From what I’ve read, the Catholic church’s doctrine does not clearly or universally oppose abortion as a “last resort” (i.e. when the mother’s life is at risk). So that seems pretty similar to the death penalty.
Your explanation just sounds like bullshit politics talk, in other words. These bishops (the ones trying to get Biden denied communion) are clearly just dishonest hypocrites who openly favor Republicans.
“They” here is not the Vatican, or the Catholic Church. It is a few conservative bishops putting something on the agenda of the USCCB for discussion. I believe they are wrong to do so. But it’s not “the Church.”
Well, no, because other churches don’t have the Eucharist (with a very small number of exceptions). So of course they’re not doing it. That said, the rule that people in a state of mortal sin should not present themselves for, or be given, Communion is not new, or unique to Joseph Biden. It’s pretty basic Catholic teaching.
I’m quite familiar with Catholic teaching on the obligation of the faithful to receive Communion.
Also, are we talking about excommunication here? Cite, please.
The denial of Communion to Catholics in a state of mortal sin is most certainly not “punishment.” It just isn’t. It’s considered corrective and medicinal. Look it up. It is not a punishment.
The Catholic Church endorses the separation of church and state (these days – that wasn’t always true). That does not mean elected officials, or anyone else, are exempt from what the Church considers universal moral teaching. You can’t say that just because someone gets elected to office means all bets are off and the rules don’t apply anymore. That doesn’t even make sense.
I couldn’t agree more. Anyone is indeed allowed to say that. And, of course, the Church is free to disagree.
But the belief in the value of life transcends everything else. If one believes that abortion is the taking of a life, the imposition of death on a human being, one can’t just say “hey, but that’s my religious belief, so I wouldn’t want to impose it on anyone else,” any more than one could say “I think that, say, forced sterilization of the “unfit” is wrong, but that’s just my religious belief, so I won’t try to impose it on anyone.”
I say this perfectly respectfully, but you are wrong. The Church has consistently and clearly taught that abortion is intrinsically evil. It is not the same as the death penalty.
The only exception (and this may be the source of your confusion) is when the termination of pregnancy is an unintended consequence (for example, the removal of an ectopic pregnancy). The principal of double effect is what it’s called in moral theology.
My explanation is most certainly not “bullshit politics talk,” and that is completely uncalled for. It has been a sincere attempt to explain and discuss the position of some Catholic bishops (a position, it seems I must emphasize again, with which I do not agree).
I think that is a distinction that is necessary for a secular nation and to maintain a separation of church and state.
I think they can, and they should. The country that they are representing is not a theocracy, and should not be beholden to the same rules as individual believers.
I don’t think that that analogy follows. The church is not the only source of morals.
Yes, he makes policy for a secular nation, which is exactly why he should not be making policy based on religion.
Expecting them to, sure, that’s fine. Demanding them to on pain of threatening their immortal soul? How is that not extortion?
Again, these are secular positions while governing a secular nation.
They are discussing doing so.
Yes, that is what excommunication is, that is threatening him with damnation.
As I said, the only ones I am at odds with on this are the ones who are condoning this action. I think that you are correct that most American Catholics wouldn’t agree with excommunicating the president over his policy choices for a secular nation.
But it’s not like its a tiny fringe group that is discussing this. These are important and influential people in the church. I don’t think that they will get their way, but just the fact that they are trying to sends a chilling effect for any office holder who may be within their jurisdictions.
Is that what’s being proposed? Cite, please.
Cite, please.
Of course it isn’t. I believe that I said above that I would hope that anyone, including atheists, would not wall off their moral beliefs from their conduct as an officeholder.
So that the church is the only source of morals is not a claim that I’ve made.
I would hope that also, but Republicans repeatedly and emphatically state that judges, at least, should wall off their moral beliefs from their conduct as officeholders.
