Could the Pope place a President Biden under personal interdict?

[Mintaka]

Fine. While we’re posting academic Church documents for kids, let’s post an academic Church document for adults.

Catholic Encyclopedia: Excommunication

" Excommunication ([Latin] ex , out of, and communio or communicatio , communion — exclusion from the communion),

the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence. Its object and its effect are loss of communion, i.e. of the spiritual benefits shared by all the members of Christian society; hence, it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society…

Excommunication, however, is clearly distinguished from other penalties in that it is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society, and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority.

But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority.

Okay, so the key here is “like a stranger.” We have a callback to the part where we are told that if someone won’t listen to a brother, or a couple of elders, or to the whole Church, then he is to be treated like a Gentile. Nobody says that he magically becomes a Gentile.

So let’s find some sources closer to Church authority.

 

[Mintaka]

I think the confusion here is being caused by the phrase “outside the Church.” Like “outside the Temple” and “outside the synagogue,” there’s supposed to be a clear distinction from those who were never “inside the Church”, as opposed to those who once were inside and now are not being let inside, until they take steps to amend themselves.

That said, it’s true that excommunication does temporarily deprive a person of their spiritual “connection” with the prayers of the Church on Earth. That is why even living saints who are unfairly excommunicated suffer so much, and get real effects from being “bound on earth” and “in Heaven.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Oh, how convenient for Pres. Biden that the Church can do NOTHING to rebuke him!!

You have no idea what his personal spiritual advisors and confessors say to him or what discussions he has with them. It’s private between him and them, as it should be.

I also am having a hard time understanding how the Church’s response to a politician makes people want to leave the Church, thus distancing themselves from the Real Presence. That’s what it’s all about; for me, it’s a personal thing that is not affected by whatever is going on with the Caesars of the world, who will all pass away as St Teresa of Avila reminded us.

I can understand frustration with politicians or clerics, but all this “I’m about to leave the Church” stuff does not make sense to me. Perhaps it’s because I’m a cradle Catholic, it is part of my culture and even when I spent years in grave-possibly-mortal sin, and felt the Church was a bunch of old men not living in the real modern world and didn’t understand my life, I didn’t think of leaving. As St Peter said, where would I go?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I did not know this. I always just made the assumption that excommunicated people were still “members of the Church”, just being forced to “sit out the game” until they repented and took steps to resolve the situation that got them excommunicated in the first place.

I would be interested to see what authoritative teaching of the magisterium changed the things that are quoted from the Roman Catechism and the Catechism of St Pius X.

This does not clearly refer to excommunicated people, nor to whether one “ceases to be” a Catholic or not, assuming they have at one point been Catholic. And I do concede that the Baltimore Catechism, as @Mintaka alludes to, is a “catechism textbook for kids” (but not just “kids”), and is a highly concentrated, streamlined compendium of Catholic faith and doctrine. That is possibly true of the Catechism of St Pius X as well, but as far as the Universal and Roman Catechism, well, those would have to be some pretty intelligent “kids”. The paragraph cited here is written in some fairly sophisticated theological language. It’s far more profound than the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It’s probably worth noting as well, that the Church has the authority (per Matthew 16:18) to say which people are her members, and which people are not. So, if I am understanding this correctly, she could at one time have regarded the excommunicated as “outside the Church”, and could now regard them as “inside the Church”. That’s her prerogative. (If excommunication is indeed an unchangeable doctrinal issue, I will welcome correction.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Excommunication isn’t doctrinal. It’s a penalty of the Church, it’s a canon law issue. The Church is quite free to update its canon law just like it did in 1983, any time it wants.

 

[Mintaka]

(name removed by moderator), I have been looking all over to find a book called “The Universal and Roman Catechism,” and I don’t see one yet. Do you have a bibliographical citation? Is that a title translated into English?

 

[Mintaka]

I wondered if that was what you meant, as your quote was showing up with “Catechism of Trent.” Okay, lemme look up the 1566 edition and check it out. (Sigh. Gotta go to work today soon.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

(name removed by moderator), I have been looking all over to find a book called “The Universal and Roman Catechism,”

It’s my understanding that the current Catechism is the first and only “universal” one the Church ever released.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Peeps:

Oh, how convenient for Pres. Biden that the Church can do NOTHING to rebuke him!!

