involved in organ procurement is for the benefit or well-being of the patient. Everything that is done to the donor patient is referred to as "organ preservation therapy." Where is the due care and respect due to the human person?
 
A German operating room nurse who worked in a transplant center, while viewing an exhibition on Nazi murders of hospital inmates, thought that one day she might be found complicit in medical crimes: "You cannot help thinking that if medicine continues to make such rapid progress and if what is legally acceptable today is no longer so in five or ten years--or the day after tomorrow: Have you killed all these people, have you been complicit in their killing?" ("Taboo Transgressions in Transplantation Medicine," by Anna Bergmann, Ph.D., translated by Otmar Binder; Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Vol 13, No. 2, Summer 2008.)  
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2296) teaches that the removal of organs that would "directly bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being" is intrinsically evil. Yet this is what occurs when a surgeon removes the vital organs necessary for life from a person who is not dead. Let us pray that the honesty of Truog and Miller stimulates re-thinking of the entire business of organ procurement and transplantation.
 
THE END
 
 
 
 
 
 

Link to this post  0 Comments
 
 

CANON 915

posted by Julie Grimstad
Thursday, August 21, 2008


Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?

 

By Barbara Kralis

August 19, 2008

 

 

The Democrat National Convention of what many refer to as 'the pro-abortion party of the United States' will take place within the Archdiocese of Denver from Saturday, August 23, with the official Welcoming Celebration, through Friday, August 29, 2008.

 

More than 50,000 persons, including Democrat Party elected politicians, party members, delegates, and media, are expected for the weeklong event at various venues throughout the city.   Many of these visiting folks will be pro-abortion Catholics – or Catholics in name only.  Ironically, the 'Freedom from Religion Foundation' is posting a billboard near the Convention Center that says, 'Keep Religion Out of Politics.'

 

Many are wondering if Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of Denver is prepared spiritually to take advantage of such a momentous teaching moment?  Here's why.

 

It's well known the Denver Archbishop has failed to say that he will implement Canon Law's canon 915, a clearly taught discipline against persons who obstinately persist in grave, manifest [public] sin, such as the murder of the unborn child and infanticide.  This is a moral stand, not a political one.

 

Let's take the Democrat Catholic governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, for an example, who lives and works in the Denver area.  Archbishop Chaput has warned him publicly for almost two years, has written columns denouncing Ritter's legislations, and I assume the Archbishop has written him personal catechetical appeals.  

 

What is so morally offensive about Governor Bill Ritter that Archbishop Chaput should deny him Holy Communion?  Let us look at Ritter's record to date. 

 

Shortly after taking office, Ritter restored state funding for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, signed legislation that requires all Roman Catholic hospitals to distribute emergency contraception to rape survivors, and pledged that he will not seek to appoint judges who oppose abortion rights.  To date, Ritter has no anti-abortion legislation on his agenda.  Ritter also has made it clear that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, he would veto legislation that is 'too restrictive' against abortions in Colorado.  Ritter also supports sodomite marriage.  The Catholic Church condemns all of Ritter's above 'right to life' beliefs.[i]

 

When a public pro-abortion person disregards a bishop's directive to stay away and comes to Holy Communion 'of his own volition,' and the Minister of the Eucharist gives the Host to such a person, the bishop is doing evil [CIC, n.1755] because he has not instructed his Ministers to deny.  The Denver Archbishop refuses to walk the talk.[ii]  He failed to teach his flock that these persons must be denied Holy Communion.

 

Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has indicated that it is the responsibility of the communicant to stay away from the Communion Rail.  This is not correct.  Rather, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Eucharist to deny Holy Communion.  This is a huge difference that goes against the Church's teachings[iii] regarding canon 915 as well as recent statements from the Vatican stating that the manifest pro-abortion politicians must be denied, and the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away. 

 

Canon Law also places the responsibility on the minister — 'ne admittantur' — who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. Canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.

 

Therefore, if pro-abortion Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi approaches the altar in Denver to receive the Eucharist, the Ministers of the Eucharist, including 'ordinary' and 'extra-ordinary,'[iv] must deny Holy Communion themselves, regardless that their bishop has failed to instruct them to do so.

