“Places himself . . . outside of Church teaching”: Biden Denied Communion In South Carolina

Rough patch for Joe Biden. For a month, Biden has had to deal with continued gaffes, Hunter Biden’s dubious dealings with corrupt Ukrainians, and a distinct lack of enthusiasm among Democratic voters. Now he has been declared persona non grata by his church. On Sunday, Father Robert E. Morey of Saint Anthony Catholic Church refused communion to Biden over his stance on abortion. He declared that his support for abortion “places himself . . . outside of Church teaching.” With all due respect to Father Morey, I feel that he was wrong to deny Holy Communion. As someone raised Catholic and attended Catholic schools, I do not see why Biden’s political stance puts him outside of the sacraments. Biden has long said that he personally opposed abortion but that he believes every person should have the right to decide that question for herself. Unless that stance has changed, I fail to see why Biden should be turned away in this fashion at the altar.

Father Morey announced that “Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden. Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching.”

The problem is that Biden is not advocating for abortion. He opposes abortion. He is advocating for the right of every individual to make this decision in light of their own religious and personal values.

The reaction of the Biden campaign was interesting: silence. This is a problem for Biden who is trying to rally blue collar workers and the middle class. Not being able to receive communion could create another drag on his already less-than-enthusiastic base.

While he has been credited with opening up the Church and liberalizing some rules, Pope Francis recently reaffirmed that abortion under any circumstances, even for a sick or disabled fetus, is a sin.

222 thoughts on ““Places himself . . . outside of Church teaching”: Biden Denied Communion In South Carolina”

  1. Round here we like to know which girls is getting pregnant. So we dont like abortion. It makes it hard to tell who ain’t actin tight.

    1. Planned Barrenhood is laying off their Hannibal limb cutting, head sucking staff.

      Apparently Americans are having less babies and that means less “choice” babies to decapitate

      Might you offer yourself as a sacrificial lamb to help their revenue slough, or is that too religious for your Inca tastes?

  2. There are laws and then there is a corruption of laws


    To the Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life

    71. It is therefore urgently necessary, for the future of society and the development of a sound democracy, to rediscover those essential and innate human and moral values which flow from the very truth of the human being and express and safeguard the dignity of the person: values which no individual, no majority and no State can ever create, modify or destroy, but must only acknowledge, respect and promote.

    Consequently there is a need to recover the basic elements of a vision of the relationship between civil law and moral law, which are put forward by the Church, but which are also part of the patrimony of the great juridical traditions of humanity.

    Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But “in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence”, which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way” (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.

    In the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, John XXIII pointed out that “it is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority’. Thus any government which refused to recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force”.

    72. The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII’s Encyclical: “Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience…; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse”. This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that “human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence”. And again: “Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law”.


  3. While preparing breakfast this morning at home we listened to the Lectionary of the Day in the Catholic Church Calendar. We had a discussion as to whom Christ was referencing in the following Gospel reading.
    I stated without hesitation: Joseph Biden.

    Wednesday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time
    Lectionary: 481

    Gospel of Saint Luke 13:22-30

    Jesus passed through towns and villages,
    teaching as he went and making his way to Jerusalem.
    Someone asked him,
    “Lord, will only a few people be saved?”
    He answered them,
    “Strive to enter through the narrow gate,
    for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter
    but will not be strong enough.
    After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door,
    then will you stand outside knocking and saying,
    ‘Lord, open the door for us.’
    He will say to you in reply,
    ‘I do not know where you are from.’
    And you will say,
    ‘We ate and drank in your company and you taught in our streets.’
    Then he will say to you,
    ‘I do not know where you are from.
    Depart from me, all you evildoers!’
    And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth
    when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
    and all the prophets in the Kingdom of God
    and you yourselves cast out.
    And people will come from the east and the west
    and from the north and the south
    and will recline at table in the Kingdom of God.
    For behold, some are last who will be first,
    and some are first who will be last.”


    1. Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles

      Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
      Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
      The Vatican

      1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

      2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

      3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

      4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

      5. 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.

      6. 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” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion 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.

      [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]


      1. Nothing wrong with that. It’s perfectly fair. Don’t like it, don’t be Catholic. Years ago I knew an Episcopal priest who refused communion to a parishioner who had gotten divorced, and then civilly remarried without dispensation from the Bishop. She was told ahead of time, but went up to the rail anyway, then made a great show of tears as she left.

        1. If you stand for nothing you stand for everything.
          The leaders of the Catholic Church are as flawed as the rest of us. Pope Francis stated as such in the first interview he provided to the global Jesuit publications when he stated “I am sinner”.

          How many of us say that today?

          cf. Hillary’s reaction to losing the 2016 election, Trump’s online behaviors, Pelosi, Schiff, Joe Biden, liberal media, and on and on and on

          We are a dreadful, malignant culture slaves to appetites (pride, wrath, sloth, gluttony) with keyboards and WiFi accesible making believe we are omnipotent and omniscient.

          Pope Francis offers us another way

          A Big Heart Open to God: An interview with Pope Francis

  4. Regardless of politics, who is sad that Katie Hill resigned over some nude photos? ::raise your hand::

    She should have said, “yes, that was me, so what?”


    1. Let me correct myself:

      Exception being getting involved with her staffer, which was unethical and wrong.

      But her smoking weed, or having threesomes…dont really care.

      1. Or if we want to be very straight shooter, one could say federally,weed is illegal and therefore, she also violated federal law.

        Although we all know the way the country is going on that one…just a matter of time…

        As a non smoker, makes no difference to me.

        The smell is horrible though. Makes my stomach knotted….to those of us in legal states.

        Or I’m just a square, which I’ve been called many times over.

