'One of the greatest moral evils': Cardinal Raymond Burke supports refusing Communion to Biden, U.S. Presidential candidate

[RCIAGraduate]

Happy Cake Day!

 

[Ender]

I don’t have a problem with the Church denying communion so long as the lay person is informed privately so as to avoid creating a greater scandal. But should Thom Tillis and Marco Rubio also be denied communion since they have proposed legislation supporting the death penalty? Certainly, Rubio’s support of the death penalty for killers of police officers doesn’t meet the CCC’s criteria for this punishment.

The death penalty, unlike abortion, is not intrinsically evil. Cardinal Ratzinger said this in 2004, and this has not changed.

“If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”

Yet a person may not in good faith claim that the death penalty should be applied for retributive reasons.

This is not accurate either. That is in fact the only reason the death penalty, or any penalty for that matter, is justified, but capital punishment should not be part of the discussion; it is merely a distraction. The issue here is whether those who publicly support abortion should be denied communion, or whether the law shouldn’t be applied to politicians.

 

[pnewton]

I said I find it to be political. For example, that list you give seems to never include unjust immigration policy, available healthcare, feeding children, capital punishment, adultery, etc. Again, I have been here a long time. When abortion is mentioned, everything else that Republicans here do that line up with Church teaching is included, everything that does no line up with Church teaching is excluded. I know, I know, there is a large minority here (Republicans) that have shown themselves to be 100% consistent with Church teaching and in all things. However, it is my experience, it is a minority.

Now, as to Cardinal Burke making his remark when he did, I understand it was most likely done in conjunction with January’s anti-abortion activities. I get that. However, he mentioned Biden by name. Of all candidates that I know of that are Democrats he is the only one to receive disapproval ratings from NARAL, for opposing federal funding of abortions, supporting the Hyde Amendment, etc. I know that does not excuse his support of abortion when he did support it, but Cardinal Burke is factual and historically wrong when he said Biden was consistently pro-abortion.

 

[Domer90]

We had the pleasure and DS had the pleasure to serve a Mass with Cardinal Burke. He is one of the humblest prelates we have met. I would be honored to have him as our Archbishop. He gets persecuted for his faith, as our beloved Archbishop Chaplet, who confirmed my son and encouraged him to be a priest. I am truly saddened that faithful Catholics get persecuted, much like is recited in the Beatitudes.
God bless both men for their love of the true Church.

 

[upant]

Biden has long supported abortion

I remember vividly the first time, in 1973, I had to go to the floor to vote on abortion. A fellow Senator asked how I would vote. “My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t think I have a right to impose my few on the rest of society. I’ve thought a lot about it, and my position probably doesn’t please anyone. I think the government should stay out completely. I will not vote to overturn the Court’s decision. I will not vote to curtail a woman’s right to choose abortion. But I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion.“
I’ve stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years. I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I’d like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.

Source: Promises to Keep, by Joe Biden, p.104-105 Jul 31, 2007

 

[Rau]

[Biden]…”.but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.”

I guess he acknowledges - for some reason - women are denied that choice 1 second after birth…

 

[Randolph]

I will not vote to overturn the Court’s decision. I will not vote to curtail a woman’s right to choose abortion.

In Biden’s very own words, he has been consistently pro-abortion, and he has become even more so. He withdrew his support for the Hyde Amendment last year. In fact, he continues to echo these words/sentiments in his speeches during the current democratic primary for the president of the United States. Cardinal Burke is correct for calling Biden out on abortion.

It’s important to point out that abortion is an intrinsic evil—irrespective of who pays for it.

 

[Ender]

I said I find it to be political. For example, that list you give seems to never include unjust immigration policy, available healthcare, feeding children, capital punishment, adultery, etc. Again, I have been here a long time. When abortion is mentioned, everything else that Republicans here do that line up with Church teaching is included, everything that does no line up with Church teaching is excluded.

Issues like immigration, healthcare, helping the poor et al are all serious concerns, but they are not moral concerns. That is, there is no moral choice involved in choosing what actions to take to address them. People may legitimately take opposing positions. There is no Catholic doctrine on building a wall, supporting Obamacare, or raising the minimum wage. There is a doctrine against supporting abortion. These issues are in no way comparable. Nor is capital punishment of comparable gravity.

