“…no pro-abortion politician, no matter how prominent the figure nor how boldly he supports abortion, has been excommunicated (i.e. expelled from the “Church”) by the Vatican II antipopes.”
John Kerry receiving “Communion” in a Vatican II church in Boston. Notice the miraculous image of a baby which appears as if Kerry is eating!
We’ve catalogued in great detail that the Vatican II sect is fraught with religious indifferentism and a denial of basic Catholic dogmas. The only issues which it pretends to hold are issues pertaining to morality and human dignity, not the issues of the Faith. For instance, while the Vatican II sect is certainly in favor of false religions, such as Islam and Judaism, it pretends to be against abortion and artificial contraception.
However, no pro-abortion politician, no matter how prominent the figure nor how boldly he supports abortion, has been excommunicated (i.e. expelled from the “Church”) by the Vatican II antipopes. When we consider this fact, remember that it took John Paul II fewer than 72 hours to “excommunicate” Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for consecrating bishops without a Papal mandate! Lefebvre consecrated these bishops for the spread of the Traditional Latin Mass. John Paul II was very concerned that more Traditional Latin Masses would be available, which he desperately wanted to stop, so he wasted no time bringing down the hammer. If he or Benedict XVI were really against abortion, they would have acted swiftly against obstinate pro-abortion politicians with the penalty of excommunication, just like John Paul II did with Lefebvre.
The most notorious case was Democratic Presidential Candidate, John Kerry. Kerry “boasted” a 100% pro-abortion voting record, and flaunted his pro-abortion position before the whole world when he became one of the world’s most well known figures in the 2004 Presidential Campaign. He consistently received “Communion” in the Novus Ordo Church, to the protest of millions of professing Catholics. John Paul II did absolutely nothing about it, and Benedict XVI does nothing.
If anyone would have been excommunicated by the Vatican II sect for a pro-abortion stance, it would have been John Kerry. Not only was he not excommunicated, but almost every single Novus Ordo bishop who addressed the issue refused to say that Kerry should even be refused Communion. At the end of this section, we will consider the theological implications of this fact for the hierarchy of the Vatican II/Novus Ordo Church.
Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker (Oregon) described the bishops’ discussion and decision on the matter of pro-abortion Catholic politicians:
"Very specifically the question was asked whether the denial of Holy Communion is 'necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand.'
"The view ultimately accepted by the body of bishops was that such a denial was not necessarily 'necessary' but such a denial was certainly possible and permissible, if, in the judgment of the local ordinary, it was deemed 'the most prudent course of pastoral action.’”
This means that the official policy adopted by the U.S. “bishops” about this grave matter was that pro-abortion politicians need not even be refused Communion, and that every “bishop” can decide for himself. This proves that one can officially receive “Communion” and be a “Catholic” in good standing in the Vatican II sect while being pro-abortion.
After reviewing the policy whereby the “bishops” decide for themselves whether those who advocate murder in the womb should be given Communion or not, “Cardinal” Ratzinger said that it was “very much in harmony” with the principles of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
We must remember the context in which these conclusions were reached. In 2004, the scandal of pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians receiving “Communion” and not being declared excommunicated was put front and center by the “Catholic” media and many mainstream media outlets. Everyone knew about it, but the question was: would the Vatican II sect do anything to stop it? Would the Vatican II sect accept as “Catholic” pro-abortionists or would it not? Would it declare that their very membership in the “Church” was dependent upon their rejection of abortion? Or would it, by its silence, indicate that one can hold anything in the Vatican II sect and not be excommunicated? The answer was that nothing was done. The inaction in this context was definitely tantamount to an official statement by the Vatican II sect that one can be a Catholic and pro-abortion at the same time.
To summarize: the Vatican II sect not only refuses to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians, such as John Kerry, but the very head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Cardinal” Ratzinger (the now Benedict XVI), agreed that pro-abortion politicians need not be refused Communion, thus proving that the Vatican II sect doesn’t hold that it’s a binding dogma that one must be against abortion.
The Vatican’s Secretary of State, “Cardinal” Angelo Sodano, awarded the Knighthood to Julian Hunte, a pro-abortion politician in the West Indies.
The “very conservative” “Archbishop” of Denver, Charles Chaput, doesn’t hold that pro-abortion politicians must be denied Communion; but he doesn’t “rule it out.” Wow… he’s really a “hammer of heretics.”