 

Archbishop Chaput in May of 2004 in his regular column for the Denver Catholic Register, wrote:

 

"The current media turmoil over "denying Catholic politicians Communion" is filled with ignorance about the Church and the real meaning of the Eucharist. Denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter. It should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal. But the Church always expects Catholics who are living in serious sin or who deny the teachings of the Church — whether they're highly visible officials or anonymous parishioners — to have the integrity to respect both the Eucharist and the faithful, and to refrain from receiving Communion."

 

All right, Archbishop.  What are you waiting for?  Isn't murder [abortion] and sodomy grave enough and extraordinary enough to deny Holy Communion? 

 

This is not a political decision, dear Archbishop, but a moral decision, for all times, not just for election times.  It is not a sudden decision of piety, as you say in your column,  but of concern for the eternal salvation of souls of persons who refuse to abandon their pro-abortion, pro-sodomite views.  Abortion is murder and evil actions have consequences and a bishop is called to 'govern' and 'correct' using the discipline of canon 915.

 

If Archbishop Chaput' statement and action in regard to Governor Ritter is morally correct, this would mean that priests in the Denver Archdiocese, and everywhere else for that matter, should give Holy Communion without question to anyone approaching the Altar, to people publicly professing beliefs contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church or publicly living lives at serious variance with the teachings of the Church. This would include manifest homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm and arm, the publicly known divorced and "remarried" couple without benefit of annulment, manifest directors of Planned Parenthood, manifest Mafia figures, manifest drug lords, et al. 

 

Photo: Madam Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), departs Notre Dame Chapel at Trinity University in Washington, January 3, 2007, after participating in a Mass and receiving sacrilegious Communion.  Pelosi recently complained, "I have never, in my district in California, in my archdiocese [been told by my Archbishop]…if I was going to [be allowed to] receive communion.  I never knew if this was the day it would be withheld.  And that's a hard way to go to church." [Note: Photo not reproduced here.]

 

Let's ask this question of the Archbishop – if you were distributing Holy Communion and in front of you stood a known serial killer with a severed bloody head in one hand and a bloody machete in the other hand, would you give him the Eucharist?  And after you denied the serial killer you next had standing before you the known pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi.  Would you also deny her?  Murder is murder, isn't it Archbishop?

 

It is well for us to remember that in his memorandum entitled "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said without ambiguity:

 

"The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner "have not had their effect."[v]

 

In contrast to Archbishop Chaput, 15 U.S. Archbishops and Bishops[vi] have publicly stated that they would deny Holy Communion to such persons.  Of this list of 15 Bishops, is included Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Co.  Does the disunited U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops now teach that it is correct for Bishop Sheridan to deny Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist in his diocese while Archbishop Chaput, in his Archdiocese, just 75 minutes away, allows his ministers to give evil Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist?

 

For some U.S. bishops to deny and other U.S. bishops not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians is a source of disunity and confusion for the entire universal Church and a grave scandal against the faithful worldwide. 

 

This leads the common observer to wonder why a group of 268 active U.S. bishops, including 25 Archbishops and 11 Cardinals, should even pretend to exist as a united Conference when they cannot agree on the most fundamental and crucial teaching of the Church, that abortion is murder. [vii]

 

Recently, in the prestigious canon law journal, specifically the 2007 edition of the Pontificia Università Gregoriana Periodica De Re Canonica, volume 96, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke wrote an important essay entitled "The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin."  In it, he suitably and accurately named three of the 253 active, obstinate bishops who refused to obey the Church's canon law c. 915.[viii]

 

Furthermore, on May 9, 2007, Pope Benedict reiterated lofty and long-held Church teachings at 35,000 feet above sea level while in flight to Brazil, agreeing with the Mexican bishops' recent warning of automatic 'tolerati' excommunication[ix] or 'Latæ sententiæ'[x] for Catholic persons who supported, legislated, or promoted abortion [cf. formal accomplices, c.1329; cf. EV 62B].   Benedict said the teaching was, in fact, the law of the Church:

 

"Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon Law[xi] which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving Communion, which is receiving the Body of Christ.  [The Mexican bishops] did nothing new, surprising, or arbitrary.  They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church…which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment… [Politicians who support abortion] will get the penalty of excommunication.  This is not revenge, it is just what happens in the case of serious sins." [xii]

 

Pope Benedict and the Bishops who teach in union with the Pope speak loud and clear what the church's priorities are for voting as a Catholic. They teach that one may not consider other human conditions without giving first predominant consideration of the five most important conditions of the right to life: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and same-sex marriage. 

 

To send a note of encouragement to Archbishop Chaput to enforce canon 915, you may email him personally at: shepherd@archden.org.

 

 

Barbara Kralis, the article's author, writes for various Christian and conservative publications. Her columns have been featured at RenewAmerica.us, Catholic World Report, LifeSite.com, CatholicCitizens.org, Alliance Defense Fund, Intellectual Conservative, LifeIssues.net, CatholicCulture.org, The Wanderer newspaper, Catholic World News, New Oxford Review, Phil Brennan's WOW, MichNews, ChronWatch, North Carolina Conservative, Catholic Citizens of Illinois, Illinois Family Institute, and others. She and her husband, Mitch, live in the great State of Texas. She can be reached at: AveMaria@earthlink.net

 

© Copyright 2008 by Barbara Kralis

 

[i] The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 'Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life' 11/24/02 states in No.4:  "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them"[Evangelium vitae, n.73].

 

[ii] Shortly after the CDF's November, 2002 'Doctrinal Note' on Catholics in political life, in the Congregation of Divine Worship's December, 2002 Notitiae edition we read from its prefect Cardinal Estevez:   "Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in Canon 213, is 'the right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments.' In view of the law that 'sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them' (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared."

 

[iii] Pope John Paul II, in 'Ecclesia De Eucharistia' states that only the faithful who have confessed grave sins in the Sacrament of Penance may receive Holy Communion, and that those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" must be denied Communion.

 

[iv] This loss of the 'fullness of unity' in teaching means that most 'ordinary ministers of Holy Communion' [cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons] and EMHCs [laymen who are duly installed by the bishops as 'extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion'] are handing Jesus over to be crucified once again. 

 

[v] Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to an earlier Vatican document, "Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics," nos. 3-4, 6/00.

 

[vi] Revised 8/14/08:  Archbishop Raymond L Burke, Bishop Emeritus, St. Louis; Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, Lincoln NE; Bishop Joseph A. Galante, Camden, NJ; Bishop John M. Smith, Trenton, NJ; Bishop Michael Sheridan, Colorado Springs, CO; Bishop Robert F. Vasa, Baker, OR; Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, Evansville, IN; Bishop Robert J. Baker, Birmingham, AL; Bishop Peter J. Jugis, Bishop, Charlotte, NC; Bishop Samuel Aquila, Fargo, ND; Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, Phoenix, AZ; Bishop Paul S. Coakley, D.D., Salina, KS.

 

Retired Bishops:

Bishop Henry Rene Gracida, Bishop Emeritus, Corpus Christi, TX; Archbishop John F. Donoghue Archbishop, Atlanta, GA, Bishop John Y. Yanta, Bishop Emeritus, Amarillo, TX.

 

[vii] Cf. endnote #4.   Also, Pontius Pilate told Jesus that "It was your own people and the chief priests who have handed you over to me" [Jn. 18:35].  And Jesus responded to Pilate that "he who handed me over to you is guilty of the greater sin" [Jn. 19:11].

 

[viii] Specifically Archbishop Burke named Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles [cf footnote n. 4 of Periodica De Re Canonica essay], Cardinal Theodore McCarrick [cf footnote n. 5 of same essay], the former Archbishop of Washington, D.C.; and McCarrick's successor, Archbishop Donald Wuerl [cf footnote n. 87 of same essay].