          1. I wish I knew what that meant. Lol. I only drink wine, sulfite free wine.

            I’m allergic to some of the regular, I get that red rash, and the itchy skin.

            And I won’t touch weed. I have a roommate who smokes, wish I could flush their goods. The smell gives me knots in my stomach.


    2. mespo727272 would you, please, explain which game you are referring to, and what partisan politics have to do in this conversation? In the USA Constitution it is established that the State is separated from the Church. So Canons have nothing to do with Congressional decisions.

      But for sure have everything to do with who decides excomunication. And for sure it is not the Frere that was helping in the Mass. Remember the power of the Catholic Apostolic Church is based on hierarchy and centralized power. The Vatican is the only one who can decide which Canon to apply.

      Best example, how carefully and for how long in he USA the priests’ children sexual abuse was covered up from the Vatican. Only when it was made public, the Vatican intervened. And just a thought to close the argument, like with any type of Court, they only intervene when the Public finds out and demands it. But the final decision comes always from the Vatican. A Frere cannot deny Communion to anybody based on his sole judgement. All he can have is an inconsequential opinion.

    1. So Biden thinks it’s OK for a woman to choose to kill her unborn child. That makes him an accessory before & after the fact, to some degree, to the murders of millions & millions of developing in the womb human beings.

      Stumbling Joe is against US citizens choice to own a gun. He’d come & take them. Funny. Dimms are for ‘choice’ ONLY as long as they get to dictate what that choice is.

      If it were not for duplicitous double standards, the fascist dimm left would have no standards.


      1. Sam Fox, sly as any other fox!
        When you say Dimms I believe you mean Democrats, yes, they are for choice. You see Sam Fox we Democrats recognize that there are women that cannot afford expensive medical doctors that could do the abortion in expensive clinics and totally in secret. These expensive doctors exclusively work for elected officials of both party who happen to need services for their “friends”. Your GOP President #45 must have used them many times for different reasons included venereal diseases. He openly has stated that he does not use condones in his relations with porn friends.

        A poor woman on the contrary has not a wealthy friend, because she has relations only with her husband who is a worker. After having given birth to four children now she finds herself pregnant again and she does not have the means to go to a private clinic to get an abortion because they are poor and can hardly support the four children they already have.

        What do you sugest Sam Fox? And your very conservative and patriarchal friends, what do they suggest?

        1. Graciela, every woman should marry a responsible Christian man who earns strong income with good benefits.

          If a woman cant find that situation, she should join The Old Maids’ Society and drink special teas to curb sexual urges.

          1. Every woman should marry a responsible man… are you too young and inexperienced or a golf club elitist?
            I have seen so many cases where the man and the woman were responsible, high school or higher education, with good jobs that then for ciscunstaces in life everything changed for them. Poverty is not a birth condition, it can happen to anybody.

            Now if you are the son of a billionaire who was born with the golden spoon in your mouth, then we can talk of responsibility. Because regardless of whether your are responsible in life or not, everything can be easy for you. Pop or Mom are always there to pick up the broken pieces. And apparently you are responsible in the eyes of the rest of the world.

            Regardless life can even ruin you if you have lots of money. It happened before.

            i always think that Humanities should be taught starting in elementary school. Reasoning events in History is educational, just repeating names, dates and places is a waste of valuable time.

            1. Graciela – Poverty is a birth condition, however it can be overcome. I spent my entire teaching career teaching students who were born into and lived in poverty. You are right that others can become poverty level almost at a moments notice. I speak from experience.

        2. Gracie……Who is making women have sex? If women don’t accept responsibility for their actions, they’re either stupid or selfish.
          Reality is for adults. Time to grow up.
          Say goodnight, Gracie.

        3. Graciela – I think the fact that the President rode Stormy bareback shows us just how brave he really is.

          1. “rode Stormy bareback” as a sign of bravery? This is a clear example of why people like me find people like you so repulsive. Always the phony macho imagery for this fat, bald deceiver. To begin with, he lured her to his room with a promise to work out the details so that she could appear on “The Apprentice”. Stormy is both a performer and a producer of adult films she wanted to promote, so she agreed. She was led to believe that they would depart from his room to a restaurant, but he had ordered room service. He came to the door in a robe, not dressed for dinner. She went along with the sex, even though she was not attracted to him. She said he is not well-endowed, comparing his junk to a small mushroom, surrounded by Bigfoot-esq shaggy white hair. The entire thing is disgusting, and I am truly stumped as to how anyone could find anything admirable about this situation.

            1. We don’t get paid to listen to you. The man who does we can guess would be delighted to pass you on to another shrink-sucker.

        4. After having given birth to four children now she finds herself pregnant again…And your very conservative and patriarchal friends, what do they suggest?

          Not having unprotected sex.

  5. Pope Francis announced the change to the Catechism # 2267 first in a letter to the bishops in August 2017 and later in an address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017. Is that what you’re talking about. Next time you see one of those clowns from The Vatican News make sure to yell “Fake News” at them.

  6. All Pedophile Priests should be de-donged and allowed to bleed to death hanging on a cross in their own church. Their bodies should be put out to pasture. So sayeth The Lard. The Lard says it on Sunday and Crisco says it on Monday.

  7. “The problem is that Biden is not advocating for abortion. He opposes abortion. He is advocating for the right of every individual to make this decision in light of their own religious and personal values.”

    Then Biden ought to have shared the news with his former boss, who,over eight years through regulations sought to remove physicians’ and employers’ right not to provide medical care which conflicts with their conscience.

    But late-term abortions – on which Biden’s been silent as far as I can tell – are arguably murder, not a matter which can be decided “in light of religious and personal values”.

