Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Ken]

If a politician openly supported slavery, I'd hope they would be withdrawn from communion.

Historically did the Catholic church actually do that when it was a relevant political question? Or refused communion to slaveowners? To my knowledge no they did not.

In fact, to the contrary, the early Catholic church often condemned escaped slaves and refused them communion.

[Josh]

If a politician openly supported slavery, I'd hope they would be withdrawn from communion.

Historically did the Catholic church actually do that when it was a relevant political question? Or refused communion to slaveowners? To my knowledge no they did not.

In fact, to the contrary, the early Catholic church often condemned escaped slaves and refused them communion.

Well, I'm a Mennonite, not Catholic.

Mennonites did not own slaves.

[MaxPC]

According to The Canadian Press, which I am unable to link here, Pelosi did receive communion at the Vatican. I don't know when, but I believe it is today's release.

As reported here, it was a mass Mass and the priest likely had no idea who she was.

A note about headlines: often they are used to outrage readers into clicking on an article and sell the news for the corporation.

OJ is right; those Papal Masses are attended by hundreds and sometimes thousands. Those giving out Holy Communion are not necessarily aware of who some of these notorious personalities are. Pelosi is all about spiteful actions and Pelosi did it in order to spite her own Archbishop. She knew she would not be recognized in a large crowd and had her photographer there ... again....

Although Pelosi is barred from receiving it in San Francisco by the city's conservative archbishop, Salvatore Cordileone, she regularly takes communion at a parish in Washington, D.C., where the archbishop of the U.S. capital allows it.

So MaxPC is wrong in his assertion that she is "no longer in communion and therefore, in the minds of many, no longer Catholic."

Once again you have it wrong, Ken. But then you are consistently defending liberal politicians. As you are neither Catholic nor a practicing Mennonite, I can see where your perceptions are led by the press instead of catechisms. No longer in communion does equate to being no longer Catholic according to older Catechesis which is still valid and used by many Catholics. As for Cardinal Gregory of Washington, DC; neither you nor anyone else is privy to the private conversations there. I encourage you, Ken, to read actual catechisms instead of relying on a biased sound byte from the press.

The excommunication is specific to San Francisco Archdiocese. Other Archbishops/Bishops have extended it to their own Dioceses. Not all of them but quite a few have done so.

Catholic doctrine (and virtually every other Christian denomination) is that one who takes Communion unworthily eats and drinks damnation unto himself. The purpose of excommunication is to warn the excommunicant so that they won't bring damnation upon themselves.

Spot on, Josh. Pelosi claims it's about weaponizing the Eucharist. What she is twisting and distorting is the fact that it is not about weaponizing faith. It's about authentic dangers to the state of one's soul and the danger of bad example leading others into sin.

[Falco Underhill]

If a politician openly supported slavery, I'd hope they would be withdrawn from communion.

Historically did the Catholic church actually do that when it was a relevant political question? Or refused communion to slaveowners? To my knowledge no they did not.

Slavery was part of the human condition for most of human history and no one ever considered it possible to simply outlaw it. The idea to abolish the institution of slavery was a reaction to the European Colonial slave trade that went on throughout the 18th century and the first voices against it occurred at the end of that century. There were Catholic voices among them. The official Catholic Church was as quick to condemn the practice as anyone and forbade anyone to buy or sell slaves. They didn't push for immediate abolition of the institution, like many others in the argument, because they hoped to avoid war. To this day some people argue that had they waited just another few years the cotton gin would have made slavery unnecessary and it could have ended peacefully.

"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples... We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters" (In supremo apostolatus, 1839).

[HondurasKeiser]

If a politician openly supported slavery, I'd hope they would be withdrawn from communion.

Historically did the Catholic church actually do that when it was a relevant political question? Or refused communion to slaveowners? To my knowledge no they did not.