 

[ix] The excommunication affects all those who commit this crime with the knowledge of the penalty attached and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed [Canon 1329].  Any person who promotes, legislates, and supports abortion is clearly a formal accomplice.  Clearly, U.S. Catholic politicians have been enlightened to the facts of excommunication by this time by their bishops and Catholic laity.

 

[x] 'Automatically without sentence.'  A censure incurred by the very fact of committing a crime.  This excommunication is inflicted by the perpetrator on himself…by his very act.

 

[xi] Canon Law is law; it is not a suggestion.  Canon Law 915 states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."  For a Catholic to vote for pro-abortion legislation is a "manifest grave sin."  According to Code of Canon Law, a bishop has not only the right but also the duty to stop a grave sinner from committing sacrilege and scandal.  Canon 1369 tells bishops: "A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who...gravely harms public morals...."   The Church has an innate and proper right to coerce offending members by means of penal sanctions (canon 1311).  Diocesan bishops as well as the Pope possess legislative power, and the Code of Canon Law (canons 1315 and 1318) expressly recognizes their right to enact laws for their dioceses.

 

[xii] Excommunication is a "medicinal penalty" [Canon 1312]; it is fundamentally oriented toward bringing Catholics to repent of certain seriously wrong behaviors.  Meant not as punishment, but rather to bring people to wake up to what they're doing and the seriousness of it.  The Pope has the right, the obligation, and the duty to enforce the moral law, which is superior to all municipal, state, federal, or even international law. 

 


Link to this post  0 Comments
 
 

CANON 915

posted by Julie Grimstad


Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?

 

By Barbara Kralis

August 19, 2008

 

 

The Democrat National Convention of what many refer to as 'the pro-abortion party of the United States' will take place within the Archdiocese of Denver from Saturday, August 23, with the official Welcoming Celebration, through Friday, August 29, 2008.

 

More than 50,000 persons, including Democrat Party elected politicians, party members, delegates, and media, are expected for the weeklong event at various venues throughout the city.   Many of these visiting folks will be pro-abortion Catholics – or Catholics in name only.  Ironically, the 'Freedom from Religion Foundation' is posting a billboard near the Convention Center that says, 'Keep Religion Out of Politics.'

 

Many are wondering if Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Archdiocese of Denver is prepared spiritually to take advantage of such a momentous teaching moment?  Here's why.

 

It's well known the Denver Archbishop has failed to say that he will implement Canon Law's canon 915, a clearly taught discipline against persons who obstinately persist in grave, manifest [public] sin, such as the murder of the unborn child and infanticide.  This is a moral stand, not a political one.

 

Let's take the Democrat Catholic governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, for an example, who lives and works in the Denver area.  Archbishop Chaput has warned him publicly for almost two years, has written columns denouncing Ritter's legislations, and I assume the Archbishop has written him personal catechetical appeals.  

 

What is so morally offensive about Governor Bill Ritter that Archbishop Chaput should deny him Holy Communion?  Let us look at Ritter's record to date. 

 

Shortly after taking office, Ritter restored state funding for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, signed legislation that requires all Roman Catholic hospitals to distribute emergency contraception to rape survivors, and pledged that he will not seek to appoint judges who oppose abortion rights.  To date, Ritter has no anti-abortion legislation on his agenda.  Ritter also has made it clear that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, he would veto legislation that is 'too restrictive' against abortions in Colorado.  Ritter also supports sodomite marriage.  The Catholic Church condemns all of Ritter's above 'right to life' beliefs.[i]

 

When a public pro-abortion person disregards a bishop's directive to stay away and comes to Holy Communion 'of his own volition,' and the Minister of the Eucharist gives the Host to such a person, the bishop is doing evil [CIC, n.1755] because he has not instructed his Ministers to deny.  The Denver Archbishop refuses to walk the talk.[ii]  He failed to teach his flock that these persons must be denied Holy Communion.

 

Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has indicated that it is the responsibility of the communicant to stay away from the Communion Rail.  This is not correct.  Rather, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Eucharist to deny Holy Communion.  This is a huge difference that goes against the Church's teachings[iii] regarding canon 915 as well as recent statements from the Vatican stating that the manifest pro-abortion politicians must be denied, and the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away. 

