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.
If Biden personally opposes abortion, but supports policies that remove all restrictions on it, then he’s advocating for more abortions.
NY style laws, which legalize 9th month abortion, created a visceral reaction in many, including moderates on the issue. An emergency C-section would save the life of the mother, not a 3 day third trimester abortion, which still dilates the cervix. The latter actually has a higher risk for the mother.
There are indeed times that ending a pregnancy early can save the mother’s life. An ectopic pregnancy and preeclampsia are examples. Typically, terminating a pregnancy means early delivery. The deliberate killing of the infant is not required, although before viability, he would not survive an early delivery.
Studies have shown that most late term abortions are elected for the same reason that first and second trimester abortions are – financial considerations, the relationship with the father ended, etc. Medical reasons are far less common.
The reason why handicapped children are electively aborted is that their parents don’t want to have to take care of them. They want perfect children, and will get rid of the imperfect, a holdover from eugenics. There is a genocide going on against Downs Syndrome babies, some of the sweetest people in the world.
There are arguments to be made for and against abortion. A commonality among the vast majority of the American people is that there should be restrictions in place. Most oppose killing a healthy, viable infant in utero. At that point, you are delivering him anyway as part of the abortion, so do the decent thing and put him up for adoption. At some point in gestation, most Americans believe abortion is wrong. The question is, where on that gestation should it be legislated.
Removing restrictions creates a grisly outcome.
Karen: most Americans support a woman’s right to choose. You might know this if you watched regular news media. 3rd trimester abortions are very, very rare, and they are almost always done for severe congenital anomalies that are incompatible with life and the mother always agonizes over what to do. Most, if not all, would rather not have a child born with half a heart or an open skull (anencephaly) or multiple birth defects, as examples, destined to die but not until after suffering, getting massive infections, suffering endless seizures, struggling to breathe, etc.. However, this issue does get the base stirred up. BTW: you still haven’t answered my question about your level of education. You are attempting to opine on medical matters, including anatomy, alternative treatment modalities and risks, so what qualifies you to make these statements?
Karen: most Americans support a woman’s right to choose.
Choose what?
Not taking the bait.
“most Americans support a woman’s right to choose.” this support wanes as gestation progresses. Which you are already aware.
“3rd trimester abortions are very, very rare, and they are almost always done for severe congenital anomalies that are incompatible with life”. I have already provided you with studies that demolish that argument. First, second, and third trimester abortions are done for similar reasons. Most third trimester abortions are not, in fact, due to medical reasons.
Your feelings on what should be the reason does not change the facts. You are repeating a talking point, not the truth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/
“A more recent Guttmacher study focused on abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and similarly concluded that women seeking late-term abortions were not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”
“BTW: you still haven’t answered my question about your level of education.” What are you talking about? If you’ve been asking about my degree, I skip most of your posts. I have a degree in biology. You are applying the false logic method of expert requirement.
A medical degree is not required to form an opinion, or to read the journal articles. You have had no trouble forming yours without it.
People abort their babies with non life threatening abnormalities. Aborting a baby with an abnormality not compatible with life is a form of non consensual euthanasia, and should be debated as such. Euthanasia of a terminally ill child also has nothing to do with saving the life of the mother. If non consensual euthanasia is OK for a terminally child in the third trimester, then is it OK after the child is born? At what age would non consensual euthanasia not be OK, if at all?
What is the difference between euthanizing a 9 month gestational fetus, and a newborn? You can see the latter and hear him scream during the procedure. Screaming requires air, so there are no sounds when the fetus is killed in utero, and the mother does not see the process happening. She does not see the doctor stab a needle into the chest of her baby to give him a heart attack. She does not view them dismembering the baby.
There are arguments to be made for and against the non consensual euthanasia of a human infant with a terminal illness, in the womb, but those arguments would logically extend to newborns and older. The argument that most late trimester abortions are mercy killings is false, as studies have shown. The argument that late trimester abortions save the life of the mother are false. Early delivery, either C-section, or vaginally, saves the life of the mother in a life threatening pregnancy. Take the extra step of killing the infant, in utero, significantly slows down the early delivery, and does nothing to save the mother’s life.
Examples of Late Trimester Life Threatening Pregnancies:
If the mother has cancer and requires chemo – early delivery. What does killing the child during early delivery do to extend her life?
If the mother has an ectopic pregnancy – removing the pregnancy saves her life, and the implantation site of the fetus is not viable. It’s not that the baby is deliberately getting killed, but rather it cannot survive being removed. Plus, this is a first trimester issue.
If the mother has preeclampsia – early delivery saves her life. Taking the extra step of killing the child does nothing to improve her survival, and in fact slows down the process.
