Pope congratulates Biden

  • Thread starter Thread starter TepeyacTraveler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TMC said:
Yes, Trump is nominally in favor of more abortion restrictions than Biden, but neither supports the Church’s position on the topic, and neither has the power to change the country’s laws on the matter.
Click to expand...
Guess those 3 Supreme Court Justice nominations weren’t that important after all.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Guess those 3 Supreme Court Justice nominations weren’t that important after all.
Click to expand...
Oh, did they overturn Roe v Wade while I wasn’t paying attention? No, and they won’t. Remember Trump saying that Barret was not nominated to overturn Roe? I do. Remember Gorsuch and Kavanaugh referring to Roe as important precedent? I do. They are important nominations, no question, but RvW is not at risk -that is a fund raising ploy used by both parties.
 
It’s frankly getting a bit odd that this is now becoming some kind of conspiracy theory involving McCarrick in your mind.

I never thought I’d be agreeing with FrankFletcher on anything, but he and I are on the same page here, maybe take a step back from this issue.
 
Last edited:
TMC said:
Name calling may be satisfying, but it is rarely a convincing argument.
Click to expand...
I didn’t call you a name. I said the statement was a lie, whether from you or from another source.
TMC said:
Let’s see how the US- Vatican relationship works out over the next few years. It has been decidedly chilly the last few years.
Click to expand...
That’s your opinion, and I respect that. I have my own.
 
TMC said:
We will both see what happens.
Click to expand...
Let’s hope it’s to the benefit of the unborn as well as other groups, whatever it may be. If it results in people killing babies in the womb easier, it can’t be called any sort of success.
 
TMC said:
Oh, did they overturn Roe v Wade while I wasn’t paying attention? No, and they won’t.
Click to expand...
It’s remarkable how people know exactly what the Court is going to do. SCOTUSBlog doesn’t even have that kind of ability.

If there wasn’t a significant risk of them curtailing abortion rights, you would not have seen the Dianne Feinsteins of the world raising such a fuss about perfectly competent, indeed renowned, appellate judges being elevated to the High Court.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
If there wasn’t a significant risk of them curtailing abortion rights, you would not have seen the Dianne Feinsteins of the world raising such a fuss about perfectly competent, indeed renowned, appellate judges being elevated to the High Court.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. All of their claws came out.
 
Raxus said:
Would a statement from Pope Francis to the effect of “I congratulate Mr. Biden on his Presidency and hope that he holds fast to the Catholic faith that he talks about so often, fighting the fight for the destitute, the lonely, and the unborn” really be too much to hope for, if not to ask?
Click to expand...
I was always of the mind, especially when I was in management, that one criticizes a subordinate privately, but praises him or her publicly.

I would expect the holy father, in observing the Golden Rule, would do the same with members of his flock. If anyone knows what public criticism feels like, it’s Pope Francis.

Pope Francis is not Mr. Biden’s political opponent. He is Mr. Biden’s shepherd. Political opponents go for the jugular. Shepherds gently coax along.
 
OraLabora said:
I was always of the mind, especially when I was in management, that one criticizes a subordinate privately, but praises him or her publicly.

I would expect the holy father, in observing the Golden Rule, would do the same with members of his flock. If anyone knows what public criticism feels like, it’s Pope Francis.

Pope Francis is not Mr. Biden’s political opponent. He is Mr. Biden’s shepherd. Political opponents go for the jugular. Shepherds gently coax along.
Click to expand...
I suppose so, and it’s worth remembering. I do hope, if Biden doesn’t respond to whatever private criticism he may or not receive, that Pope Francis says something. Otherwise, I don’t see much point in saying anything to anyone about it anymore either. All someone would have to do is point at Pope Francis and say “Your highest Church leader looks cool with it, so what ground do YOU have?”

Pope Francis is MY shepherd too, and I’m feeling a little lost out in the pasture at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Raxus said:
All someone would have to do is point at Pope Francis and say “Your highest Church leader looks cool with it, so what ground do YOU have?”
Click to expand...
Encountered this myself in more than one instance.
 
Possibly a little off-topic, but it’s not Pope Francis keeping me believing in the truth of the Church at the moment. If it weren’t for my Mom and her faith in the Church, and a few things that God has personally done for me, I think I’d have ducked all the way out by now.

In any event, I hope the Presidency doesn’t harm us too much. I think I’ll duck out of this thread, as it’s become surprisingly depressing to me. Clearly, I’ve got a bit to mentally unpack.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
It’s frankly getting a bit odd that this is now becoming some kind of conspiracy theory involving McCarrick in your mind.
Click to expand...
I beg your pardon?

McCarrick was literally chairman of the committee.

The vatican letter is public record.

McCarrick’s misrepresentation of that letter to the USCCB is also public record.

These facts are undisputed. Calling someone conspiratorial for being aware of them is bizarre.

If you’re unfamiliar with the facts, I posted a sample article that touches on some of them (from CatholicCulture.com, unless you consider that a conspiracy site. The same facts have been discussed as public record on CatholicNewsAgency.com and other sources for years though, too). Again, the facts are undisputed. Are you just not aware of them?

Emphases in the following are (hopefully obviously) mine.

Excerpt from the vatican letter from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, that McCarrick was supposed to deliver to the USCCB:
“… 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… When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion ➡️ must ⬅️ refuse to distribute it”… This decision, properly speaking, is not… passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”
Click to expand...
In contrast, here’s an excerpt of how McCarrick misrepresented to the USCCB what the letter said (edited only for space):
“… Cardinal Ratzinger speaks about what constitutes “manifest grave sin” and “obstinate persistence” in public life, stating that consistently campaigning for and voting for permissive laws on abortion and euthanasia could meet these criteria… He also indicates that in these cases a warning must be provided before the Eucharist can be denied. I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders whether to pursue this path. The Holy See has repeatedly expressed its confidence in our roles as bishops and pastors. The question for us is not simply whether denial of Communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent. It is not surprising that difficult and differing circumstances on these matters can lead to different practices. Every bishop is acting in accord with his own understanding of his duties and the law… Therefore… our Task Force does not advocate the denial of Communion for Catholic politicians…”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OraLabora said:
I was always of the mind, especially when I was in management, that one criticizes a subordinate privately, but praises him or her publicly.
I would expect the holy father, in observing the Golden Rule, would do the same with members of his flock. If anyone knows what public criticism feels like, it’s Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Pope Francis has no obligation to share publicly whatever he may say privately, to Joe Biden or to anyone else. Those who decide to be upset about that are going to have a very long four years.
 
That particular issue can be seen in two ways. Is is exactly what the Church teaches? Or is it close, and even allowable to for the sake of prudence? My own opinion is that the statement was accurate, taking a narrow view, but does not convey the big picture in which the current president did a lot to oppose abortion.
 
pnewton said:
My own opinion is that the statement was accurate, taking a narrow view, but does not convey the big picture in which the current president did a lot to oppose abortion.
Click to expand...
Possibly, looking at it a little more closely. When you have to have a magnifying glass to see the technicality, I’m not sure how much it matters, though. @TMC, I’ll alter my statement a bit for clarity and fairness.
 
You can’t be a baby killer and be in good standing with anyone
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top