I didn’t compare all sinful acts, I specifically compared abortion with murder of innocents. The former is a subset of the latter within Catholic teaching (an aborted embryo is an innocent person, excepting of course original sin - with discomforting implications, as an aborted embryo is not baptized).
I have strong authorities at the ready,
“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church , paragraph 2270.
"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.’
‘The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.’"
~ Catechism of the Catholic Church , paragraph 2273
If the Pope weighed in and told these bishops to drop the matter, would they acquiesce to the greater authority of the Pope?
Isn’t this exactly what happened in 1960? Non-Catholics questioned whether Candidate Kennedy would be a puppet of the Pope, which Kennedy said he would not be. IIRC, Pope John XXIII weighed in then to say that the Church would not interfere with a president’s civic secular duty, and IIRC that seemed to settle it at the time.
I don’t think it’s accurate to call these folks single-issue voters. Many of them are in fact zero-issue voters. They don’t actually care what any politician does about abortion, only that they say that they’re anti-abortion while they’re doing whatever it is. On the national level, the only actions in the 21st century to actually decrease abortion have all come from Democrats, but it doesn’t matter, because they’re the wrong tribe.
No. Communion can only denied when someone commits a mortal aka cardinal sin. This is a much more serious class of sin than venial sins, which covers everything else you might do wrong. I no longer possess a Catholic Catechism, but to be a mortal sin It requires gravity of the action, knowledge that it is a grave sin, and consent (you cannot sin against your will). It is called mortal because if you die without confession, atonement, and absolution, you’ll go to hell, because you have with your action separated yourself from God.
Abortion is a mortal sin, if you know it is, and still do it. The list of mortal sins is fairly short, but it fluctuates according to cultural mores. Some people believe not attending church on every Sunday is a mortal sin, for example. Heresy, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, have generally been on the list along with murder (abortion would be called murder).
In reality world, virtually no priest withholds communion from anyone who has been received into the Catholic Church. It just is not a thing any more. Parish priests have very little control over their congregations compared to the Olden Days. It is more likely that someone will choose not to receive if they feel they are not right with God.
I’d call it a significant number of them. Any decision along those lines would require a call for a vote, a 2/3rds majority, AND subsequent approval by the pope. Odds are that exactly none of these things will happen. It is a loud right-wing minority that is making all this stink. Familiar?
I don’t think this is it. It’s not that they don’t care, but rather, that beggars can’t be choosers. Their choices are limited to pro-choice Democrats vs. Republicans who are all talk but little action. In fact, it’s very common for pro-lifers to complain that Republican politicians aren’t doing much or anything. They vote R because they have little other choice - the only other option is a Democrat. They’d be thrilled if a politician actually walked the walk instead of merely talking the talk.
As for what you said about Democrats reducing abortion - perhaps, but the way that abortion is reduced matters a big deal to these pro-lifers. People naturally prefer “hard” solutions over “soft” ones. Talk about contraception, increasing affluence, sex ed, etc. strikes these pro-lifers as too pansy (and some object to contraception itself, but that’s a different topic.) They want a hard-fisted, tough, ruthless solution, and that’s banning abortion with force of law. They want the satisfaction of seeing pregnant women wanting abortions but not being able to get them, like how many people would be tickled if they could see would-be illegal immigrants wanting to cross the border but not being able to. (It’s similar to how many people would rather see criminals punished hard than rehabilitated, terrorists bombed rather than talked out of their ways, opponents defeated at the ballot box rather than won over with persuasion, etc.)
But I digress. If this is a thread hijack I won’t go further.
That’s part of it, but not all. Take the Stupak Amendment to the ACA, which was about as strong of a “hard solution” as is possible under current interpretation of the Constitution. It was proposed by a Democrat and passed the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, and only failed to make it into law because of the Republicans in the Senate, who prioritized opposing Democrats on everything over opposing abortion. And none of their base cared.
I wanted to say the same thing. I’ll take this seriously when they take the same stance on tax cuts for the rich, and military spending, even as millions of Americans live in poverty.
Given that the Federal government doesn’t pay for any abortions, there is not much Biden can do. If the Bishops were honest, and not one-issue clerics, they could get on him about contraception. But given that the majority of Catholics ignore the church on this, it would drive even more out of the church. So they’re chicken shit.
JFK was mentioned, and I suspect few remember what a big deal that was. There was still a lot of anti-Catholic bias then, and before then, as Al Smith learned. Forcing a president or a candidate to buckle under to church dogma would give a lot of people an excellent reason to never vote for another Catholic.
The KKK, remember, didn’t just hate Black people.
I’m a former Catholic. That reasoning, while technically correct, would lead to a situation where nobody is eligible for communion. Everyone is a sinner. These bishops are just picking and choosing which sins (and which sinners) they think are worse than others.
Dishonest hypocrites are being dishonest and hypocritical. There are dozens or hundreds of Republicans in office, if not more, who regularly violate Catholic teachings on other critical issues – poverty, the death penalty, and much more, but that doesn’t matter because they hate Democrats.
I don’t think a religious organization can (or should) lose its tax-exempt status for censuring a sinner. Even if that sinner (assuming President Biden is indeed sinning here) holds political office.
Also, the Times is reporting that a draft of the USCCB statement on the Eucharist has been approved. It has not yet been voted on, and won’t be, until (I think) November.
The Archbishop of Washington, Wilton Cardinal Gregory, is the person who would implement this policy, and he’s on record as being opposed to it (i.e., in favor of permitting President Biden to receive Communion).
The Pope is also opposed to the policy of denying Communion to political officials who support legal abortion:
Reportedly, the Pope has had it up to his neck with the right-wing American bishops. I expect him to accept some resignations soon.
So the issue isn’t as cut-and-dried as it might seem.
“…voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”