“The archbishop [of Denver, Chaput] refused to rule out denying communion saying, ‘Denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter. It should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal.’”
He’s quite a “Catholic” – not; and Chaput is radically conservative by Novus Ordo standards! “Bishop” Mengeling of Lansing, Michigan – another complete apostate – flatly refuses to punish pro-abortion Governor Granholm. “Bishop Mengeling now has officially told the media that he will DO NOTHING to discipline Granholm or any other pro-abortion Catholic politician.” The heretic who wrote this article says that “Bishop” Mengeling has broken with Rome (the Vatican II “popes”). Not so, for the Vatican II antipopes have done nothing to excommunicate or to stop pro-abortion politicians from receiving Communion. They could have very easily and immediately excommunicated John Kerry and all pro-abortion politicians, but they deliberately chose not to, because they are apostates who aren’t really opposed to abortion.
The “Cardinal” of Baltimore, William Keeler, also said that John Kerry should not be denied Communion. He said that it’s not the business of bishops to do such a thing: “We don't need bishops to get into the act.” We wonder what he thinks a “bishop” should do: act as figureheads and shuffle around pedophiles, and then hire lawyers to negotiate sex scandal settlements?
Keeler is the apostate who also said that we shouldn’t convert Jews, but then again, that’s basically every Novus Ordo “bishop”!
The former Pittsburgh apostate, "Bishop" Donald Wuerl, also won't deny pro-aborts Communion. “Pittsburgh's Catholic bishop said yesterday that Catholic politicians should not support legalized abortion but that he does not advocate denying them Holy Communion.”
Cincinnati “Archbishop” Daniel Pilarczyk says that pro-abortion politicians shouldn’t be refused Communion, because then you would have to refuse Communion to everybody who denied any teaching of the Church! That’s exactly right, you apostate!
“Archbishop” Daniel Pilarczyk: “… it seems to me we need to be very cautious about denying people the sacraments on the basis of what they say they believe, especially when those are political beliefs. So Kerry believes abortion is a good thing for our society, let's say. Do you refuse him communion on the basis of his opinions? What about people who don't like Humanae Vitae? What about people who don't like the church's teaching on the death penalty, or on homosexual marriages? Are we going to refuse them?
Mr. Allen: “There's a swath of Catholic opinion that would say yes to that question.
Abp. Pilarczyk: “I know there is. But there's also a justice issue here. It seems to me that the last thing any church, or any representative or agent of the church wants to do, is to deny the sacraments to anybody unjustly. It seems to me at this point that it makes a lot more sense to presume people's good will, presume erroneous conscience or perplexed conscience and give them Communion, rather than say, 'I think you think such-and-such.' ...”
“Bishop” John Steinbock of Fresno, California also doesn’t advocate denying pro-aborts Communion: “I pointed out to the priests and deacons that this document did not say, as was falsely reported by the secular media, that Catholic politicians who vote for abortion may not receive Communion. It did not refer to Catholic politicians at all.”
“Archbishop” Alexander Brunett of Seattle has said that pro-abortion politicians should not be denied Holy Communion: “Ministers of the Eucharist should not take it upon themselves to deny Holy Communion to anyone who presents themselves [sic].”
“Bishop” Joseph A. Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston took issue with the tiny handful of Novus Ordo “bishops” who advocated denying Communion:
"As you know, a few bishops have made public statements in which they favor the denial of Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who are consistently in opposition to the teaching of the Church on the most fundamental human rights issue, the right to be born. I really wish these bishops had waited for the report of the task force. They didn't, and now many people are asking their own diocesan bishop to speak on the issue.
"Without going into detail on the pastoral and canonical issues involved in this issue, I believe that the tradition of the Church does not favor denying the Eucharist as a sanction for Catholic pro-abortion politicians. In fact, I believe that such a sanction would be counter-productive and at the end of the day, would harm the pro-life movement.”
“Bishop” Fiorenza obviously doesn’t know anything about the tradition of the Church. Popes throughout the ages have proclaimed the dogma that non-Catholics who receive the Lamb outside the Church receive it to their own condemnation.
Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829:
“Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835:
“… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery.’ St. Jerome adds: ‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy. Those who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the flood.’”
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “He who deserts the Church will vainly believe that he is in the Church; whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”
And Pope Benedict XIV (not Antipope Benedict XVI) makes it clear that not only must avowed non-Catholics be refused the sacraments, but anyone who is known to oppose even one official teaching of the Church.
Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Omnibus (# 3), Oct. 16, 1756:
“The authority of the apostolic constitution which begins Unigenitus is certainly so great and lays claim everywhere to such sincere veneration and obedience that no one can withdraw the submission due it or oppose it without risking the loss of eternal salvation. Now, a controversy has risen concerning whether viaticum must be denied to those who oppose the constitution. The answer must be given without hesitation that as long as they are opposed publicly and notoriously, viaticum must be denied them; this follows for the universal law which prohibits a known public sinner to be admitted to Eucharistic communion, whether he asks for it in public or in private.”
The Arizona bishops won’t deny John Kerry Communion: “…two Arizona bishops say they won't deny communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix said that instead of refusing to offer communion, he will attempt to use persuasion to educate politicians about church teachings.”
We could continue quoting Novus Ordo “bishop” after “bishop” saying the same thing, but the point should be clear. In the Vatican II sect, opposition to abortion is an optional thing which the “hierarchy” of the Vatican II sect will “persuade” you to hold. In other words, it’s just a matter of opinion, not a dogma binding under pain of Hell, excommunication and anathema.
We must now consider the theological implications of this position, or rather, non-position of the Vatican II sect. Heresy is manifested not only by word and deed, but also by omission. If a man says he’s in favor of Catholic dogma, but refuses to condemn a heresy which is opposed to that dogma when asked to, he is not a Catholic. This truth was shown during the Arian crisis. The famous Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia signed the Council of Nicaea’s profession of Trinitarian dogma, but he refused to condemn the Arians who denied this dogma.
“There were no more whispers, winks and nods from the Arians. The Church had taken her first great step to define revealed doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from heretical theology. A creed was drawn up, embodying this new formulation, to convey a better awareness – though never full understanding – of the supernal mystery. It was presented for signature June 19, 325. All the bishops signed it but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arians from the beginning. They and Arius were exiled to Illyricum. Even Eusebius of Nicomedia signed, though refusing to join in the condemnation of Arius.”
Since Eusebius of Nicomedia refused to condemn the Arians and “gave hospitality” to them, even though he signed the profession of the true dogma, he was rightly banished with the heretics.  Likewise, the Novus Ordo/Vatican II “bishops” may claim to oppose abortion – which, as we’ve seen, is about the only heresy or evil which they sometimes speak against – and may sign statements saying it’s wrong, but since they don’t excommunicate or condemn obstinate advocates of abortion, they really aren’t opposed to it. We’ve seen that, as a body – and with the agreement of Rome – they refuse to excommunicate or even hold as unworthy of Communion obstinate advocates of murder in the womb who are put right in their face, such as John Kerry.
On May 10, 2004, 48 House Democrats – including “Catholics” in favor of abortion – sent a letter to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., boldly stating that denying Communion as a way of getting Catholic politicians in line on abortion rights would be counterproductive and would possibly prompt anti-Catholic bigotry. In other words, they were basically putting their rejection of Catholic teaching boldly in the bishops’ faces – a veritable challenge to them to do something about it. Of course, nothing was done by the phony “bishops” of the Vatican II sect to condemn these heretics who were putting their heresy right in their faces.
Thus, it’s a fact that one can be a member of the Vatican II sect without being opposed to abortion. In fact, on June 22, 2006, at the installation “Mass” for Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl, John Kerry was given “Communion” by Benedict XVI’s nuncio to the American bishops:
“During the Mass, Kerry, who supports keeping abortion legal, received Communion in the hand from Archbishop Pietro Sambi, apostolic nuncio to the United States and Pope Benedict XVI's representative to the U.S. bishops. Archbishop Wuerl distributed Communion alongside the nuncio.”
These facts prove abundantly that being against abortion is not something that must be held to be a part of the Vatican II sect. But you cannot consecrate bishops for the spread of the Traditional Latin Mass without being excommunicated within 72 hours (e.g. Lefebvre). This demonstrates once again that the Vatican II sect, which is currently headed by Benedict XVI, is not the Catholic Church, but the Counter Church.
 Time Magazine, June 21, 2004, p. 4.
 The Baltimore Sun, May 28, 2004; http://www.wf-f.org/Bishops_Catholics_Politics.html#anchor69086
 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 222.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 256.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 364.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 105-106.
 Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2 (The Building of Christendom), Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 1987, p. 11.
 Fr. John Laux, Church History, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1989, p. 112.
Sign up for our free e-mail list to see future vaticancatholic.com videos and articles.