M
Bishop: I beg Mr Biden to repent of his dissent from Catholic teaching on abortion & marriage for his own salvation & for the good of our nation
- Status
Spiritual appeals such as this, may be the only thing we have left. All other bishops need to follow Bishop Strickland’s lead.
And Biden should be denied communion by all US bishops, regardless of whether he is the president of the United States. This could be very powerful — a “High Noon” moment, if you will.
(Yes, I realize there have been conversations on these forums about this being a private matter between Biden and his confessor, that he may have repented of public acts such as marrying the two gay men, and so on. But when a person is the President, nothing is really “private” anymore. Let a bishop engage Biden in public. Let it be on nationwide TV. Or invite him on EWTN. Let him have to answer why his apparent public stances vary from Church doctrine, and how he justifies this.)
ETA — Is there no such thing anymore as a “notorious public sinner”? Do we say “well, whatever he has done in the past, for all we know he has set all things aright in confession”? And even if that were the case, I would look to a public figure not to repeat the matters that caused people to question him in the first place, and maybe, just maybe, publicly say “I shouldn’t have done it, I’ve made my peace with God about it, and now I wish to make my peace with you, and demonstrate that I’ve changed”. That’s all any of us could or should ask.
And I know I keep bringing this up, but it’s my understanding that the modern concept of the sacrament of penance is reconciliation not only with Almighty God, but reconciliation with the Mystical Body of Christ, of which you, and I, and all other faithful, are a part. There is no such thing as a sin that is my business and only my business and nobody else’s. Every sin any of us commits — and I direct this first of all to myself — damages the rest of us, damages the Body of Christ, and if it becomes public, damages her witness to the world. Just look at how the abuse scandals have made it so much harder for us to present Catholicism as something the rest of the world should embrace. My point should be clear.
And Biden should be denied communion by all US bishops, regardless of whether he is the president of the United States. This could be very powerful — a “High Noon” moment, if you will.
(Yes, I realize there have been conversations on these forums about this being a private matter between Biden and his confessor, that he may have repented of public acts such as marrying the two gay men, and so on. But when a person is the President, nothing is really “private” anymore. Let a bishop engage Biden in public. Let it be on nationwide TV. Or invite him on EWTN. Let him have to answer why his apparent public stances vary from Church doctrine, and how he justifies this.)
ETA — Is there no such thing anymore as a “notorious public sinner”? Do we say “well, whatever he has done in the past, for all we know he has set all things aright in confession”? And even if that were the case, I would look to a public figure not to repeat the matters that caused people to question him in the first place, and maybe, just maybe, publicly say “I shouldn’t have done it, I’ve made my peace with God about it, and now I wish to make my peace with you, and demonstrate that I’ve changed”. That’s all any of us could or should ask.
And I know I keep bringing this up, but it’s my understanding that the modern concept of the sacrament of penance is reconciliation not only with Almighty God, but reconciliation with the Mystical Body of Christ, of which you, and I, and all other faithful, are a part. There is no such thing as a sin that is my business and only my business and nobody else’s. Every sin any of us commits — and I direct this first of all to myself — damages the rest of us, damages the Body of Christ, and if it becomes public, damages her witness to the world. Just look at how the abuse scandals have made it so much harder for us to present Catholicism as something the rest of the world should embrace. My point should be clear.
Last edited:
S
sealabeag
Guest
Exactly, it’s not a private matter when it’s a politician’s public stance, especially the potential next president. It’s also about reminding lay Catholics that the positions of certain politicians on certain issues are unacceptable. Good on Bishop Strickland. Stay strong.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
Unfortunately some agree with Biden, from Reddit
The church needs a unified message
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I think the Bishop has not put it correctly. On abortion, President-elect Biden supports the Church’s view.
Where he differs from the Church is not on ‘abortion’ but on the wisdom of having laws that prohibit it in the early stages of pregnancy and on the provision of state funding for medical services generally, which include abortion.
There are many immoral things that are legal and that the Church does not advocate for being made illegal.
In the US, the Church does not advocate for the removal of access to abortion in cases of rape and incest and in cases of a threat to the life of the mother. It considers such things immoral, but does not campaign for their being made illegal. In fact Church leaders and Catholic politicians have supported laws providing for access to abortion in these cases, saying that such a law is better than one providing for wider access.
The President-elect is to my mind clearly at odds with the Church teaching on the need for anti-abortion laws.
But as far as I know he has clearly stated his opposition to abortion in terms identical to the Church (hardly surprising, since he is a Catholic).
He differs from the de facto Church position only in where the line is drawn in terms of the extent to which abortion should be legally restricted.