  8. Professor Turley abhors big game (and small game) hunters and the killing of large (and small?) animals.

    Professor Turley enjoys his filet mignon paired with a robust cabernet.

    Professor Turley endorses the murder of small human beings.

    Professor Turley appears to claim a denominational affiliation with the stipulation: Thou Shalt Not Murder.

    What’s wrong with this picture?

  9. So the “good” father was a lawyer in his previous life:

    St. Anthony parish welcomes new priest

    John D. Russell Aug 27, 2010



    FLORENCE — St. Anthony Catholic Church has always welcomed anyone into the church and, on July 1, it welcomed its new priest, Father Robert Morey.

    Morey brings a wealth of experience having been a priest for 14 years, but what he did as a career before priesthood still helps him today in several ways.

    For 14 years, before being ordained as a priest, Morey was a lawyer. Seven of those years he practiced general law in eastern North Carolina, and then he spent the following seven years working in Washington, D.C., for the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.

    “As a criminal defense lawyer I heard a lot of confessions, but I could not give absolution,” he said, smiling.

    Being devoted to his faith and relying on it was what he said got him through the tough times of being a lawyer.

    “You really had to have a higher power to call on to be able to deal with things in that career,” Morey said.

  10. The problem for Democrats is that their stance on abortion is not about personally opposing it but instead a commitment to 1) fund it for anyone – minors, illegals, citizens of other countries; 2) under all circumstances, including after pulling a live baby out of the birth canal and stabbing it in the neck; 3) requiring all taxpayers to pay for something that after a certain point of gestation is certainly killing a viable baby.

    The truth about abortion is that after the abortion the doctor must reconstruct the cut apart baby – its arms, legs, head, and body to be sure they got all of the baby. A good depiction is the movie UnPlanned. The Abortion Industry is a huge issue that Biden and all Democrats, based on their stated agenda, want to fund – anywhere, any time – through tax payer funds. If I’m against slavery, I can’t tell people it’s okay to sell slaves. Just don’t be a Catholic if you don’t like the doctrine — he obviously doesn’t believe in the Catholic church .

    1. The Democratic position is that each human being has free will and should be permitted to exercise it. Allegedly God Himself won’t interfere with free will. No communion for God!

  11. Cat O Licks: As a cat owner I am fed up with Cat O Licks. We live down the street from a Cat O Lic church and my cat walks down there to get cat treats at the side entrance. He comes home with his fur all damp from getting licked.

  12. The obsession with Hillary continues. And so interesting that the failure of the vast majority of Republicans to say anything about Trump’s accusations of treason and his attacks on the press goes unmentioned.

  13. “Rough patch” for Biden? What about Trump? I note you said you were “raised” Catholic, and you omitted saying that you are currently a practicing Catholic.

    Fr. Morey does not speak for the Catholic Church, and there is no such status as “persona non grata”. Biden has not been excommunicated. Fr. Morey is behaving as a usual judgmental South Carolina radical conservative. While most Catholics oppose abortion as a personal choice, most Catholics believe they don’t have the right to impose their values and beliefs on other people.

    Well, I am a practicing Catholic and a musician, and one Sunday I found myself in S. Carolina, so I went to Mass. During the homily, the priest there went on a rant attacking LGBTQ people. I found this extremely offensive. Even the Pope said, in regard to gay people: “who am I to judge”, so this is what I did. The communion song was “Pescador De Hombres”, which means “fishers of men”, referring to the Bible passage where Jesus asked his disciples to leave their nets and follow Him, and He would make them fishers of men. I know the Spanish refrain of this piece, so I sang it in Spanish, loud and proud against their English version, walking up and down the aisle back and forth from the altar. I was pleased to see how pissed off those hypocrites were to hear someone sing this song in a language other than English. They had to be confused: I don’t look Mexican or South American. Passive-aggressive revenge is the best kind.

    1. Natch………Are you sure you were singng in Spanish, and not singing, reflexively, in Klingon, your native tongue?
      That definitely would have confused the unfortunate congregants.

    2. Natacha – making a spectacle of yourself in public is not passive-aggressive. It is aggressive.

    3. so I sang it in Spanish, loud and proud against their English version, walking up and down the aisle back and forth from the altar

      Pescador de Hombres is about an intimate, loving, sacred relationship between God and the disciple. Singers of the song cant get through the verses without crying because it is so vulnerable and tender. Your disposition of pride is diametrically opposed to its essence.

      You exemplify the problem with Americans: it is always on their terms and not pausing to reflect God’s terms, or in this instance, the terms of being a holy Catholic.

      1. Any spin on the facts to criticize someone who opposes Trump. My reason for singing in Spanish was to point out the hypocrisy of that S. Carolina priest excoriating people who are LGBTQ in God’s House and then having “Pescador De Hombres” as the Communion antiphon. Many of the male musicians I know are gay.

        1. I was only sorry I didn’t have my rainbow jewelry with me, which I wear often to show support for my LGBTQ fellow Catholics. The church where I sing welcomes everyone and does not judge, just like the Pope said we should.

          The Spanish refrain was my way of saying I believe in the message of the song, but I disagree with you people and your prejudice against LGBTQ. THAT was the point. And, I also knew that given the extreme conservatism of this congregation, the Spanish version would never have been sung, even though the composer is Hispanic.

          1. The church where I sing welcomes everyone and does not judge, just like the Pope said we should.

            LOL! You do know that that not judging order from the Pope is supposed to extend outside your Church clique?

            1. There was nothing judgmental in what I did, which was to express my objection to their hypocrisy in a manner that would get their attention, which it did. You should have seen the looks I got. They didn’t like this song sung in Spanish, even though it is the song was written in Spanish by an Hispanic lyricist.

