Catholic Bishops can suck my ass

He was eligible to run for the U.S. Senate, where he could have had impact on federal legislation. Why would only potential presidents be subject to this?

Note that they haven’t mentioned the hundreds of dead native kids in Catholic-run boarding schools in Canada.

They were already born, so why would they care about them?

It’s only the unborn that they give a shit about. Once you push your head out into the light, fuck you.

(or you know literally fuck them. Being a president and not basing policy that people who don’t follow your religion will be subject to on church doctrine is bad. Fucking children that are left in your care as a trusted authority figure is just fine.)

No True Scotsman, eh? He’s been a party member since 1968.

Eh. I can see something in what he’s saying. Sure, he’s actually a Republican, but he’s also anti-Trump, pro-choice, pro-vax and pro-mask, pro-science, and so on.

So the current Republican party would probably consider him more of a “RINO”—just like they do other longtime Republicans.

And it has commonly been said that Biden has more in common with the more moderate Republicans of yore. I used to agree, going by his campaign, but I think he’s taken a decently large step leftward since getting in office.

Just like my dad!

In the era when Schwarzenegger was governor (when it would have made sense for the church to criticise his pro-abortion-rights stance), it wasn’t a deal-breaker for a Republican to be pro-choice or pro-science (and Trump, vax and mask weren’t issues). Conservatives disowned Arnold when the affair with the maid became public.

I’m not sure what’s being implied here, but Schwarzenegger has spoken, movingly, about his experiences growing up surrounded by war criminals and how he knows that things like racism and attempted coups are no joke. Governor Schwarzenegger's Message Following this Week's Attack on the Capitol - YouTube

It seems that abortion reached its peak as an issue in the early 80s and has been declining in importance since. I don’t see how it would have been less relevant to Republicans in 2003 than 2021.

It’s called a joke, lighten up Francis.

Any tax-exempt organization should, in my opinion, not be allowed to take any political action. This would include endorsing candidates as well as supporting or opposing any proposed legislation. If you don’t pay taxes to the government, you have no business interfering with how it works.

Or threatening office holders with religious sanction for not ruling according to religious doctrine.

Exactly. Elected officials should be free to act according to the will of those who elected them. This would include acting against their own personal beliefs.

My point was that Arnold’s pro-choice stance would have been more impactful when he was still in politics than before or after. And therefore more likely to draw the chuch’s ire. I can’t remember the RC church ever denying communion to a private citizen for expressing pro-choice opinions.

And I would strongly disagree with the part I’ve bolded. Evangelical and Roman Catholic support was critical to Trump’s 2016 victory (and to many Trump voters in 2020) and he wouldn’t have clinched it without his promises to appoint anti-abortion-rights judges.

IMO the conservative faction among the bishops is opportunistically using the President’s case to build a literal bully pulpit, to signal to the people in the pews and the lower ranks in the clergy to not question or challenge their authority or advocate any liberalizing within the institution. “If we can do this to the President, you better sit up straight and behave.”

It also is a way of signaling to the Church’s own social conservatives, hey, we’ve your back. In US Catholicism post-Vat-II there has always been an unexpectedly large and intense hardline-conservative faction ( I remember back in 2005 some commenters at EWTN --the Catholic religious cable channel-- were gleeful about the election of Pope Benedict, literally going “oh yeah, watch out Cafeteria Catholics!”) that we know have not been happy with Pope Francis (though he has done nothing to change anything doctrinally). Add to that the rising number of Latino Catholics who are greatly cultural traditionalists. Think of how these are the groups that attend most and contribute most. These bishops want them to stay in and stay disciplined.

But is this really a good way to signal this?

Trying to revive the threat of “interdict” against national leaders would be almost quaint if it did not come at a time when we are seeing U.S. Evangelicalism taken over by factions that define being a good Christian as requiring being a social/political Right Winger first. The bishops are playing with fire that might light up their own pews.

I’m just curious how Bishops can excommunicate someone without an ecclesiastical trial or violating the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

God spoke to 'em.

I find your lack of faith…disturbing.

Au contraire-- doubt is critical to growth and mature thinking.

Recoveringed RCC here. While I can respect the principle of “their club, their rules,” some small corner of my psyche wants to see President Biden show up in a parish where the pastor goes along with the bishops’ recommendation one Sunday, and he’s wearing a fake Groucho Marx glasses-and-moustache disguise when he gets in line for the Eucharist.

Nah, better to wait ten or twelve years…