Pope congratulates Biden

  • Thread starter Thread starter TepeyacTraveler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are plenty of people engaging in this thread. Why do you assume I’m interested in discussing your points? My original post here wasn’t even directed to you.
 
However, do not many people, apart from politicians, make resolutions not to sin again, whatever the sin, and, willfully or not, break those resolutions so that they need to go to confession again, perhaps numerous times, for the same sin? In other words, judge not…you know the rest, I believe.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
However, do not many people, apart from politicians, make resolutions not to sin again, whatever the sin, and, willfully or not, break those resolutions so that they need to go to confession again, perhaps numerous times, for the same sin? In other words, judge not…you know the rest, I believe.
Click to expand...
If I may, the point isn’t to “judge” them, and it’s not because there’s something magical about the phonemes ‘paw-lee-tish-uhns’.

The point (that applies to politicians under certain circumstances, but isn’t restricted to them) is about manifest grave sin, persisted in without manifest repentance. That is, it’s about the public nature of it.

You (probably) and I (most definitely) may sin repeatedly, confess and resolve not to again, then sin again anyway, confess and repent, etc.

But that’s
  1. Private (hidden from the sight of others so it at least doesn’t set a bad example for others);
and
  1. Even those who know us closely enough to know our private sins, will presumably also know us closely enough to know we’re constantly confessing and repenting of them, too.
This is a categorically different situation from a public figure who seeks out the public spotlight and publicly performs grave sin there, persistently, without ever giving a hint that there might be intermittent repentance going on. A politician who persistently and publicly pushes to expand abortion, might be no more privately sinful than you and I are when we commit the sin of indulging in anger (for example) – but the public nature of his or her persistent sin, publicly committed and never publicly repented of, has larger ripple effects, and the scandalous nature of the laity seeing no public sign of rebuke or correction from Church hierarchy, is a catechetical counter-example (it teaches people through example to do the wrong things, or at least to consider that wrong things might actually be okay) discouraging to the hearts of many laypeople.

In the words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger before he became pope (emphases mine, and edited down for space):
"Regarding the grave sin of abortion… 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… 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...
 
Last edited:
MNathaniel said:
understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion… laws)
Click to expand...
I was curious about this phrase. It is in quotes, yet had parentheses? I looked it up and it is part (and only part) of a leaked memo to Cardinal McCarrick. Take that for what its worth.

Now how does this apply to Joe Biden? I looked up his voting record. Understand he has not been in Congress for eleven years, so we have to go back. His record does not match the definition of consistently voting for permissive abortion. The only bill he sponsored with abortion in it was the Indian Health Care bill which passed 83-10. I am not saying he is right on his view of how legal abortion should be, only that his voting record is not consistent, that is nuanced.

To my knowledge he has never actually killed a baby.
 
pnewton said:
To my knowledge he has never actually killed a baby.
Click to expand...
This is a tightrope. Do you mean that Joe Biden physically, with his bare hands, has never killed a baby? I certainly hope that’s the case. I don’t believe anyone is upset at Joe Biden for physically killing a baby with his own bare hands.

Now a couple things popped into my mind. The first was that, to me, this seems like an example of a Sin of Omission. “A sin of omission is a sin committed because of neglecting to do what is right. They are good works left undone. Works that God expects us to do, but we don’t do them.” https://cdn.website-editor.net/aa054753432a4a38853650904850f3d9/files/uploaded/SinsOfOmission.pdf

It says in James 4:17 “therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.” This is the issue people are having with Joe Biden.

If I walk outside and see an elderly person getting beat up by a couple teenagers I believe I have a moral obligation to intervene. I am free to walk straight by of course, but this would be a Sin of Omission. If I walk by and the elderly person is beaten to death, I certainly didn’t physically kill them with my bare hands. However, I had the opportunity, Catholic moral obligation, to intervene which is what I believe Jesus would ask me to do as his follower.
 
Last edited:
TepeyacTraveler said:
This is the issue people are having with Joe Biden.
Click to expand...
FYI, I have the same issues, though I understand also that the law of the gradual, that which is politically possible might apply. I do not know. I know if I could vote for a bill that ended all abortion except for the case of incest and rape, but funded those exceptions, I would vote for it in a heartbeat, even though provides funding to abortion. I know that is an extreme example.