              1. The 8th Cardinal Sin is trolling for dollars….Not that David Brock nor George Soros would have a passing interest for natural law

                my rainbow jewelry with me, which I wear often to show support for my LGBTQ

                Peter Shill doesn’t strike us as wanting his hookups to be flaunting rainbow jewelry. Carrying clean crystal meth “favors”, syringes and pipes, yes, but rainbow jewelry only pleases your bosses at Correct the Record to show you are proselytizing your religion of virtue signal and other vacuous notions

                nice try tho’

                Pescador de hombres narcotraficantes more likely

              2. There was nothing judgmental in what I did…

                No you dolt, outside your Church clique, means the secular world as well.

          2. Natch……..1) most missionaries to Spanish speaking countries in modern times were conservative. (Baptists)
            And they could sing in Spanish!

            2) According to the book of Matthew, you should not have been anywhere near that altar rail because of the acrimony in your heart toward that priest and his congregation. As a Christian, you were supposed to settle your grievance with him and them before taking communion.
            Taking “revenge communion” is not communion at all. But if it makes you feel better, you hit it out of the park for ol’ Satan.

            3) Next time you want to try to make an LGBTQ statement in a religious setting, why don’t you go to a local mosque and see what kind of reception you get? Muslims love dem some LGBTQ`s…(when they’re not stringing them up or throwing them off of buildings)

            1. I didn’t have acrimony–I was trying to make a point about their hypocrisy. According to you, what should I have done? Started yelling at the priest during the homily? I was actually in a Catholic church in which some of the congregation started yelling at the priest when he suggested that they should not support a politician who constantly lies. They knew immediately to whom he was referring. My “revenge” was not “revenge communion”, it was singing the lyrics as originally written, which was my way of letting them know that I was not in solidarity with their anti-LGBTQ beliefs. After all, Jesus turned over the tables of the moneychangers in the temple area and drove them out with whips for their hypocrisy. How is this different?

              1. After all, Jesus turned over the tables of the moneychangers in the temple area and drove them out with whips

                That would only please John Podesta who likes to beat children

              2. Natch….”Jesus turned over tables…..”

                Question: How is this different?

                Answer: Well, don’t look now, Natacha, but…..you’re not Jesus!!

                1. Protesting hypocrisy in God’s house is the most-Christian thing you can do. Jesus led by example.

                  1. P.S. Natch……….how exactly were they being hypocrites, if they believe what they were taught re: what the Bible says about homosexuality? It’s what they believe, which is a right that is afforded them in this country. How were they being hypocritical?
                    If you believe a different interpretation of the Bible, you have that right, too.
                    And, if you believe the Catholic church itself is hypocritical, then go to the seat of the church and protest. And let worshippers worship.

                    1. Natacha utters the word ‘hypocrisy’ and ‘hypocrite’ as incantations, you know, like a witch.

                    2. OK, Cindy. The priest went on an anti-LGBTQ rant for his homily. It was literally disgusting. I’ve not heard people say ignoramous things like this about gay people for many years. Then, for communion, the antiphon was “Pescador De Hombres”, which is about leaving their nets behind and becoming fishers of men. Read the lyrics, which are very beautiful. God calls and wants everyone: men, women, children, gay, straight, black, white, brown, yellow and mixes thereof, and he doesn’t care how much money or how many possessions they have. It is hypocritical to sing a piece about Christian unity following a homily attacking people for their sexual orientation. This is not a biblical interpretation, either. In fact, the Pope himself said even he wouldn’t judge someone who was gay, so if anyone was out of line it was this priest and the congregation who liked his attacks on LGBTQ people. I never stopped anyone from worshipping. I sang the Spanish refrain while they sang the English version.

          3. putting aside that some of the most “conservative” Catholics are Hispanic too but whatever. you have no idea how american it was of you to sing in spanish when everybody else was using english. only an american would do something so incongruent to intentionally call attention to herself like that. really, how utterly american of you natch. congratulations

        2. Priests know plenty about gay this and that, obviously. The idea that the clergy are “homophobic” is a joke taken seriously by people who are dense. When they do, which is rarely these days, but when they do, they’re preaching against gay sex in general not the inclination per se. They also preach against the heterosexual inclination to fornicate.

          This is valid. You can be an alcoholic and encourage others to avoid alcohol abuse. That’s not hypocrisy it is wisdom.

    4. Natch, thanks for the story. That was really nutty. I have seen a lot of your kind over the decades. You always harass the old timers and want to have scantily clad liturgical dancers, bongos and guitars for music instead of organs, ufo shaped chapels, female this and that, ad nauseam. Here’s a clue for you. You can get all that in the Episcopalian church instead. Don’t let the door hit ya where El Dios split ya, on the way out! ha ha, I know you won’t leave.

      Don’t worry, the Church is busy running the cavemen like me off the reservation. I am a poor Catholic and willing to sinfully omit my obligations when I don’t feel welcome. You know my kind too, huh, we like a rectangle for the layout of the pews. Latin stuff, etc. Memories fade however; maybe soon you will have your priestesses after all?

      1. You can get all that in the Episcopalian church instead.

        No, you can’t. The Episcopal Church is atrocious in the realm of moral (and commonly doctrinal) teaching, but Episcopal clergy generally respect the rubrics and maintain conventional hymnody. I’ve seen vestries petition the bishop to remove a rector who clowned around during the liturgy. Female rectors are more likely to encourage musical pap and violations of decorum, but even there the bad taste quotient is 1/4 of what you find in an ordinary suburban Catholic parish.

        1. TIA As an Episcopalian, I mostly agree with you; however, the Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest over in Austin has been, and is getting, fairly jiggy in their teachings…..and their graduates reflect the change.
          The older cradle Episcopalians I know are not too happy about it…….but they’re all very liberal politically.
          They’d like a Socialist President and a 1928 Prayer Book.