If the mother has septicemia – early delivery
If the mother has placenta previa – early delivery
Immune response to fetus – early delivery
Illness and requires medication unsafe for fetuses – early delivery
Severe Hyperemesis Gravidarum, not responsive to medication – early delivery
There is Congressional testimony from OB/GYNs that agree with the above. The argument that late trimester abortion saves the life of the mother is illogical. It’s the early delivery that saves her life.
Can you think of a situation where actually killing the child, instead of removing him or her alive, would save the mother’s life? If you can, provide it for us to consider. There are a great many reasons for early delivery, but no medical reasons that I can think of for taking the additional step of giving the baby a heart attack before pulling him out in pieces. If late term abortion saves the mother’s life, then why do around 85% of OB/GYNs refuse to perform them?
This isn’t about the life of the mother. It’s about issues like convenience, feeling overwhelmed, unable to handle getting attached to an infant with serious issues, financial difficulties, not wanting people to know you got pregnant…There are many
This is the process of a current third trimester abortion. It takes at least a couple of days. This undermines the argument of medical emergency, where time is of the essence to save the mother. If the baby is viable, and you’re going to have cervical dilation anyway, why doesn’t the baby deserve a chance at life and adoption? Women choose early delivery all the time.
“Currently, a day or two before the abortion is performed, the abortionist prepares the cervix with osmotic and/or pharmacologic dilators (e.g., laminaria) to open the cervix. About the same time, he usually administers an injection of potassium chloride or digoxin into the heart or head of the unborn child, to ensure that he or she is dead upon delivery. On the day of the procedure, if further cervical dilation is needed, this is performed with mechanical dilators just prior to the procedure. Uterine evacuation is then performed. For younger babies this can be primarily accomplished using suction to remove as much tissue and soft body parts as possible, followed by forceps for removal of larger and harder body parts. For older and larger babies, dismemberment using forceps is used (grasping and pulling off limbs for removal). The brain is usually then removed by suction and the skull crushed for removal.”
Every time I read commentaries on abortion saying that you are killing a human being, I cannot help to remember that the Vatican themselves do not recognized the fetus/unborn baby as a human being. For them it is an IT, which if it dies at any time before being baptized has no room in any blessed Christian cemetery. We are not anymore in the Middle Ages when we were told what to believe and we followed it. Today we can read and check everything and find out the truth.
The Vatican should review their own records and find out what they did in Canada with the fetus/baby they killed when born/aborted from 10/11 year old indigenous girls they had raped in the orphanages in which those children were taken to, in order they were taught to forget their own tradition/language and learn how to live in the western culture. By the way those girls were raped either by Catholic priests or Evangelist preachers depending on who was in charge of the orphanage. The abuse occurred under both. Check the lawsuit.
Why would you think a fetus is not a human being? Of course it’s a human being. Take a sample of their cells, and the analysis will be “human.”
The argument isn’t that the fetus isn’t human; it’s whether it has any rights while under control of the woman’s body. What happens when a woman deliberately take drugs while she knows she’s pregnant? Does it in any way impact her custody of the child upon birth, and if so, why? After all, it’s her body. Can’t she feed the baby any drug she wants? Are there special considerations for drug studies on pregnant women?
A sea turtle embryo is a sea turtle.
A horse embryo is a horse.
A chicken embryo is a chicken.
No one argues that it is not a sea turtle, a horse, or a chick before it is hatched or born.
Biden squashed half the equation in denying half the participants when he narrowed the field to ‘her.’ Can’t getg away from these PC-rap Sexists no matter how hard one tries. No doubt he’s a leftist following the Clintonian line of victimizing women.
The Roman Catholic Church would have to ban the 98% of RC couples who have used artificial means of birth control, which of course is still totally prohibited by Church teachings. (These are fairly accurate numbers.) This essentially shows that almost all Church attendees and the Church itself are hyprocritical. To be more charitable, these couples are using common sense in their real lives, while it is the Church that turns a blind eye – as the Church for centuries turned a blind eye to its many priests who were/are sexual offenders.
They aren’t ‘fairly accurate numbers’. The priest has no ready way to test if a couple is contracepting and contracepting couples can avail themselves of the confessional. Biden has been public and obdurate.
This isn’t that difficult.
But the RC sinners (that is, users of artificial means of conception) MUST confess their sins to a priest. Assuming that these righteous Catholics do confess their mortal sin (HA!), their priests know of it and so must deny them holy communion, etc., etc., etc. The Church and its adherents are all living a constant lie.