We shall see what the future holds for Biden’s return to the White House, this time with actual power. In any case, I will join the Pope and others in congratulating him and supporting him, as I did his predecessor.
 
Peebo said:
Wow, and all these negative posts because 'Pope congratulates Biden", what a bunch of holier than thou hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Following the teachings of Jesus Christ is now holier than thou? Truth is truth. I don’t think anyone here is saying they are without fault. I most certainly am not.
 
Golly that is just how Trump has been crucified for the last four years!!!
 
MNathaniel said:
"Regarding the grave sin of abortion… 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… 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...
My understanding is that this admonition is supposed to happen privately. I don’t know that any of us know that this has taken place. And I’m now wondering if those from other dioceses who refused him Holy Communion were even in the know about whether such a private conversation had taken place.
Click to expand...
 
Heavy load? Sure. All presidents have that. Crucified? Heavens no. Christ was crucified and I really hope we can see the difference there. Sometimes hyperbole just doesn’t work.
 
pnewton said:
I was curious about this phrase. It is in quotes, yet had parentheses? I looked it up and it is part (and only part) of a leaked memo to Cardinal McCarrick. Take that for what its worth.
Click to expand...
Yes, as mentioned further upthread, the heavy excerpting is because of space limitations here. But correct, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s words are from a letter written in his then-capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and were written to advise the USCCB at their annual 2004 meeting. McCarrick was chairman of a committee the USCCB had formed to address the question of communion for those in political life, and McCarrick’s committee reached out to the Vatican for advice – so when the Vatican’s advice came back, it had to pass through McCarrick. McCarrick apparently falsely claimed that Ratzinger requested the letter be kept confidential, and he chose to ‘interpret’ it for the USCCB instead of sharing its actual full text. His interpretation (public record) can be compared to the original letter (also public record) and seems clearly to misrepresent it.

In this letter, Ratzinger wrote of pastors’ obligation to deny communion to politicians who persistently and publicly push for permissive abortion [and euthanasia] laws, if private warnings go unheeded or are not possible. He emphasized that abortion and euthanasia are areas where there is no room for a difference of opinion, distinguishing these from other contentious issues like just war or capital punishment (for disagreements over which communion should not be withheld).

McCarrick failed to provide his committee or the USCCB with the actual text of the letter from the vatican, and instead twisted it into his own words, claiming that the vatican left it open for the bishops to choose for themselves whether or not to deny communion. McCarrick emphasized his own recommendation that the USCCB should not require denying communion to pro-abortion politicians, but should leave such decisions up to individual bishops. There was subsequently a vote that reflected the recommendation McCarrick made.

More specific 2004 text from the respective men here (though McCarrick’s at least still seems excerpted):


Briefer overview of situation as of 2020:

 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Now how does this apply to Joe Biden?.. To my knowledge he has never actually killed a baby.
Click to expand...
The point with politicians is that they set policy. They get balls rolling, and then for as long as that ball rolls, they are participating in its outcome (unless they explicitly denounce and repent of it and seek to publicly separate themselves from continuing to support it). They also use their rhetoric to persuade populations to support the policies they promote, building up ever more momentum and continuous action behind their policy positions. Political actions are not time-bound. They are levers pulled that start processes moving, and the politician owns the ongoing process, not just the pulling of the lever (at least until they pull the lever the other way again, or at least publicly state that they wish they hadn’t pulled the lever, even if now they’re unable to physically pull the lever back). The following are some direct quotes from Joe Biden, which to my knowledge he has never walked back and intends for us to consider his ongoing and persistent public position:
“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.”
Click to expand...
“I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court–I’m not going to interfere with that.”
Click to expand...
“I strongly support Roe v. Wade… I would make sure that the people I sent to be nominated for the Supreme Court shared my values; and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution. That’s why I led the fight to defeat Bork, Roberts Alito, and Thomas.”
Click to expand...
“I was part of the reason why Elena Kagan got onto the Supreme Court. I was part of the reason why Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on the Court. I was part of the reason why Sotomayor is on the Court. I’m the reason this right wasn’t taken away because I almost single handedly made sure that Robert Bork did not get on the Court because he did not think there should be enumerated rights. Litmus test on abortion relates to the fundamental value of the Constitution. A woman does have a right to choose.”
Click to expand...
There’s more but I’m tired of quoting. My point is: a politician implicitly persists in the political platforms they campaign on, and the policies they promote, until they publicly change course. It’s not enough for a person to privately have a change of heart – but never update their public-facing website to reflect this. To quietly confess to a priest – then publicly get back on the road and try to passionately put more momentum behind the cause of promoting the evil they just theoretically confessed for promoting.
 