 

Canon Law also places the responsibility on the minister — 'ne admittantur' — who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. Canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.

 

Therefore, if pro-abortion Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi approaches the altar in Denver to receive the Eucharist, the Ministers of the Eucharist, including 'ordinary' and 'extra-ordinary,'[iv] must deny Holy Communion themselves, regardless that their bishop has failed to instruct them to do so.

 

Archbishop Chaput in May of 2004 in his regular column for the Denver Catholic Register, wrote:

 

"The current media turmoil over "denying Catholic politicians Communion" is filled with ignorance about the Church and the real meaning of the Eucharist. Denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter. It should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal. But the Church always expects Catholics who are living in serious sin or who deny the teachings of the Church — whether they're highly visible officials or anonymous parishioners — to have the integrity to respect both the Eucharist and the faithful, and to refrain from receiving Communion."

 

All right, Archbishop.  What are you waiting for?  Isn't murder [abortion] and sodomy grave enough and extraordinary enough to deny Holy Communion? 

 

This is not a political decision, dear Archbishop, but a moral decision, for all times, not just for election times.  It is not a sudden decision of piety, as you say in your column,  but of concern for the eternal salvation of souls of persons who refuse to abandon their pro-abortion, pro-sodomite views.  Abortion is murder and evil actions have consequences and a bishop is called to 'govern' and 'correct' using the discipline of canon 915.

 

If Archbishop Chaput' statement and action in regard to Governor Ritter is morally correct, this would mean that priests in the Denver Archdiocese, and everywhere else for that matter, should give Holy Communion without question to anyone approaching the Altar, to people publicly professing beliefs contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church or publicly living lives at serious variance with the teachings of the Church. This would include manifest homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm and arm, the publicly known divorced and "remarried" couple without benefit of annulment, manifest directors of Planned Parenthood, manifest Mafia figures, manifest drug lords, et al. 

 

Photo: Madam Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), departs Notre Dame Chapel at Trinity University in Washington, January 3, 2007, after participating in a Mass and receiving sacrilegious Communion.  Pelosi recently complained, "I have never, in my district in California, in my archdiocese [been told by my Archbishop]…if I was going to [be allowed to] receive communion.  I never knew if this was the day it would be withheld.  And that's a hard way to go to church." [Note: Photo not reproduced here.]

 

Let's ask this question of the Archbishop – if you were distributing Holy Communion and in front of you stood a known serial killer with a severed bloody head in one hand and a bloody machete in the other hand, would you give him the Eucharist?  And after you denied the serial killer you next had standing before you the known pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi.  Would you also deny her?  Murder is murder, isn't it Archbishop?

 

It is well for us to remember that in his memorandum entitled "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said without ambiguity:

 

"The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner "have not had their effect."[v]

 

In contrast to Archbishop Chaput, 15 U.S. Archbishops and Bishops[vi] have publicly stated that they would deny Holy Communion to such persons.  Of this list of 15 Bishops, is included Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Co.  Does the disunited U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops now teach that it is correct for Bishop Sheridan to deny Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist in his diocese while Archbishop Chaput, in his Archdiocese, just 75 minutes away, allows his ministers to give evil Nancy Pelosi the Eucharist?

 

For some U.S. bishops to deny and other U.S. bishops not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians is a source of disunity and confusion for the entire universal Church and a grave scandal against the faithful worldwide. 

 

This leads the common observer to wonder why a group of 268 active U.S. bishops, including 25 Archbishops and 11 Cardinals, should even pretend to exist as a united Conference when they cannot agree on the most fundamental and crucial teaching of the Church, that abortion is murder. [vii]

 

Recently, in the prestigious canon law journal, specifically the 2007 edition of the Pontificia Università Gregoriana Periodica De Re Canonica, volume 96, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke wrote an important essay entitled "The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin."  In it, he suitably and accurately named three of the 253 active, obstinate bishops who refused to obey the Church's canon law c. 915.[viii]