My prior response should have said “contraception.” But actually, the Church probably bans “artificial” insemination and other “unnatural” means of conception, as well. This modern world is just too much for the RC Church.
the arrogance of you guys is incredible. you don’t see the social fictions which subsist all around you if you think that’s some sort of genius insight you’re having rdkay
people who eschew an unseen god are perfectly willing to believe in an unseen state. what is a state? a verbal declaration of existence of an unseen authority, and, a compact of violence among those who keep the law. the laws of which are as much handed down to the average citizen as the hebrew sky god dictated to moses his ten rules up on jabel musa. oh, the modern state is not so different from the god of primitive religion at all. just with a more effective police force!
Are you talking to MEEEEEEEEE??
There are arguments to be made for the Catholic Church to accept contraception, especially in married couples.
Advocating for abortion is considered akin to infanticide in the Church. It would fall under one of the Ten Commandments, Thou Shalt Not Kill. This is on a whole different level than having meat on Friday during Lent, or whether couples use contraception.
One can certainly argue with the action of denying communion to a pro-abortion politician, and request clarification from the Holy See. Comparing abortion with the use of contraception is false equivalence.
https://theconversation.com/how-the-catholic-church-came-to-oppose-birth-control-95694
Here is a brief summary of the Church’s stance on birth control. In essence, Pope Paul VI ignored the overwhelming majority opinion of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. There was never such support in the church and laity for abortion.
I agree. Just like “thou shalt not kill” has more weight than “though shalt not commit adultery.” But both are mortal sins to the Church.
Strange to see people ignoring the basic principle that makes this action by the member of the Church wrong. Sin is a problem to be solved between God and the individual person. A priest may dictate a penance at the time of confession, but since when a priest can decide on who deserves to participate in the Communion? Remember Jesus’ teachings, nobody has the right to throw a stone against the supposed sinner. We are basically all sinners. The most the priest can do is to pray in privacy for that individual he considers a sinner. The rest is Medieval attitude like when they burnt women claiming they were witches because they believe that a herb could heal a wound. We are in 2019 and now we know that many herbs can heal wounds.
“since when a priest can decide on who deserves to participate in the Communion?” The Catholic Communion is a closed sacrament. There are actually a set of rules required to receive communion. For instance, you are supposed to abstain from eating or drinking one hour prior, the vestige of the fast. Other requirements – state of grace, belief in transubstantiation, confession since the last mortal sin, not be under ecclesiastical censure.
“A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
Perhaps the priest read Biden’s advocacy for abortion to be participating, in which case it would be a mortal sin. Had he been to confession after the last instance?
““Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (CIC 915).” Clearly, he has been censored.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/who-can-receive-communion
Whether I agree or not with the priest censoring Biden, the Church has rules on the matter.
Graciela:
“A priest may dictate a penance at the time of confession, but since when a priest can decide on who deserves to participate in the Communion? Remember Jesus’ teachings, nobody has the right to throw a stone against the supposed sinner.”
*******************
I always enjoy your manifest ignorance of your own religion. You might want to actually read the book you so copiously reference. The story of the “first stone” involved a gang of rabble stoning a member of their group taken in adultery. Christ himself was involved and he exercised his power to either condemn or forgive the woman IN THAT VERY STORY:
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
~John 8:
Fast forward now to Christ’s charge to his disciples and to their progeny (modern day priests) post-crucifixion. It’s is found in various places but no less than this:
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
~John 20:
This isn’t some obscure verse tucked away in a book of the Bible nobody reads. Rather it’s part of the “Great Commission” which some argue is the very foundation of the Christian religion. So to answer your question: It’s since then.
mespo727272 You are falling into the trap of fundamentalism and moving away of the basic proposition. Is a Frere (a Brother assisting at the Mass in the Parish) authorized to deny the communion to a parishioner because he heard something about what the parishioner supports mentioned months before? That is the question. I am convinced that under no circumstances that is acceptable.
Priest, Freres and Nuns are people that had dedicated their lives to serve the Church. That does not make them accusers, judges and executors. Only the high echelon of the Church is allowed that level of power.
What you think about abortion, and what you think about my interpretation of the New Testament may be perfect for your own reasoning but not for mine. Remember that the Bible has been translated into many languages and the Church has approved one version for each language.
I like regularly to compare the Universal version in Spanish and in English. Protestants have done the same with their version of the Bible. I have checked it and It differs from the Universal version I use. So Bible discussion can be done when we are face to face and with the same version.
But going back to the original problem. Has a Frere the right to deny Communion to a parishioner because of something he heard months before? I am convinced he does not. Otherwise we could have decisions about parishioners’ private life every Sunday discussed in public at the time of the Mass.
Only one idea comes to mind, what a mess it could be! God help us if our Church ever falls in that abyss!
Graciela:
You either accept the tenets of the religion or you don’t. You seem to think that your interpretation is Catholic Doctrine. It’s not. It’s just yours. You asked about the official interpretation and I gave it to you. Like Biden you think you can mold the core beliefs of the religion to accommodate your thinking. You can’t. The priest has every right to deny communion to those he determines are outside the church.