Last edited:
I was going off the definition in the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, pointing out that based on that quote, it is questionable that it applies. Joe Biden, as a Senator, did not consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion. He was inconsistent in his vote. Based on the quote, it is not only campaigning that constitutes formal cooperation, but campaigning and voting.

Furthermore, belief that abortion is a constitutional right is probably correct in the sense that it has, as a matter of fact, right or wrong, been called a constitutional right by the authority to define what is a constitutional right.

I will hold off judgement until I see what Biden actually does as president, which I am more than willing to jump in and criticize, when he does something contrary to Catholic teaching.
 
pnewton said:
I was going off the definition in the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, pointing out that based on that quote, it is questionable that it applies. Joe Biden, as a Senator, did not consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion. He was inconsistent in his vote. Based on the quote, it is not only campaigning that constitutes formal cooperation, but campaigning and voting.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, what kind of vote are you thinking of, and how are you defining ‘consistent’? Is it your line of thinking that only a person at the most extreme fringe of voting for every possible form of abortion/euthanasisa, counts as consistently voting in favour of at least some version of them, rather than abstaining or voting against them? What I mean is, do you think Biden’s historical opposition to partial-birth abortion means it doesn’t count that he consistently seems to support abortion within the first 3 months?

It honestly seems to me like what matters is that there be consistent promotion of at least one form of abortion. It doesn’t seem to me like consistently pushing to expand abortion access within the first 3 months, is made less consistent just because that same person doesn’t also support partial-birth abortion.

And from the sound of it, Biden at least wants to present himself as having voted consistently with regards to the kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants appointed (those who will reinforce, instead of critique, Roe v. Wade). And he’s even talked about wanting new laws that more firmly and explicitly solidify abortion as a specific right.

Anyway. What will it really do to talk about online here.

As you say, we can only wait and see what he actually does now. I do personally hope that he’s Trojan Horse’d himself into the white house (whether consciously or whether God’s about to flip him) and will end up doing amazing and good things.

Just keeping eyes open and really hoping that the Church hierarchy is ready to start being more clear, unified, and decisive than they have been in recent history, if the most powerful politician in the world starts publicly claiming that Catholicism and pro-abortion advocacy are compatible.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Furthermore, belief that abortion is a constitutional right is probably correct in the sense that it has, as a matter of fact, right or wrong, been called a constitutional right by the authority to define what is a constitutional right.
Click to expand...
Legally that’s not correct. The Court has recognized a right to privacy that allows a woman to make her own medical decisions, including the right to choose to have an abortion. It basically means the law won’t stand in the way of her making that choice, for example by making abortion a crime.
This is different from having an affirmative right to an abortion.

First of all, finding privacy rights under the Due Process Clause is legally pretty weak.
Second of all, if there was an actual “right to an abortion” then governments would have to provide everybody who wanted one with the means and ability to get one. We have, for example, the right to vote, so government needs to provide ample polling places, mail-in ballots, voting days, whatever is needed to make sure people can reasonably vote. However, the government has no duty to provide an abortion clinic in every town so people can exercise their “right to an abortion.” Indeed, there are areas where there aren’t any such clinics for miles and miles around, making it very impractical for women there to have abortions.

I would never concede any sort of Constitutional “right to an abortion” without a Constitutional amendment stating it in plain language. And that’s highly unlikely to happen due to the difficulty of amending the Constitution even for things that are much less controversial than abortions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top