          1. The teachings have been jiggy for a couple of generations. Recall C.S. Lewis’ theologian character in The Great Divorce.

            I was baptised into an Episcopal congregation. I haven’t attended in nearly 20 years.

            I have it on reliable authority that 40% of a recent entering class at one prominent Episcopal seminary were self-declared homosexuals.

            Jiggy they may be, but they’ve been circumspect about the liturgy (though I did hear On Turkey’s Wings at an Episcopal funeral in 2011.

            1. TIA…….LOL…..do you mean “On Eagle’s Wings”? Why do people like that song!?
              Lord I hate that song……If I attend a service anywhere, and that’s on the printed program, I try to excuse myself and leave.
              Unfortunately, I had to play it by request at a funeral a few years ago.

          2. The older cradle Episcopalians I know are not too happy about it…….but they’re all very liberal politically.

            Been a while. As far as I could tell, the professional and semi-professional types were usually Democrats and the business types were meh Republicans. That’s Upstate New York, of course.

            1. TIA in the Prayers of the People, they no longer pray for the president, as the president. They use the language ” leaders of our nation”. Frankly, I’m fine with that….however, when Obama was president, the Prayers of the People mentioned him by name! as in:
              “We pray for our President, Barack……” every week!
              When our new rector gets settled in, I want to talk with him about it.
              Hubby already got them to change the misprinted upper case C in “catholic” in the prayers to lower case.
              Not surprised about the 40% gay. …When I in school at a Baptist U, about half of the male music/drama majors went to the local Episcopal church.

              1. Not sure when that practice started. Have never liked it. Last month’s headlines, mostly.

            2. TIA ………OT…seeing Upstate NY reminded me….Our former church in Austin, University Bapt, which boasted black members, gay deacons and gay weddings, but straight ones, too ( so, bring the kids!) had a black associate pastor.
              She had the purest accent I have ever heard, in that there was no accent at all…..No dipthongs, no twang, no nasality…..just smooth clear, pleasing-sounding speech.
              And she was born and raised in Rochester NY. just FYI.
              She grew up in a white neighborhood there. Went to work for IBM in Endicott, NY, then IBM transferred her to Austin.

          3. Cindy, in my part of Texas, we attended the Anglican church, and I still go to a mid-week Eucharist at the local ACNA parish. The doctrines are still sound, and the music is wonderful.

            1. FFS……Great! There’s one in Austin that is popular…..but our people don’t like it because of its stance on women, they say.
              The reason I became Episcopalian was because of the dignified formality…………and music, which in my day you could find at high to moderate Baptist churches
              The key to a great music experience in a church service begins and ends with the organ, as you know, …and we have an incredible organist….Knows every stop, bell and whistle, and pedal, and not afraid to use them! And he’s 85!
              You might be interested in seeing (or maybe you already have seen) the first Episcopal Church in Texas…it’s a little bitty thing, on Matagorda Bay.

        2. really? thats good news.

          i notice they often have the best real estate locations, in downtowns, and Presbyterians usually are a close second.

          I would surely there also find myself drummed out by modernizers. Their once strange doctrines how now totally degenerated into leftist social activism and what once modest and austere style they exemplified is also defiled by african chants rock bands and so forth.

          if you want the old tyme religion mostly you have to go to funerals to find it. i have found this true for Catholics and Protestant congregations alike. having been in both.

    5. Well, I am a practicing Catholic and a musician,

      Oh, you’re one of those vicious lesbian nuns. Andrew Greeley made sport of you lot in some of his short fiction.

  14. The practices of many politicians are incompatible with Christian teaching, and I’m not referring to abortion: charlatanism, war-mongering, corruption, vanity, thievery, and hubris.

      1. Well, hell, Anon1, make up your mind. First you guys claim Trump cheated his workers out of their pay, now you complain that he paid Ms. Daniels for her services. So which is it???

    1. The practices … “words”… of the Biblical Hebrew Super Hero are incompatible with reason, logic and common sense.
      One of numerous examples …

      Jesus not only condones owning slaves, but also recommends beating and killing slaves. Matthew 18:25; Luke 12:47 and Matthew 24:51

      Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).

      Christian apologists attempt to justify the “Bible’s” slavery passages.

      Argument 1: “Slavery in the Bible was more enlightened than that of 17th-19th century America and other ancient Near East cultures.”
      Even granting this point for the sake of argument, this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.
      Argument 2: “They could be let go after 6 years” or “It was a mechanism for protecting those who could not pay their debts.” (a.k.a. “Debt bondage”)
      “Hebrew slaves were to be freed in the 7th year (Exodus 21:2, Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Slaves from surrounding countries could be kept as property forever (Leviticus 25:44-46). A further exception pertains to women whose fathers sold them into slavery, and for whom there was no release after six years ( Exodus 21:7)
      Argument 3: The Bible restricted slave owners’ actions (Exodus 21:20).
      Exodus 21:20 does mandate punishment for a master who kills a slave with a rod, but the very next verse says “But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property” (NRSV). The NIV, by contrast, translates this verse as “if the slave recovers after a day or two”, which changes its meaning. Either way, the emphasis is that the slave is first and foremost property, and therefore the greatest loss is to the owner, whose slave was “as good as money”.
      Argument 4: “Slavery was allowed by God because of the time period, but was not the ideal will of God.”
      There are many ways a creative, all-knowing and all-powerful deity could make it clear that slavery is immoral while, for instance, giving the Israelite economy a grace period to let slavery “wind down”, should that be necessary. The passages concerning slavery from the
      Pentateuch (e.g. Exodus 21:2-7; Leviticus 25:44-46),
      by contrast, provide guidelines that allow for slavery to continue indefinitely. New Testament writers, too, who had an opportunity to overturn or clarify the Pentateuch’s instructions, did not do so.
      Also it seems improbable that a God who was capable of assassinating Israelites by the thousand if they did not follow his instructions to the letter would balk at telling them to give up slaves.
      Argument 5: “The term ‘slave’ is a poor translation. It should be ‘servant’.”
      This may be plausible in some contexts, but not for Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner’s children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slavery — permanent ownership of one human by another — as we know it today.
      Jesus’ Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
      (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said “servant” is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the “servant”, his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).
      It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these “servants” may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master “shall cut him asunder” in the words of the King James translation.

