Ok let’s naively believe that the actions of public officials do not influence the opinions of others.You deny communion because " someone might think" Catholic church is morally indifferent. Who? Richard Dawkins? Probably not. Another Catholic? Ok maybe.
You are saying ," there might be this negative perception out there somewhere. Where? I don’t know, out there.
Ok
Can there be a more clear example of confused relativist vacillation than this? This expresses the moral indifference of our entire culture very well.“I’m a practicing Catholic. I practice my faith, but I’ve never let my religious beliefs…to impose that view on other people,” Biden said this week.
How can anyone take that position seriously?All it means is, he doesn’t have full knowledge of what being pro-choice entails
Without full knowledge, he hasn’t committed mortal sin.
As another user said (it may have been on the other thread), this would require some level of public penance or admission, wouldn’t it? Unless he silently changed his abortion stance in the past two weeks, he’s still a pro-choice politician, and is unapologetic about it (even if he’s a, “I privately oppose abortion, but…” kind of person). Without some kind of public action, it’s safe to assume that he still holds the same views he’s had for years.One point should be made here, it was the Bishop of that dioceses who ordered the priests serving under his authority, to withhold communion from those who support abortion, including politicians.
So, whether or not the priest agreed with it or not, he was following his Bishop’s order, out of obedience.
Now, I think both the Bishop and priest are wrong as well as Edward Peters. I’ve seen equally qualified canonists and theologians argue the opposite on canon law.
The priest had no idea what state Biden’s soul was in when he presented himself for Holy Communion. It was possible he had repented and gone to Confession prior. The priest would not know unless he asked him before Mass. If he did, he should’ve instructed Biden not to receive and not make a public scandal out of the entire thing. Nonbelievers I have encountered, were quick to point out that priests who sexually abused others, were never denied Holy Communion. The see a double standard when a priests sins and a layman sins.
Also from the article: “At the same time, Catholics recall St. Paul’s warning that unworthy reception of holy communion is a grievous offense smacking of sacrilege and scandal.” St Paul was not speaking about those Christians who believed receiving and may have sinned in some way before, but non-Christians who attended Mass out of curiosity, who ate and drank until they were drunk, then received Communion, Remember St Paul’s words in the same letter, “For the Kingdom of God isn’t a matter of eating and drinking.” Romans 14:17 Essentially, he was telling the believers that the Mass is about faith, not a dinner party.
In all, this is a story that’s going to be debated by canon lawyers and theologians for a long while before the Pope says the final word on it.
Feel free to be afraid. What what does this have to do with the proverbial tea in China? To put in plainly, Trump’s statements have nothing to do with Biden’s ability to receive communion.As a Catholic, a President who goes on TV and says I never ask God for forgiveness because I never did anything wrong makes alarm bells go off like a gunshot. 98% of the Gospel has been completely negated.
I react with my first thought," this person scares me.
politics aside, do you agree he had to follow the diocese’s policy of denying joe communion?I am insisting he did bring politics into it when he made a press release about the Democratic frontrunner I the most devisive political contest perhaps ever.
His appreciate of the involvement is only known to him.
he and the dems will do more. they will legalize abortion up and just until after birth. they will allow taxpayer funded abortion which will probably increase the number of abortion.In truth he can do nothing directly besides give public, support to a practice the church says is repugnant to its teachings and sinful in terms of grave sin.
On May 14, 2004, Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs said that “any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation, and that any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance. ” The Bishop noted that while there may be many issues to consider when voting, the right to life trumps all other issues
this isn’t about trump, he isn’t catholic. however he is more anti-abortion than most democratic catholic politiciansHow can any Catholic trust a man
his actions speak louder than his words just as the actions of the dems in passing pro-abortion laws around the country speaks volumes.I find it mind boggling that any Christian can overlook the permutations of that statement.
He said it on National TV,
your diocese policy is to deny it to politicians who…You deny communion because "
the policy also outlined what biden had to do to be eligible to receive and he hasn’t done itNow, I think both the Bishop and priest are wrong as well as Edward Peters. I’ve seen equally qualified canonists and theologians argue the opposite on canon law.
he has spoken about how his policies will stop the decline in access to abortion. this sounds like direct support to me.There have been no pieces of legislation which directly supports abortion that Biden could’ve voted on.
No, for even if Joe Biden participated in an abortion directly, which of course he didn;t, he’d be excommunicated latae sententiae, which is not a public excommunication and is liften when the person goes to Confession. No public penance is necessary. My understanding is that only a public excommunication by a Bishop would possibly require the person recant their offense publically. This hasn’t happened in centuries as far as I know.As another user said (it may have been on the other thread), this would require some level of public penance or admission, wouldn’t it?
With this being the case, it would then seem reasonable to assume that he hasn’t changed the opinion that he’s held for years until he decides to change his campaign values, and deny the Sacrament based on that.As another user said (it may have been on the other thread), this would require some level of public penance or admission, wouldn’t it?
what are they ignorant of?The pro-choice position is flawed, but most who hold this position, do so out of ignorance.