Where he differs from the Church is not on ‘abortion’ but on the wisdom of having laws that prohibit it in the early stages of pregnancy and on the provision of state funding for medical services generally, which include abortion.
There are many immoral things that are legal and that the Church does not advocate for being made illegal.
In the US, the Church does not advocate for the removal of access to abortion in cases of rape and incest and in cases of a threat to the life of the mother. It considers such things immoral, but does not campaign for their being made illegal. In fact Church leaders and Catholic politicians have supported laws providing for access to abortion in these cases, saying that such a law is better than one providing for wider access.
The President-elect is to my mind clearly at odds with the Church teaching on the need for anti-abortion laws.
But as far as I know he has clearly stated his opposition to abortion in terms identical to the Church (hardly surprising, since he is a Catholic).
He differs from the de facto Church position only in where the line is drawn in terms of the extent to which abortion should be legally restricted.
U
upant
Guest
Since when does the church support expanding abortion and having government pay for it? Since when does the church support forcing the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraception? Since when does the church support SSM? Etc.
You have it wrong, the church requires politicians to work to restrict intrinsic evils when they can’t be outright abolished. Biden believes in the expansion of abortion not restricting abortions
The church doesn’t believe in allowing choice for others. You are either for or against abortion, there is no personal option.
If you enable a person to get an abortion you are for abortion and Biden pledge to expand abortion
S
sealabeag
Guest
I’m afraid that it seems you do not understand Church teaching about abortion.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I carefully made a distinction between the teaching on the morality of abortion and the teaching relating to law on abortion. I think I understand both well. Please, and @upant, re-read my post.
Z
Zach
Guest
His position reminds me of an agnostic who can’t take a firm position and wants to split the difference and have it both ways. Instead of this is wishy-washy morality I’d prefer these politicians to be either against abortion completely, including being opposed to pro abortion laws, or to be in favor of abortion personally and pro abortion laws.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
I read it a couple of times.
This is not true
He does not support the church view. There is no room for choice. From the USCCB (bold mine)
- There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor . Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called “intrinsically evil” actions . They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned . A prime example is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia . In our nation, “abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 5). It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice . A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.
- Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Yes, that is the distinction I was making.
He supports 22.
He draws the line on ‘what is possible’ under 23 in a different place to that drawn by the Church.
He supports 22.
He draws the line on ‘what is possible’ under 23 in a different place to that drawn by the Church.
L
LiveSkype
Guest
I don’t know if anyone here has heard this, but during the annual meeting last week, Archbishop Gomez (USCCB president) has ordered for the formation of a taskforce headed by Detroit Archbishop Vigneron to deal with how they should appropriately deal with Biden’s upcoming attempts to try to enforce his interpretation of Catholic dogma on the Catholic Church in America.
Working group formed to deal with conflicts between Biden policies, church teaching, Mark Pattison, CNA News
Working group formed to deal with conflicts between Biden policies, church teaching, Mark Pattison, CNA News
Last edited:
R
redcatholic
Guest
Can we substitute slavery for abortion please. What would the view be of someone who said I don’t think I would own slaves buuuut. I mean making it against the law would be wrong! So sad we live in a world where making laws against murder is less obvious than slavery laws. Do what if Biden said I’m Catholic and I would never kill a black person but I’m not going to tell others who have different beliefs what to do!
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
So a la Pilate?
F
FiveLinden
Guest
That is easy to do. You can look at the history of the Catholic Church and its attitude to slavery in the US and elsewhere.
I understand that the Catholic position on abortion laws is not President-elect Biden’s position. I also understand that it is not President Trump’s position. I am not arguing that their positions equate with the Church’s. I am simply pointing out that you can, indeed, have a view that is opposed to abortion but that does not (for whatever reason) seek to have laws preventing it.
R
redcatholic
Guest
I believe the point is the moral outrage from both left and right Catholics would be uniform if president trump said that although he doesn’t think owning slaves is right, the wisdom of the thirteenth amendment is not a good thing for the country.
It defies logic if abortion is the killing of a human, which it is. It’s actually sickening.
It defies logic if abortion is the killing of a human, which it is. It’s actually sickening.
K
Kei
Guest
Catholic Church position on slavery throughout the Americas and elsewhere:
U
upant
Guest
Unfortunately he doesn’t or he would not be expanding access to it. He treats abortion as a matter of choice which 22 says is wrong. He does not always “reject and oppose” abortion
When has he pledged to work to improve protection of the unborn? He is also wrong on 23
The point is he will expand abortion, the church requires her politicians to reduce abortions
J
JimG
Guest
Quoting the USCCB from prior post: “It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice.”
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Nobody buys that type of framing and it is not compatible with a sincerely held belief to hold a such a position.
Last edited:
- Status