      dennis hanna

      1. Wow, you are working overtime on a parable where you apparently missed the entire point. If you cherry-pick passages out of the Bible without the context, you can make a case to support nearly anything.

        The lesson to be learned in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Mathew 18 is:

        That is how My Heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

        In Romans 12:14-21, Paul relates a similar lesson:

        14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[a] Do not be conceited.

        17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[b] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

        “If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
        if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
        In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[c]

        21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

        Please don’t stop posting though, your efforts may just bring more people to Jesus Christ. God bless!

        1. I love picking passages out of context. it’s great fun. Psalm 137:

          Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
          on the day Jerusalem fell.
          “Tear it down,” they cried,
          “tear it down to its foundations!”
          8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
          happy is the one who repays you
          according to what you have done to us.
          9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
          and dashes them against the rocks.

          1. Exactly. And here are verses 1-6…for context:

            By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
            when we remembered Zion.
            2 There on the poplars
            we hung our harps,
            3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
            our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
            they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

            4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord
            while in a foreign land?
            5 If I forget you, Jerusalem,
            may my right hand forget its skill.
            6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
            if I do not remember you,
            if I do not consider Jerusalem
            my highest joy.

    2. Darren, Christianity and Democracy are every day works-in-progress. We’ll never reach a point where those practices will simply maintain themselves

      1. Actually, the Canon of Scripture was defined during the 3d c., the Liturgy of St. John Chrisostom dates from the 4th c. The Roman Canon was composed during the 5th. And the apostolic succession has continued for 20 centuries.

    1. I am quite certain Father Robert E. Morey, is also denying Holy Communion to any and all who support the death penalty. Yes? No? Maybe? Of course he’s not.

      Why would he do that? There is no doubt capital sentences are licit. Only the most recent popes have ever criticized them.

      1. So we can ignore the teachings of the most recent Popes? Good to know. Pope Francis last year amended Catechism 2267 making all capitol punishment a sin,“ …the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide”. I see you commented on earlier on another comment that all Church doctrine was settled in the 4th and 5th centuries. You should email Pope Francis, get him up to speed. Or just find an old Pope who pronouncements fit better with your politics. There are certainly some from the 4th and 5th centuries that were definitely pro death penalty. Just pick the stuff you like. It’s a buffet!

        1. Francis has no authority to amend consistent Magisgterial teaching.

          1. You’re saying there exists some Magisterial teaching which is “pro” death penalty? Seriously? You definitely need to call Francis and get him up to speed. Is it so we can keep creating martyrs and saints? That might make some sense, I mean most of the saints were executed, and there’s the big guy himself. So from a Catholic point of view you definitely would want to make sure you were wrongfully executing some of “the best people” (to be read in Trump’s voice) so the saint supply never runs out.

            1. You’re saying there exists some Magisterial teaching which is “pro” death penalty? Seriously?

              It was treated as a legitimate exercise of state power from the beginning. Fr. Avery Dulles SJ discusses evidence for this in Gospel accounts. You’ve forgotten that the Popes were temporal rulers for 12 centuries. Yes, death sentences were carried out in the Papal States.

              Neither Benedict or John Paul taught that capital sentences were impermissible per se, btw.

          2. that’s right.

            wiki says, well enough:

            “The following is a summary of Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 146, which was written by Aquinas prior to writing the Summa Theologica. St. Thomas was a vocal supporter of the death penalty. This was based on the theory (found in natural moral law), that the state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from within, and without.

            For those who have been appropriately appointed, there is no sin in administering punishment. For those who refuse to obey God’s laws, it is correct for society to rebuke them with civil and criminal sanctions. No one sins working for justice and within the law. Actions that are necessary to preserve the good of society are not inherently evil. The common good of the whole society is greater and better than the good of any particular person. “The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.” This is likened to the physician who must amputate a diseased limb, or a cancer, for the good of the whole person.

            He based this on I Corinthians 5, 6: “You know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump of dough?” and I Corinthians 5, 13: “Put away the evil one from among yourselves”; Romans 13,4: “[it is said of earthly power that] he bears not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil”; I Peter 2, 13-14: “Be subjected therefore to every human creature for God’s sake: whether to be on the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of good.” He believed these passages superseded the text of Exodus 20,13: “Thou shall not kill.” This is mentioned again in Matthew 5,21. Also, it is argued that Matthew 13, 30: “Suffer both the weeds and the wheat to grow until the harvest.” The harvest was interpreted as meaning the end of the world. This is explained by Matthew 13,38-40.

            Aquinas acknowledged these passages could also be interpreted as meaning there should be no use of the death penalty if there was a chance of injuring the innocent. The prohibition “Thou shall not kill”, was superseded by Exodus 22,18: “Wrongdoers you shall not suffer to live.” The argument that evildoers should be allowed to live in the hope that they might be redeemed was rejected by Aquinas as frivolous. If they would not repent in the face of death, it was unreasonable to assume they would ever repent. “How many people are we to allow to be murdered while waiting for the repentance of the wrongdoer?”, he asked, rhetorically. Using the death penalty for revenge, or retribution is a violation of natural moral law.