Slavery was part of the human condition for most of human history and no one ever considered it possible to simply outlaw it. The idea to abolish the institution of slavery was a reaction to the European Colonial slave trade that went on throughout the 18th century and the first voices against it occurred at the end of that century. There were Catholic voices among them. The official Catholic Church was as quick to condemn the practice as anyone and forbade anyone to buy or sell slaves. They didn't push for immediate abolition of the institution, like many others in the argument, because they hoped to avoid war. To this day some people argue that had they waited just another few years the cotton gin would have made slavery unnecessary and it could have died out without civil war.

"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples... We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters" (In supremo apostolatus, 1839).

I thought it was the cotton gin that made cotton plantations economically viable in what had seemed to be a dying industry. This by extension made slavery a necessity on said plantations.

[Falco Underhill]

Historically did the Catholic church actually do that when it was a relevant political question? Or refused communion to slaveowners? To my knowledge no they did not.

Slavery was part of the human condition for most of human history and no one ever considered it possible to simply outlaw it. The idea to abolish the institution of slavery was a reaction to the European Colonial slave trade that went on throughout the 18th century and the first voices against it occurred at the end of that century. There were Catholic voices among them. The official Catholic Church was as quick to condemn the practice as anyone and forbade anyone to buy or sell slaves. They didn't push for immediate abolition of the institution, like many others in the argument, because they hoped to avoid war. To this day some people argue that had they waited just another few years the cotton gin would have made slavery unnecessary and it could have died out without civil war.

"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples... We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters" (In supremo apostolatus, 1839).

I thought it was the cotton gin that made cotton plantations economically viable in what had seemed to be a dying industry. This by extension made slavery a necessity on said plantations.

You're right about that. I heard an argument that some kind of invention may have made it unnecessary, but maybe it wasn't the cotton gin. Maybe it was some kind of advance on that technology.

[Ken]

I thought it was the cotton gin that made cotton plantations economically viable in what had seemed to be a dying industry. This by extension made slavery a necessity on said plantations.

Yet in the years after the Civil War, cotton production in the US actually increased and today the US produces over 5-times more cotton than it did in the pre-Civil War years under slavery.

Slavery was always about profits not necessity. And during the entire time period that slavery was legal in the US there were plenty of Christians and Christian institutions who were willing to provide theological justification for slavery. And indeed argue that slavery was actually a Christian virtue.

[HondurasKeiser]

I thought it was the cotton gin that made cotton plantations economically viable in what had seemed to be a dying industry. This by extension made slavery a necessity on said plantations.

Yet in the years after the Civil War, cotton production in the US actually increased and today the US produces over 5-times more cotton than it did in the pre-Civil War years under slavery.

Slavery was always about profits not necessity.

I meant ‘necessity’ in the loosest way possible. That being, it was about increasing ones profit margin.

[Falco Underhill]

I thought it was the cotton gin that made cotton plantations economically viable in what had seemed to be a dying industry. This by extension made slavery a necessity on said plantations.

Slavery was always about profits not necessity.

The south argued that it was a necessity, that their "way of life" was at stake and without it they'd be reduced to poverty. Their "freedom" was at stake. It does kind of remind me of the same rationale about abortion. An inconvenient pregnancy could mean skipping college, working some dead end job, loss of opportunities. It's about "freedom." The arguments aren't really that different, imo.

[silentreader]

Slavery was part of the human condition for most of human history and no one ever considered it possible to simply outlaw it. The idea to abolish the institution of slavery was a reaction to the European Colonial slave trade that went on throughout the 18th century and the first voices against it occurred at the end of that century. There were Catholic voices among them. The official Catholic Church was as quick to condemn the practice as anyone and forbade anyone to buy or sell slaves. They didn't push for immediate abolition of the institution, like many others in the argument, because they hoped to avoid war. To this day some people argue that had they waited just another few years the cotton gin would have made slavery unnecessary and it could have died out without civil war.

I thought it was the cotton gin that made cotton plantations economically viable in what had seemed to be a dying industry. This by extension made slavery a necessity on said plantations.

You're right about that. I heard an argument that some kind of invention may have made it unnecessary, but maybe it wasn't the cotton gin. Maybe it was some kind of advance on that technology.

Wasn't it the cotton harvester?