Joe Biden Denied Holy Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Donald_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no issue with absolution. I think the issue often involves people’s ability to forgive themselves.
I do not know how once can arrive at a concept like justice without forming judgements. Nor do I have much faith in man’s ability to dispense justice.30 years practicing won’t let me. At best we hope for justice. We clearly are more competent dispensing mercy.
You say a rough political climate does not permit the compromising of our faith and yet the faith tells us there is specific danger applying this cannon section in a heated political climate. The precise danger is not applying ones faith.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think that priests should cast judgements on others…even politicians.
Let the person who commits a sin be free to confess that sin.
Politicians are elected to serve all of the people, not just those who have the same beliefs on social or moral issues.
Jack Kennedy was the first Catholic to occupy the White House. I can’t imagine any priest who would have denied him communion.
 
I think the debate that has gone on between Pope’s, Cardinals and Bishops recognise this as an addition to Cannon 915 must navigate cautiously as many doctrinal truths are implicated. The most important always being that we begin with the unencumbered right to receive communion as a starting point. And withholding is an extreme act that requires steps and discernment.
They discuss the influence of politics in actually making pastoral decisions. And caution.
And Pope Benedict specifically said ones Pastor and a private pastoral meeting was in order first. This is super important because of the recognised pitfalls. I have heard a bunch of ideas now and I think we need to avoid thinking we can compromise the procedure our Pope expressly placed.
 
I find this fascinating: 292 posts, and no one has actually stated Biden’s position on abortion. (The one partial exception is pnewton, thoughtful as ever, who gave us his NARAL score and his latest position on the Hyde Amendment).

This is from Biden’s campaign website, under health care: “As president, Biden will work to codify Roe v. Wade, and his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate the constitutional right to an abortion, such as so-called TRAP laws, parental notification requirements, mandatory waiting periods, and ultrasound requirements.” There are another two paragraphs that go into sub-topics like the Hyde Amendment.

But I think this is clear: Biden supports a federal law that would allow women to choose an abortion if they wished, and he would try to prevent states from passing laws that infringed on the right to an abortion.

Now someone DID quote Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick (of sad memory) in July 2004. I’ll repeat it here: “5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

So there we have it, I think. “…consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion…laws…” Is Biden doing that? Yes. Clearly. Did Cardinal Ratzinger condemn it? Yes. Clearly. Does Cardinal Ratzinger speak for the Church? Yes, again. Is that memo infallible? No. Was that memo approved by a Church council or synod? No. Was it approved by the Pope? We can assume it was. So what level of authority does the memo have? A lot, but exactly how much is open to debate.

Now I’d like to make clear, if it’s one person I admire in the Church, it’s Joseph Ratzinger. He’s my man. I’ve read several of his books, heard him give a lecture in the mid-80s, and wildly support virtually everything he has done or said.

As for Biden, I would not vote for him in the primaries; not because of his abortion position, but because he identified the shootings in El Paso and Dayton as being in Houston and Michigan. For saying in the last debate that he would abolish capital gains taxes, and then after a long breath saying he would increase capital gains taxes. Sorry. A president can’t do that stuff.
 
I think it is very easy to judge how serious people take their faith supporting the Wall and the mistreatment of children as a deterrent to bringing more. Calling them infestation. But I am willing to keep in mind everyone struggles with sin.
 
The CCC does allow political leaders to secure their national borders and enforce laws. A wall can viably be part of border enforcement, along with checkpoints, visas, immigration enforcement, etc. And which prominent Catholic politician referred to children as an infestation?
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
So what level of authority does the memo have? A lot, but exactly how much is open to debate.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t give it a great deal of authority–a “memo” from one person to another is not a weighty document, no matter the circumstances.

The more authoritative source is, certainly, the Code of Canon Law (canon 915) and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Text’s “declaration” of June 24, 2000 (which is available here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html and which, if I recall, Ratzinger referenced in his memo).

Dan
 
Maximus1 said:
we begin with the unencumbered right to receive communion as a starting point
Click to expand...
There is no such “unencumbered right.” People have a right to receive the Sacraments, yes (see canon 213), but that right is limited by three things. The recipient must be properly disposed, not prohibited by law, and ask for the Sacrament at an appropriate time (canon 843).

Dan
 
The President. And Catholic immigration policy via the CCC is very different than his policy and our Pope called him out on it.
Thank God Trump wasn’t the president of Egypt when Joseph Mary and Jesus needed Assylum.
 