It’s a little more complicated than that. The Church permits procedures which have as their purpose saving the life of the mother, even if that has the unfortunate side effect of causing the death of the fetus. It does not permit procedures which have as their purpose causing the death of the fetus. It may be difficult to see the distinction between these two cases. It may even be impossible for anyone other than the person undergoing the procedure to tell the difference (since it depends on intent). But there is a difference, and the Church regards it as important.
Yes,I do believe that the “they” has been limited to those who are advocating for this position. You don’t need to keep pointing out that there are others who feel otherwise.
“Not all Catholics” as it were.
Ummm, I’m not sure how you mean. I’m sure that there are some christian churches who do not celebrate communion, but the vast majority do.
But it is entirely this, that these Bishops are declaring him to be in a state of mortal sin for his positions as a leader of a secular nation that is being objected to.
Yes, that is what it means.
What do you think that they are talking about?
Yeah, many abusers claim that their acts are in the victim’s best interest as well.
That’s not what anyone has said. What has been said is that in order to be a secular office holder, one should do what is in the best interests of their constituents, even those who do not follow the same religion.
We are not a theocracy, so office holders should not subject their constituents to theocratic rule.
Yes, they are. And we are free to say that they are using their position to try to extort public officials into instituting theocratic rule when they do so.
Yes, but just because you believe something doesn’t mean that you can impose your beliefs on others.
If there is a secular argument to be made against abortion, then one is free to make it. If the only argument that one has is based on religion, then others should not be bound by it.
The Catholic Church says abortion is a sin. We have freedom of Religion and it’s fine if they think that. I don’t agree with them. Jewish People have Kosher laws that i don’t agree with.
I would not a expect a Jewish President to ban eating pork, just as i don’t expect a Catholic president to ban abortions or pre-marital sex, or a host of other issues.
While we have freedom of religion, we also have the separation of Church and State.
My take on this is some ultra conservative Bishops are trying to make a point.
Many of these points have probably been already made
As a former Catholic myself, couldn’t Biden just go to Confession, be absolved of his sin of supporting abortion rights and receive the Eucharist? If i recall correctly, Confession is sorta of unlimited “get out of jail” card. You could confess to the same thing every week and you’d be fine.
My cite would be that they are threatening to refuse to allow him to take communion.
Taking communion is a necessary part of maintaining one’s relationship with god. Being denied communion means that you are existing outside of that relationship, your soul is no longer a part of the community.
What do you think the point of having communion is in the first place? Why do you think being refused it matters?
If you don’t think that being refused communion is a big deal, why do you think that these bishops are making such a big deal out of it?
My understanding is that to be forgiven, one must be repentant.
You can’t confess to a sin and be absolved of it while you are still committing the sin.
And unless Biden caves and starts implanting policy based on the Catholic church’s doctrine, these bishops will continue to insist that he is still in a state of sin.
This probably isn’t the forum in which to discuss the difference between Protestant churches, which for the most part consider communion to be merely the eating of bread and the drinking of wine to commemorate the Last Supper, and the Catholic Church (including all the uniate churches) and the Orthodox churches, which teach the Real Presence, the actual, physical presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.
It is (to Christians) a huge difference. It is incredibly important.
OK. I get what you’re saying. I disagree with those bishops when it comes to denying Biden Communion. I can’t speak to the state of his soul, and I don’t think those bishops can, either.
For Pete’s sake, who is saying that we should? I know I’m not. Some bishops are saying that an elected official is acting in that role in a manner inconsistent with Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church is not proposing theocratic rule
You are, of course, free to say that. You’re wrong, but you’re free to say it.
The Church does make the secular case, or at least tries to make it. We can differ as to how successfully they make it. Personally, I don’t think the Church makes a compelling case for legally banning abortion. But they do present secular arguments. We can debate the persuasiveness of those arguments, but they are being made.
But should I abandon the (actually quite considerable) work I’ve done in opposition to the death penalty, my efforts (as trivial as they may be in the scheme of things) to get the richest nation in the world to provide health care to everyone, my belief in the dignity of labor and the right of workers to organize, because they’re religiously derived? Should I stop the autopay on my credit card to Pax Christi because its principles are based on Catholic teaching?