You have no idea what his personal spiritual advisors and confessors say to him or what discussions he has with them. It’s private between him and them, as it should be.

I’ve thought about this. I know there are different schools of thought about plumbing the depths of others’ spiritual direction, but it could — could — well be that he has told his confessor (or spiritual director, or whomever) that he can only influence politics and the common good if he is elected, that the Democratic party is the better party for the common good (which, incidentally, it probably is), and that he has to stay in it, and accept their platform, to achieve the goods that could not be achieved in a Republican administration.

A Democrat who would not stand by their party’s platform, and their party’s candidates, would be toast — put out on their ear, and not able to influence anything, in the face of what some see as a greedy, mean-spirited, “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps”, take away ACA, take away social programs that do help the poor and disabled, worldview of many Republicans. I have to think that pro-life, or basically pro-life, Democrats such as John Bel Edwards and Joe Manchin (both Catholics) struggle with these dilemmas daily. Are Edwards and Manchin free to tell people “no! — don’t vote for Biden! — vote pro-life, vote for Trump!”? Of course not! The Republican party tolerates “never-Trumpers”. I don’t think the Democratic party would tolerate “never-Bideners”, “never-Harrisers”, “never-Hillaryers”, or whomever else you could name. The Democrats act in total solidarity and they fuse together disparate groups in pursuit of common goals. The Republicans have never quite figured that out. For the life of me, I don’t understand how the Republicans ever win any elections.

And let’s not forget that Biden is still Catholic, still a member of the One True Church, the Mystical Body. He still accepts the basics of the Catholic Faith. There’s still some spark there. He goes to Mass. He receives Communion — maybe he shouldn’t, probably shouldn’t, but he does, and maybe some confessor has told him “it’s okay”, because of the reasoning I cited above. There’s no way to know. Many, many people have found confessors, priests, and other teachers in the past 50 years to “tell them what they want to hear”, whether the issue is Humanae vitae, divorce and remarriage, pro-choice advocacy, or what have you. You had a whole generation (or two) who did this. The tide is now turning, but these people are still around. And Joe Biden is one of them.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And it is entirely possible that Biden could, once having assumed the office, have a change of mind, heart, and soul, go before the American people, and say “I can no longer support abortion choice, my conscience won’t allow it, from this day forward, I will support the right to life, and take care of the poor, the dispossessed, the downtrodden, “the least of my brothers” — and that includes the unborn”. What could they do, throw him out? Kamala Harris and a majority of the cabinet say he’s non compos mentis, he’s lost his mind, go to Congress and tell them this, get them to go along? Stranger things have happened. Think of St Paul. Think of Constantine. Think of Clovis of the Franks. We could do worse than pray for this kind of miracle.

 

[Mintaka]

Well, to be technical, the name of the 1566 catechism is (in translation) “The Catechism for Parish Priests, by decree of the Council of Trent, issued under the orders of Pope Pius V.”

Universal in effect isn’t universal in name. Universal by nickname, sure!

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps secede from the USCCB and establish their own “Southeastern Bishops’ Conference”? Do national bishops’ conference have any canonical status

You are thinking of how Protestants multiply. Of course national conferences are part of canon law.

Didn’t Vigano recently renounce Vatican II and say it was schismatic, or some such?

When one breaks from the pope, he would be the schismatic, not the other way around. Schism is not relative to which side one is on. The Catholic Church could never be in schism from any bishop. I would have to be the other way around.

There is a difference between proof and evidence. Catechisms are not precise, by their very nature, especially if you are going to dig back centuries. In any case, Joe Biden is not excommunicated. Would it be too much to ask for a little charity among Catholic instead of clamoring for someone’s damnation?

I also am having a hard time understanding how the Church’s response to a politician makes people want to leave the Church, thus distancing themselves from the Real Presence.

For one thing, this is clarification on a primary question - what authority does one follow? Is it the Bible alone, and one’s understanding? Is it one’s own understanding of Church tradition? Is it the priest, bishop and pope one is under?

In any case, for a Catholic, it is a good idea to look in the mirror on occasion and tell yourself, “I am not the Pope. I am not the Pope.”

 

[JoeFreedom]

It would have to be something the USCCB has likewise united against. That is why it is highly unlikely.