            Many believe the correct interpretation of the commandment to be “Thou shalt not murder.” This interpretation allows for Aquinas’ belief that the death penalty is an acceptable practice as delivered by those in authority over such things, such as government, which is divinely appointed as to God’s will…..”


            that being said, there’s plenty left to criticize about death penalty as a matter of improving justice and punishment

            what we really ought to discuss is bringing back humanely administered corporal punishment (such as caning is practiced in Singapore) in lieu of incarceration for things like DUI and other minor crimes. this would be more effective deterrence, cheaper for society, and in the long run, less damaging to prisoners who are abused and learn bad things when incarcerated

            1. that being said, there’s plenty left to criticize about death penalty as a matter of improving justice and punishment

              Popes JPII, BXVI and Francis speak with one voice as to stating the death penalty is “cruel and unnecessary” and their emphasizing the “increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away”

              When the Catechism was initially published in 1992, much to the dismay of many in the church, it still admitted the use of the death penalty. But strong reaction from bishops and the faithful in many countries led him to revise the text in 1997, with the help of Cardinal Ratzinger. The revised text, however, still did not exclude the death penalty on moral grounds as Pope Francis did today. Instead, it said that given the possibilities the modern state has of rendering the criminal incapable of doing harm again, then “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’”


              In its letter, the C.D.F. pointed out that Benedict XVI, too, continued the push against the death penalty, when for instance, in November 2011, in his exhortation after the synod on Africa he called “the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty.”

              St. John Paul II also intervened on other occasions against the death penalty, the letter says, “appealing both to respect for the dignity of the person as well as to the means that today’s society possesses to defend itself from criminals.” And when he visited the United States in January 1999, he said, “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform” and called “for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”


            2. what is often missing in American Catholic discourse is humility.
              Justice Antonin Scalia was no paragon of humility. He even stated as such in his speeches collected in books edited by his 8th son, Christopher, e.g. “Scalia Speaks”, “On Faith”

              Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, was a very different type of man, far better and more consistent with the Catholic spirit than Scalia. Scalia would have agreed.

              Seven Reasons America Shouldn’t Execute

              by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.

              National Catholic Register
              March 24-31, 2002

              It is with great reluctance that I take issue with Justice Scalia, who is rightly regarded as one of the outstanding legal experts of the nation and an exemplary Catholic. I agree with what he says about the constant Catholic tradition in favor of the death penalty and the harmony of that tradition with the system of criminal justice that undergirds the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But I differ with Justice Scalia in his interpretation of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae.

              In Evangelium Vitae the Pope enunciates as an absolute principle that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (No. 57). He also says that capital punishment ought not to be imposed except “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society” (Evangelium Vitae, No. 56).
              Following the Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 2109), I interpret the defense of society as including not only physical defense against the criminal but also the vindication of the moral order. This interpretation agrees with the principle that the primary purpose of the punishment that society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense” (Evangelium Vitae, No. 56).
              If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4).

              I doubt whether the tradition is reversible at all, but even if it were, the reversal could hardly be accomplished by an incidental section in a long encyclical focused primarily on the defense of innocent human life. If the Pope were contradicting the tradition, one could legitimately question whether his statement outweighed the established teaching of so many past centuries.

              I believe that the Pope, without contradicting the tradition, is exercising his prudential judgment that in our time adequate punishment, including the moral and physical defense of society, can generally be accomplished by bloodless means, which are always to be preferred.

              “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning, possibly unfamiliar to Justice Scalia. It refers to the application of Catholic moral doctrine to concrete cases in which it is necessary to make a human estimate of what is appropriate. Since Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the pastors of the Church have to use their personal judgment as spiritual leaders.

              As a reason for severely limiting the death penalty today, the Pope mentions steady improvements in the penal system. Here in the United States one could name additional reasons. Speaking at the same conference in Chicago where Justice Scalia delivered his remarks, I proposed the following seven reasons:

              The inequitable application of the death sentence by courts and juries that are prejudiced against certain groups;
              The inability of poor and uneducated clients in many cases to obtain adequate legal counsel;
              The likelihood that innocent persons might be put to death, even in the absence of the two factors already mentioned;
              The difficulty of judging the subjective guilt of the defendant, especially in cases where the defendant is very young, mentally retarded, or psychologically impaired.
              The tendency of executions to inflame an unhealthy appetite for revenge in society. Personal vindictiveness, according to Christian standards, is immoral;
              The failure of modern democratic society to perceive the judgment of the State as embodying a transcendent order of justice;
              The urgency of manifesting respect for the value and dignity of human life at a time when assaults on innocent human life through abortion, euthanasia and violent crime are widely prevalent.
              My sixth reason requires a word of explanation.
              As Justice Scalia in his Chicago speech recognizes, the traditional rationale for the death penalty has been undermined by modern democratic theory, which tends to depict the State as a pliant instrument of the will of the people. I still hold that the court may and should embody a transcendent moral order, but I note that the symbolic or pedagogical value of its decisions, which has been so important in the past, has been largely eroded.

              Justice Scalia seems to concede too much to the new mentality when he writes to the Register, regarding the imposition of the death penalty: “It is my job to administer whatever response the American people give to that question” (emphasis added). Does this mean that if the American people want the court to follow public opinion polls rather than a transcendent moral order, the court can no longer serve as a minister of divine justice (cf. Romans 13: 4)? I do not believe we have sunk so far.

              Justice Scalia raises the question whether a judge who accepts current papal teaching could in good conscience hear cases involving the death penalty. If the Pope (as I believe) allows for capital punishment in some rare cases, to be determined by prudential considerations, his position is not contrary to the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and raises no problems.