Really? I think I’m going to have to bow out here. The idea that a few conservative bishops are “abusing” the president of the United States, who is their “victim,” is ridiculous.
No, it doesn’t mean that at all.
Look, I was having a really interesting conversation with you. But this is just straw-manning.
I’m sorry, it isn’t working anymore.
You’re forgetting the “firm purpose of amendment” part.
The Sacrament of Reconciliation isn’t just a “get out of jail free” card. Absolution is (usually) dependent on a consciousness of wrongdoing and the resolution to correct the sinful behavior.
Also, for all we know, Biden is going to confession every week, and has been absolved of his sin (assuming he is sinning here, which would be an assumption I don’t make).
I’m sure you’re doing your best. But the conservative portion of American Catholic bishops are (for the most part, anyway, based on their actions for the last few decades) awful, disgusting people with a history of awful, disgusting behavior, and it’s going to take more than sincerity from a bystander to help me even consider the possibility that they’re not just continuing their awful and dishonest hypocrisy.
I am not a Catholic Theologian, so i’m not going to attempt to debate the Theology surrounding Confession, but my Catholic High School experience was “I have sinned, i masterbated”…“ok well say 3 Hail Mary’s and dont do it again” Next week… “I have sinned, I masterbated”…“ok well say three Hail Mary’s and don’t do it again” and so forth.
In religion class, the obligatory “what if Hitler confessed on his death bed? Does he get to go to Heaven?” question would be asked. The teacher would groan and say yes.
And I don’t think this unique to Catholics, but very few people actual follow all the religious laws the ostensibly believe in.
If every Catholic that had pre marital sex or masterbated and didn’t “really” ever repent could not receive the Communion, Churches would be empty on Sunday.
And communion is very important in most denominations. I’ll agree that a debate about transubstantiation doesn’t really fit here, but I don’t think that we need one. Being denied communion in any church is a pretty big deal.
As do I, which is my entire point in this dicussion.
No, but they do claim to. They claim that he is in a state of sin, and therefore cannot receive communion.
My point here is that I do not believe that they are actually doing so for reasons of faith, but for political reasons, to try to force a political office holder to act according to their religious tenets.
I think that these bishops are.
By the way that he is executing his office over a secular nation.
The Church, no. The Pope’s statements make that clear to me. These bishops, however, I do believe are trying to impose their theocracy on our secular nation through their withholding of the sacrament to Biden.
You can assert that I am wrong, but I think that I’ve made a pretty good argument as to why withholding religious rights in order to get a political official to set police based on their beliefs is exactly that.
You may disagree, and that’s fine, but I don’t think that you’ve made a compelling argument with this assertion.
And that’s fine, they can make those arguments.
However, this is not them making an argument, this is them demanding that the president act in a certain fashion in his execution of the office or be maybe not excommunicated, but certainly interdicted.
That’s not making a case, that’s making a threat.
No, I never said anything like that. You can derive your morals from a religious standpoint if that is where you find them. That’s not what is going on here, and is irrelevant to anything that I have said.
I think that it is ridiculous that they are doing so, but I don’t think that the facts support the idea that saying that they are doing so is ridiculous.
Then what is the reason for doing so?
I apologize, I truly am trying to have this discussion in good faith, and if I’ve mistepped, then I am willing to try to find out why. I think that your comment about your work on the death penalty was well into straw territory, but I have no need to abandon this discussion simply because you misunderstood where I was coming from and responded to something that I did not say.
Bottom line, they are using (abusing IMO) their power to try to influence the execution of a secular office to be in line with their religious beliefs. I don’t think that anything that you have said here has disabused me of this notion.
Be a bit different if you were masturbating on your way to the alter to receive Communion.
For judges it makes sense, because Republicans (or at least myself) do not think judges should be policymakers.
~Max