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. (Archbishop Jose Gomez)

Now, as to Cardinal Burke making his remark when he did, I understand it was most likely done in conjunction with January’s anti-abortion activities. I get that. However, he mentioned Biden by name. Of all candidates that I know of that are Democrats he is the only one to receive disapproval ratings from NARAL, for opposing federal funding of abortions, supporting the Hyde Amendment, etc. I know that does not excuse his support of abortion when he did support it, but Cardinal Burke is factual and historically wrong when he said Biden was consistently pro-abortion.

Whether he has been consistently pro-abortion, there is no doubt that he is pro-abortion now, and that Cardinal Burke’s comments correspond with the position Biden has recently expressed.

I support a woman’s right to choose. I support it’s a constitutional right. I’ve supported it and I will continue to support it and I will, in fact, move as president to see to it that the Congress legislates that that is the laws as well. (2cd Democrat presidential debate)

 

[pnewton]

Issues like immigration, healthcare, helping the poor et al are all serious concerns, but they are not moral concerns.

I was speaking of myself. That is why I spoke in the first person. I have heard you say numerously enough that you don not believe these issues are moral issues. I was referring though to Catholic doctrine of social justice and the totality of pro-life teaching. I never said they were equal in gravity, by the way.

Again, I, me, myself, notice the divide about what is acceptable moral issues always seems to follow party lines, more than doctrinal lines. You do not agree. A lot others here are with you.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Thank you!

 

[upant]

VanitasVanitatum


Happy anniversary
Cheers to Jesus

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Issues like immigration, healthcare, helping the poor et al are all serious concerns, but they are not moral concerns. That is, there is no moral choice involved in choosing what actions to take to address them.

As I have said before, there is a moral choice involved in choosing not to address these issues at all. Often the excuse of “prudential judgement” is stretched beyond the limits of believability to excuse ignoring these issues entirely.

 

[Rau]

Often the excuse of “prudential judgement” is stretched beyond the limits of believability to excuse ignoring these issues entirely.

The substance of Ender’s statement is that prudential judgement’s are personally made assessments, usually weighing good and bad effects, rather than anything that can be prescribed in a moral law. He’s right about that, but in my view wrong to regard such matters as not a moral consideration. These are moral evaluations - but without benefit of any objective reference. Hence people of good faith may disagree with neither acting wrongly.

But I agree that the claim of “prudential judgement” can be used as cover to avoid a reasonable conclusion that “does not suit me”.

 

[Ender]

The substance of Ender’s statement is that prudential judgement’s are personally made assessments, usually weighing good and bad effects, rather than anything that can be prescribed in a moral law.

Yes, exactly. My judgment about what is best differs from what other people think. That’s all that is involved in determining what the (perceived) best option will be.

He’s right about that, but in my view wrong to regard such matters as not a moral consideration.

The only moral consideration available is “Will I do what I think is best for everyone, or just for myself?” and while that is surely a moral choice it is not one that can be known solely from the proposal itself.

The only way to morally condemn a person for his position on most political issues is not by condemning the position itself, but by condemning his reason for choosing it. That is, it is the person and not the position that is judged, and that is the judgment we are explicitly forbidden to make.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

he only way to morally condemn a person for his position on most political issues is not by condemning the position itself, but by condemning his reason for choosing it.

In some cases it is quite easy to condemn a position itself. One example is “I choose to do nothing about the problem.” This is a position that is often taken with regard to the plight of refugees. It is not a question of one way of helping them versus another way of helping them. It is a question of whether to help them at all. That is clearly a moral choice.

 

[pnewton]

In know that nothing is equal in gravity to abortion itself, though war might be a close second, by the way. And while I cannot possible agree with legalized abortion, we surely must know by now that rhetoric is of no avail. If one does not understand the reason abortion is legalized in a pluralistic society, then one will never be able to defend the unborn effectively to those who just as ignorantly follow the rhetoric of “choice.”

