Archbishop Wilton Gregory will not deny Biden Communion

[JimG]

As far as I can tell, he isn’t any more pro-abortion than previous democrat presidents were.

Every Democrat president since 1973 has been pro-abortion, but the party has gotten more vigorously pro-abortion with each new election cycle. The party has embraced the sexual revolution in its entirety including same sex marriage and transgenderism. It has increasingly become more hostile to Christians, especially Catholics.

The USCCB apparently got the Catholic president that so many of the bishops seemed to desire. Now they will have to deal with a very anti-Catholic administration.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Every Democrat president since 1973 has been pro-abortion, but the party has gotten more vigorously pro-abortion with each new election cycle. The party has embraced the sexual revolution in its entirety including same sex marriage and transgenderism. It has increasingly become more hostile to Christians, especially Catholics.

Jimmy Carter claimed to be pro-life, which is wonderful, but he should have fought his party on the matter, and made it clear that he opposed their platform. Once he actually became president in 1977, what could have they done to stop him, besides not nominating him again in 1980?

I think you are viewing communion incorrectly.

Receiving communion unworthily is not a “privilege” that you should be happy you get. It is a sin, a grave matter. These people should be denying themselves communion. If they don’t, then that is their funeral, and if they do it with full knowledge and complete consent, they are . . . risking the fires of . . . hell. If their sin is obstinate, grave, and public, then their reception of communion causes scandal for other Catholics, who see them receiving communion and then believe it to be okay. Canon 915 is not optional, and bishops are risking their own souls and the souls of others by not enforcing it.

If you dissent from the Church on issues of infallible doctrine and refuse to assent to the teaching, you should not receive communion. Pray that God changes your heart. If you are willing to change your mind and accept the Church teaching, you should then go to confession and then receive communion.

I wish I could have given you ten hearts for this post, but the CAF software only allows me to give one, so here are the other nine:

 

[JimG]

Jimmy Carter claimed to be pro-life, which is wonderful, but he should have fought his party on the matter, and made it clear that he opposed their platform.

Jimmy Carter was an evangelical, and I thought he would be safe on the abortion. Later I learned that he had appointed a lot of pro-abortion judges to the Federal courts, and they that often ruled against pro-life laws. That was when I stopped voting Democrat. Later in his life, I recall Carter making the point, after his presidency, that abortion was not a good thing. He seemed to feel the need to correct the idea that Democrats thought abortion was good. But now they’ve gone so far down the pro-abortion road that abortion is practically their sine qua non requirement of any candidate.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Jimmy Carter claimed to be pro-life, which is wonderful, but he should have fought his party on the matter, and made it clear that he opposed their platform.

Jimmy Carter was an evangelical, and I thought he would be safe on the abortion. Later I learned that he had appointed a lot of pro-abortion judges to the Federal courts, and they that often ruled against pro-life laws. That was when I stopped voting Democrat. Later in his life, I recall Carter making the point, after his presidency, that abortion was not a good thing. He seemed to feel the need to correct the idea that Democrats thought abortion was good. But now they’ve gone so far down the pro-abortion road that abortion is practically their sine qua non requirement of any candidate.

I supported Carter in 1976 (though I was not old enough to vote — we discussed the election in our civics class, and IIRC I even wore a Carter button), thinking the very same thing. Keep in mind, too, that pro-life and pro-choice positions were not as clearly articulated then, as they are now — Roe v Wade was only three years in the past. The Democratic Party now officially embraces abortion on demand as political dogma. There’s no room for debate, dissent, or discussion. At least in the GOP, individual candidates being pro-choice is tolerated, if disliked. (But then again, there aren’t enough of them to make a difference, though Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins managed to make people nervous during the Barrett hearings.)

 

[pnewton]

I don’t get this kind of attitude. It’s Church teaching that those in obstinate, public sin should not receive the Eucharist. That is not the same as judging someone’s private sins or the state of their soul.

No, it is not. I think a lot of people do not understand this. President-elect Biden would not be excommunicated or is his soul judged by this action. The canon law in question is for denying people who have committed public scandal.

However, this also means that it is a judgment of Bishop Gregory, not an issue of second guessing and back seat bishop-ing. I agree with the bishop, at this time at least. If I did not, or if I do not, that would still no be relevant.

 

[upant]

Do you have a source to confirm this?

it was in the news

Biden was in October 2019 denied the Eucharist at a South Carolina parish.

“Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching,” Fr. Robert Morey, pastor of St. Anthony Catholic Church in the Diocese of Charleston, told CNA after Biden was denied Holy Communion.

CNA reported after Biden was denied the Eucharist that the policy of the Charleston diocese requires priests to withhold the Eucharist from politicians and political candidates who support legal protection for abortion.

Cardinal Burke: Joe Biden Should Not Receive Holy Communion| National Catholic Register

 

[BornInMarch]

it was in the news

Fair enough, though it looks like it’s one diocese rather than the whole church. I wonder what it will mean for the unity of the Church if only some parishes deny communion to a public figure while others do not.

 

[sealabeag]

You believe that the the Body of Christ should be given to someone who believes in killing babies?

 

[sealabeag]

The canon law in question is for denying people who have committed public scandal.

Yes, which he has done?

 

[Benadam]

Biden is operating behind a psuedomoral protection John F. Kennedy used to placate those ignorant of Catholicism.
He told them his faith would not influence His decisions as President. They were afraid he9 would be a mouthpiece for the Vatican, Pope or his bishop. All he had to say was he would be making his own decisions. At least that would be true. Now that morphed into it being a sin to impose beliefs on others…lol…So speaking for Jesus before men is a sin. I wouldn’t want to fall for that lie.