Nothing personal against you (just in case I’m not clear) but rather the statement itself. Even having to make a statement suggesting that the USCCB is not fully united against abortion is deeply troubling.

 

[pnewton]

Then that statement is irrelevant. You simply cannot apply a definition from the past to the present when definitions are not the same. Joe Biden has also not been declared a heretic either. What you, me, or anyone else said does not apply to someone being, officially, a heretic and therefore set outside the Church like they would have in the Sixteenth Century.

I would argue, that in addition to not be identified by the Church as a heretic, that Joe Biden also has not committed heresy, that is, he has not denied any dogma of the Catholic Church. The issue for which an argument can be made for not receiving communion is that of scandal. That would still mean he is a Catholic, and can attend Mass. It also means that one with a different perspective on scandal could give him communion.

The Church has taught that abortion should not be made legal and it should be opposed by force of law, just like it has taught other sins should be opposed at different times, and just like it teaches the death penalty is inadmissible. But none of this is dogma.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

And let’s not forget that Biden is still Catholic, still a member of the One True Church, the Mystical Body. He still accepts the basics of the Catholic Faith. There’s still some spark there. He goes to Mass. He receives Communion — maybe he shouldn’t, probably shouldn’t, but he does, and maybe some confessor has told him “it’s okay”, because of the reasoning I cited above. There’s no way to know.

I’ve tried pointing this out, along with the fact that he prays the Rosary, and it seems to just result in people getting angry and threatening to leave the Church themselves.

Bit silly given that our last Catholic President, JFK, was arguably a bigger sinner than Grandpa Joe. Of course, we have no idea what he might have said in Confession either, and in his era people went once a week.

 

[Mintaka]

Argh. Haven’t left for work yet as it’s not time. Going through the Latin.

The confusing bit is that the English translations are just divided into chapters, whereas the original Latin editions have the chapters subdivided into “quaestiones” by number. The English smoothes it out for reading, but removes the idea that you can look up particular topics. Not impossible to figure out, but it’s a bit annoying.

 

[DeniseNY]

An indelible spiritual mark . . .

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark ( character ) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

And let’s not forget that Biden is still Catholic, still a member of the One True Church, the Mystical Body. He still accepts the basics of the Catholic Faith. There’s still some spark there. He goes to Mass. He receives Communion — maybe he shouldn’t, probably shouldn’t, but he does, and maybe some confessor has told him “it’s okay”, because of the reasoning I cited above. There’s no way to know.

I’ve tried pointing this out, along with the fact that he prays the Rosary, and it seems to just result in people getting angry and threatening to leave the Church themselves.

Bit silly given that our last Catholic President, JFK, was arguably a bigger sinner than Grandpa Joe. Of course, we have no idea what he might have said in Confession either, and in his era people went once a week.

Doesn’t make me angry in the least. The rosary has the power to convert sinners and vanquish heresies. Would they prefer he didn’t pray it?

And as far as “who’s the bigger sinner”, it is well-documented that JFK was quite the ladies’ man (to say the least), but he did not support initiatives that would deliver millions of the unborn over to death. It wasn’t an issue then — existed in the dark underworld of those things people do but don’t talk about (which is why many elderly people find abortion difficult to discuss, deal with, or make political decisions based upon), but it wasn’t a political matter. That came later.

At this point, the Orthodox reference to “sinners, of whom I am the chief” might be good to bear in mind here. I carry this in my soul like a pebble in a shoe.

 

[Vico]

I have in mind Biden’s stance in favor of abortion choice.

In all likelihood, it wouldn’t be this pope. But someone like Cardinal Sarah? Archbishop Vigano? (Dare we hope?)

And what would be the effect of it? Would individual priests and bishops buck this? And what then?

Pro-choice is not a responsible choice, however it is different than to actively support direct attacks, according to USCCB.

US Bishops in 1989 wrote in Resolution on Abortion:

No Catholic can responsibly take a “pro-choice” stand when the “choice” in question involves the taking of innocent human life.

USCCB wrote in 1998 – Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, no. 32:

No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...bortion/on-the-prochoice-position-on-abortion

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t point fingers at any of them, given that I too have committed major sins. I would hope the deceased Kennedys all made it to Heaven on the prayers of Mama Rose Kennedy and the nation. Kennedys in Heaven, Pray for us! And for our nation which many of you served.