              Even a judge who believed that capital punishment should never be used in our country today, and that such was the expressed belief of the Pope, might still affirm the death penalty in certain cases on the ground that, although the law was bad, the decision was nevertheless constitutional, legally correct, and not manifestly opposed to the moral law. One can legitimately implement a law that one regards as prudentially wrong. Capital punishment, after all, is legal in the United States, and is not murder.

              Cardinal Avery Dulles is a professor at Fordham University in New York


            3. The hardest part about being a Catholic is eliminating the “I”.
              Scalia had a very difficult time with that. Most of us do as well

              Papal Teaching Deserves ‘Submission’

              by Dr. Charles Rice

              National Catholic Register
              March 24-31, 2002

              In various ways the Register editorial gave Justice Scalia a bum rap. Also, contrary to the editorial, Evangelium Vitae poses no obstacle to abolition of the death penalty.

              According to Scalia, if a judge thinks the death penalty is immoral he should resign. There are other options but that issue is beyond the space available here.

              Scalia said that because Evangelium Vitae “does not represent ex cathedra teaching … it need not be accepted by practicing Catholics.” Many liberal Catholics advanced this tired argument to support their sit-in schism over Humanae Vitae. Canon Law and the Catechism adopt the teaching of the Second Vatican Council’s document Lumen Gentium that “loyal submission of will and intellect must be given … to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra.”
              Cafeteria Catholicism is wrong, whether the pick-and-choose customers are liberal or conservative, judges or peasants.

              We have two questions: First, does the state have authority to impose the death penalty? John Paul affirms the traditional answer: Yes.

              Second, when may that penalty be used? John Paul has given us a development of the teaching on that point. The “primary aim” of punishment is still retribution, “redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2266).

              Because of the importance of the conversion of the criminal, however, retribution will not justify execution unless the new test for the use of that penalty is satisfied. It must be “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (Catechism, No. 2267). If this were merely John Paul’s personal opinion and not a binding teaching, he would not have put it in the Catechism.

              I agree fully with that teaching, which caused me to change my former support for a limited use of the death penalty. But even if we disagree with it, we are obliged to give it “loyal submission of will and intellect.”

              A Catholic can no longer argue for the use of the death penalty on grounds of retribution, deterrence of others from committing crimes or for any other reason unless the execution is “the only possible way” of protecting others from this criminal. The decision as to whether it is “the only possible way” depends, of course, on a prudential judgment. John Paul was correct in saying that, “Today… the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (Evangelium Vitae No. 56).

              Although that factual judgment must be made as to each penal system and each case, the new test according to which that judgment must be made is a universal criterion, binding in all places and in all cases. If the death penalty in that system in not an “absolute necessity,” that is, “the only possible way” to protect others from this criminal, it is immoral to impose it.

              The death penalty might still be justified in cases such as a maximum- security life inmate who murders another inmate, or in a condition of unrest where the security of imprisonment cannot be guaranteed or perhaps in cases involving violations of the laws of war by leaders of international terrorist networks. These cases are debatable.

              John Paul asserts the primacy of the person over the claim of the state to be the arbiter of the ending as well as of the beginning of life. Each person and each society has to have a pope, a visible, authoritative interpreter of the moral law. I hope Justice Scalia, whom I admire, will come to accept this teaching of the Church. And I hope he will not conclude that his agreement with that teaching will oblige him to resign from the Supreme Court.

              We need him on the court. We already have a Pope.

              Charles Rice is a professor emeritus at University of Notre Dame Law School


              1. Of course, Charlie Rice, however highly respected, he was just a lawyer too, neither Scalia nor Rice were theologians nor priests nor prelates whatsoever.

                I’ll leave it to people smarter and holier than myself to try and figure out all the mixed signals coming out of Rome these days. I can think of a few other things in the Catechism that have been “updated” to make less sense than they used to, but I wont get into it.

    2. Ah, no. The Death penalty is not always an immoral choice, abortion is. Thats the difference.

      1. Capital punishment in theory could be moral and totally excellent in all instances. But Pope Francis says it’s a sin, in all cases. He states that the worst person in the world still maintains his human dignity and should not be executed. So you can be pro death penalty, and I (Not Pope Francis) would argue that you could still be a good person. But you won’t be a good Catholic, and I suppose some renegade hippie priest might decide to refuse you communion.

        1. Again, Francis has no authority to alter Magisterial teaching yapping to reporters on airplanes.

          1. Pope Francis announced the change to the Catechism # 2267 first in a letter to the bishops in August 2017 and later in an address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017. Is that what you’re talking about. Next time you see one of those clowns from The Vatican News make sure to yell “Fake News” at them.

            1. Which raises serious problems in re the teachings of the 1st Vatican Council. He still has no authority to do this.

    3. am quite certain Father Robert E. Morey, is also denying Holy Communion to any and all who support the death penalty. Yes? No? Maybe? Of course he’s not

      Non sequitur

      There are 7 deadly sins: pride, wrath, envy, greed, gluttony, slothfulness, lust
      The majority of these are appetites and today they have morphed and taken on new forms while the original ones have been subsumed into our culture as a fiat.

      Performing these sins, which all holy men and women do regularly, are occasions to confess, grow and evolve. That is the whole point of Christianity: a holy relationship with God that manifests itself in holy relationships with others, the latter proceeds from the former.

      To lead others to sin, as Biden and Pelosi do, as political leaders regarding abortion, is addressed in Canon Law # 915.
      The priest merely enforced Canon Law due to the very public and contumacious sin that Biden defends. Biden can always reflect, be reconciled to God and receive absolution in Confession.

      Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.


Comments are closed.