 

[stpurl]

The same as it means when one country or diocese allows communion for those divorced and remarried without a decree of nullity, or for non-Catholic Christians who are not in danger of death or otherwise able to receive under law, or when prominent prelates tell us Catholic teachings have ‘changed’ 180 degrees, or add or delete from the Mass at will.

IOW, welcome to the world as we know it —where we hold fast to the teachings of the Catholic Church, but do not ‘put our faith in men/princes’.

 

[TMC]

If you dissent from the Church on issues of infallible doctrine and refuse to assent to the teaching, you should not receive communion.

I think you are completely misunderstanding Catholic teaching. Catholics don’t get “permission” to dissent if the doctrine is not “infallible.” Nor does the Church provide a list of “infallible” and “optional” teachings.

As to who should be admitted to Communion, as I said at the very beginning of this thread, that is a decision best left to those with the authority to do so - pastors and bishops.

 

[TMC]

the idea is that not all moral issues have the same moral weight and there can be differences of opinion on the morality of the specific issue

in some moral issues, there is a difference in how you can achieve a moral goal, for example, how do you care for the poor, welfare or a jobs program, you have legitimate options on how to achieve your goal.

there is no option in abortion or euthanasia, the victim is done.

Not all issues have the same moral weight, but there is a very strong tendency for people to consider the issues on which they agree with the Church to be morally weighty, and those where they do not to be less so. The fact is that the Church does not make any of its teachings optional, and there is great hypocrisy to decrying one particular politician’s dissent while looking the other way on others, or our own.

so you would allow them to receive unworthily knowing their salvation is endangered?

I am not in a position to “allow” or deny anyone. Neither are you. As I have pointed out at the beginning of this thread, Saint John Paul disagreed with your view, which is a fact I give some weight.

 

[HopingforGodtohelp]

No, that’s not true. It’s a decision best left to those themselves. You should not want to receive communion if you are dissenting from the Church. You get no benefit from it, and you put yourself further into sin. As for Canon 915, that’s a different issue, and your last sentence is actually not true.

Mr. Biden and the Matter of Scandal | Charles J. Chaput | First Things

Canon 915 is not a suggestion. It is a law. Archbishop Chaput spells it out well here. “Public figures who identify as “Catholic” give scandal to the faithful when receiving Communion by creating the impression that the moral laws of the Church are optional. And bishops give similar scandal by not speaking up publicly about the issue and danger of sacrilege.”

 

[TMC]

Canon 915 is not a suggestion. It is a law.

Yes. And I am happy to rely on Pope Saint John Paul, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, and the bishops in each of their dioceses on how to interpret that law and how to apply it to specific facts.

We both know the real truth here, don’t we? This issue comes up only in one circumstance - attacks on liberal politicians. Using the issue to score political points.

 

[on_the_hill]

Why is it necessary (or even a good idea) for a bishop to publicly announce whether or not a person would be allowed to receive communion?

It’s a private matter.

 

[redcatholic]

Since some bishops and people have stated they will deny and some have stated they won’t, this amounts to nothing more than a safe list of where he can go and a naughty list of where he should stay away from. I don’t have one of those lists for myself currently because I am not famous, I don’t support killing babies and I’m in a state of grace.

The chances of Biden visiting my deep red state parish is zero, but if he did he would be wise enough not to present for communion. Lol

 

[BigBoom]

BigBoom:

They didn’t need to be rebaptized because original sin had already been removed from their soul when they were originally baptized. Once original sin has been removed, there is no reason for another baptism and it’s therefore impossible.

Baptism is also what marks someone as Catholic until the day they die. You’re wrong if you think someone can ever stop being a Catholic in the eyes of God. If you’re in the “only Trad. Catholics are true Catholics!” camp then your belief has more in common with Donatism then what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Baptisms done using the proper form in protestant churches are considered valid by the Catholic church. Is someone validly baptized in the Baptist church considered a Catholic? Can they legitimately present themselves for Catholic sacraments? Of course not, despite the fact that they have a valid baptism. All Baptism does is remove Original Sin.

 

[JimG]

Biden is operating behind a psuedomoral protection John F. Kennedy used to placate those ignorant of Catholicism.
He told them his faith would not influence His decisions as President. They were afraid he9 would be a mouthpiece for the Vatican, Pope or his bishop. All he had to say was he would be making his own decisions. At least that would be true. Now that morphed into it being a sin to impose beliefs on others…lol…So speaking for Jesus before men is a sin. I wouldn’t want to fall for that lie.

Yes, and that speech given by JFK to placate Protestant ministers was one of the worst decisions of his life. Jimmy Carter was not required to give a speech promising that his religion would never affect his decisions, nor was any other president of any other religion. Now it has morphed into the idea that religion must never be mentioned or affirmed by politicians. Joe Biden will never have to give such a speech because he has already demonstrated that his religion will never affect his policies, thereby allowing him to freely support abortion on demand, same sex marriage, and anti-Catholic policies.

 

[Canvas]

Later I learned that he had appointed a lot of pro-abortion judges to the Federal courts, and they that often ruled against pro-life laws.

Before the 1990s, judges appointed by both parties often voted to preserve Roe. There wasn’t a widely coordinated judical effort in the 1970s to overturn Roe.

There has been a coordinated effort for some time now (since the Reagan era) to produce reliable anti-Roe judges, but it doesn’t always work

It was a Nixon judge, Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe. 3 out of 4 Nixon judges on SCOTUS in Jan. 1973 supported the majority opinion.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), 8 of the judges on the SCOTUS were GOP appointees. The single, lone Democratic appointee on SCOTUS for that case, Byron White (one the two original dissenters in Roe), voted to overturn Roe v Wade entirely. Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan judge

Jimmy Carter appointed no judges to SCOTUS.