They usually hear confession about 30 minutes before the TLM at my parish on most Sundays. The lines are usually long. Father will hear confessions until everyone is done, sometimes even into the Canon. Depending on how long it takes, he will frequently help with Communion.
 
Maximus1 said:
The President. And Catholic immigration policy via the CCC is very different than his policy and our Pope called him out on it.
Thank God Trump wasn’t the president of Egypt when Joseph Mary and Jesus needed Assylum.
Click to expand...
I’ll agree to the extent I don’t like the tone he takes regarding immigrants, legal or illegal. One can secure borders, control migration, and criticize policies towards illegal immigration with charity. Aside from that, what is immoral about a wall/series of walls or barricades, deporting people who come into a country illegally, and controlling borders/enforcing a nation’s laws? They’ve been used by previous administrations without the press throwing a hissy.

And Trump isn’t Catholic, so I’d hope he’d be denied Communion during Mass.😉
 
acanonlawyer said:
I wouldn’t give it a great deal of authority–a “memo” from one person to another is not a weighty document, no matter the circumstances.
Click to expand...
It’s important to understand that memo in light of the law (canon 915) to which it applies. In saying that a meeting with one’s pastor was necessary it is because of the necessity of assuring that the criterion of “obstinate persistence” in grave sin has been met. Normally this would entail a meeting with the pastor to ensure that the individual actually understands that his behavior is gravely sinful. If, after such a clarification, he persists in the sin it can be understood that this condition is satisfied.

It should not be assumed, however, that this is the sole means of determining if the persistence has been obstinate, and by publicly supporting abortion and gay marriage there is no reasonable doubt that the “manifest, grave sin” criteria have been met.
 
acanonlawyer said:
The more authoritative source is, certainly, the Code of Canon Law (canon 915) and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Text’s “declaration” of June 24, 2000
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. It’s concerned with re-marriage and divorce, but I assume the same principles apply. To me the key words that leapt out were “publicly unworthy” and the subsequent discussion of scandal to the Church.

It seems to me there is a big difference between what you do and believe in private and what you advocate in public, esp. if you are a public figure and known to be a Catholic. The issue is scandal, and giving the impression that what you are saying is somehow a “Catholic” position.

From what I’ve read, Biden supported a constitutional amendment in the early 80s that would have allowed states to make abortion illegal, ignoring Roe v Wade. I would love to see Biden sit down with a pro-life advocate, or better, a bishop, and have an hour-long discussion of abortion. But of course I’m dreaming. But I do think he needs to explain how and why his views have changed. There is nothing at his web site that even hints at previous positions.

The so-called “debates” are, and always will be, silly. They are 1-minute sound bites. There is no time for nuance, explanations, or, really, anything except a bumper sticker slogan. But if someone changes position, I think he/she owes it to the public to explain why.
 
Ender said:
It’s important to understand that memo in light of the law (canon 915) to which it applies.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
Ender said:
In saying that a meeting with one’s pastor was necessary it is because…
Click to expand...
The meeting, while appropriate and beneficial, was/is not “necessary”–it “should” happen, Ratzinger said. As you note, there are other ways of certifying (so to speak) that the conditions of the canon have been met.

Dan
 
Judge not, lest ye be judged by the standard you yourself shall set.
That one is a warning.
Remove the beam from your own eye before removing the slinger from your brother’s is another warning.
I would add this. The problem with judging others includes the tendency to project a worthiness/ unworthiness interaction on someone else.
A great deal of judging is for the glorification of the judger. We get a charge out of scenarios of superiority. I am righteous you are not.
Winner/ looser.
We often tend to project our own spiritual inadequacies on others.
Hence, a plethora of warnings.
I read cannon 915. The WORTHINESS writings of Pope Benedict involving politicians. Cardinals contributed warnings about this type of discipline in political charged races( not me, a Cardinal)
The rules required a pastor do it and a private meeting. Later it was the appropriate Bishop.
So there is no cutting corners on a form of discipline that presents so many pitfalls
 
Pope Francis said walls are not in keeping with the Gospel if I am not mistaken.
I generally agree with your post. I dispise his use of words like infestation to describe human beings. Or the mistreatment of children. And the lack of care keeping tabs of parents and kids. It is sadistic. You can enforce the law respecting human dignity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top