We have to have statements like the proclamation the President made, and even what Cardinal Burke said, though I still believe specifying names is political. However, I only see these sort or statements as motivation, preaching to the choir, groupthink, self-affirmation, etc., while the “choir” becomes smaller. As we approach fifty years from Roe v. Wade, the most startling revelation is that it has been fifty years. Mutual admiration among those who oppose abortion will not work today any more than it has this last half of a century. Abortion is not to be seen as a lost cause, but it will take a new approach.

 

[Randolph]

We have to have statements like the proclamation the President made, and even what Cardinal Burke said, though I still believe specifying names is political. However, I only see these sort or statements as motivation, preaching to the choir, groupthink, self-affirmation, etc., while the “choir” becomes smaller. As we approach fifty years from Roe v. Wade, the most startling revelation is that it has been fifty years. Mutual admiration among those who oppose abortion will not work today any more than it has this last half of a century. Abortion is not to be seen as a lost cause, but it will take a new approach.

I disagree. Cardinal Burke’s calling out Biden (a self proclaimed practicing Catholic) on his position on abortion—both in public and by name—has to do with him being a public and political leader (a former senator, a former vice-president and a front runner for the democratic nominee for the presidency), and it is a charitable call for Biden to repent his position on abortion.

Taking a public stand against abortion and going on a march is about: to oppose such an intrinsic evil; to defend the innocent unborn life; to bring public attention to it; to work together to fight either in the ballots box and/or in the legislatures; and to bring unity to the cause.

More than 1 million innocent unborn lives are killed in the US because of abortion. The fight against abortion can never be a lost cause. But finding creative ways or reasons not to fight it is.

 

[Ender]

In some cases it is quite easy to condemn a position itself. One example is “I choose to do nothing about the problem.” This is a position that is often taken with regard to the plight of refugees.

How about an example of someone actually saying this? And not a case of someone rejecting one proposal without recommending another. I frankly doubt that anyone anywhere has ever said “Let’s not do anything” with regard to any real problem.

Abortion is not to be seen as a lost cause, but it will take a new approach.

Actually we may be one election away from vacating Roe. If Trump gets to replace RBG there will likely be a majority willing to revisit that decision.

 

[Randolph]

In some cases it is quite easy to condemn a position itself. One example is “I choose to do nothing about the problem.” This is a position that is often taken with regard to the plight of refugees. It is not a question of one way of helping them versus another way of helping them. It is a question of whether to help them at all. That is clearly a moral choice.

The plight of refugees is enormous. We should help them because of our humanity and of the obligation/charity placed upon us from our Catholic faith.

The US has been generous and has helped the refugees. The US accepted around 75,000, or so, refugees (not immigrants) per year in the past 10 years. The help they get from the US government (really the American taxpayers) is significant. They get assistance in housing, foods, healthcare, education and other services. The children go to public schools—which (depending on where they live) costs somewhere in the range of $15,000 to $25,000 per year per child. This is yet to mention the many charities and the many generous/kind individuals that have gone out of their way to help the refugees. Finally, many of these refugees and their children in time become American citizens, and live a normal American life.

Having said all that, as to your question of morality, i disagree. Poor countries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Central America and South America simply don’t have the resources or the ability to take in refugees. It would not be immoral for them to not accept refugees—let alone help them. In this case, it would be correct to place the refugee situation in the prudential judgement category. Prudential judgement is also needed to determine the security risks and the economic risks placed on its citizens/own sovereignty when taking in refugees.

 

[pnewton]

Actually we may be one election away from vacating Roe. If Trump gets to replace RBG there will likely be a majority willing to revisit that decision.

I hope you are right, but having heard the same thing over and over again since Reagan was in office, I see putting all the eggs in the same failed basket as somewhat foolish. Unless there is a change in the 50/50 split on abortion by a change in culture, like, to the point where even the Constitution might be amended, I do not see an end to the legalization of abortion.

On the other hand, since the Clinton era, abortions have gradually declined, now down to half what it was, saving 600,000 babies a year, without reversing Roe v. Wade.