Like I said, you’re ignorant of your own religion and you double down on that ignorance by claiming you aren’t when confronted with the official version. You offer no evidence save your firmly held belief. Not good enough. Ask your parish priest.
Mespo is right about this one.
“The priest has every right to deny communion to those he determines are outside the church.”
Seems like a slippery slope…and a good reason to leave the Catholic Church.
WWJD.
Anonymous:
That’s your call but it’s been the rule for 2000 years so its an awfully gently sloping slippery slope.
How often is communion denied to those of the Catholic faith? How about a questionnaire before communion to determine if one is worthy?
And how about priest who are known pedophiles? How many of them have been denied communion?
It seems pretty arbitrary.
Anonymous:
The short answer is no one knows but they should be under the “wrong in every circumstance” position of the Church.
New Pew Research:
Young Americans Turning Off To Christianity
Perhaps for the first time since the United States was established, a majority of young adults here do not identify as Christian.
Only 49 percent of millennials consider themselves Christian, compared with 84 percent of Americans in their mid-70s or older, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.
We don’t have good historical data, and the historians I consulted are wary of definitive historical comparisons. But something significant seems to be happening. The share of American adults who regard themselves as Christian has fallen by 12 percentage points in just the last decade.
“The U.S. is steadily becoming less Christian and less religiously observant,” the Pew study concluded.
Some on the religious right will thunder that this is a result of a secular “war on Christianity.”
“Christians and Christianity are mocked, belittled, smeared and attacked,” declared an essay on Fox News’s website, plaintively titled, “How Long Will I Be Allowed to Remain a Christian?”
This mockery of Christians is, as I’ve written many times, both real and wrong. But a far bigger threat to the “brand” of Christianity comes, I think, from religious blowhards who have entangled faith with bigotry, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. For some young people, Christianity is associated less with love than with hate.
It would be difficult to imagine a president more at odds with Jesus’ message than Trump, a serial philanderer and liar who has persecuted refugees, divided families, exploited the poor and allegedly committed sexual assaults. When Trump in 2016 was asked to name a favorite part of the Bible, he muttered “an eye for an eye” — a reference to an Old Testament passage that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, specifically renounced.
Pew’s latest report found that nonbelievers are gaining ground fast. “Nones” — those with no particular religion — now account for more than one-quarter of the American population. There are substantially more nones than Catholics.
The decline in religion is particularly evident among young people. Those born between 1928 and 1945 are only two percentage points less likely to identify as Christian than they were a decade ago, while millennials are 16 percentage points less likely to call themselves Christians.
“Adults coming of age today are far less religious than their parents and grandparents before them,” said Gregory Smith of the Pew Research Center.
Smith noted that the data seem consistent with the argument made by leading scholars that young adults have turned away from organized religion because they are repulsed by its entanglements with conservative politics. “Nones,” for example, are solidly Democratic.
The upshot is that a majority of white adults now attend church just a few times a year at most. Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to attend, although their attendance is dropping, too.
Edited from: “We’re Less And Less Of A Christian Nation, And I Blame Some Blowhards”
By Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, 10/26/19
That’s clear progress. Hurray!
Say to him, ‘This is what the LORD says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?’ Then say to him, ‘This is what the LORD says: In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood–yes, yours!'”
1 kings 21:19
Rev. 14:20 – Then the press was trampled outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press up to the horses’ bridles for about 180 miles
Song which will be sung to the Priest when he gets his interview at The Pearly Gates:
(music to tune of Mrs. Robinson)
Here’s to you Mister Priest Man…. Jumpin Joe has up and gone away!
Waaay hey hey!
As for you Mister Priest Man, you are going straight to Hell today.
Way down South… Way hey hey!
Biden’s logic: “I wouldn’t own a slave myself, but I do demand to collect tax dollars from everyone to help everyone else buy and own a slave who wants one.”
By Turley’s logic, the Church owes communion to Biden even if he denies the Deity of Christ.
I have publicly and repeatedly asked this Q here several times without reply: exactly and specifically what quality makes Turley or any reader here “human,” which quality a one celled human being (AKA zygote, comprising all 46 human chromosomes) lacks?
Joe must only oppose abortion with his little finger because I’ve never seen him at the pro-life rally nor have I ever heard him speak about not having abortions to anyone anywhere at any time. So let’s give him his due. He doesn’t want to push his beliefs on the people so he votes for abortion but outside of that he’s invisible. It’s pretty obvious that his pro-life stance is a lie.
The Catholic Church (esp with its activist lefty pope and pedophile priests and cardinals) cannot afford to turn away or lose anymore of its sheeple. If Biden wants communion, that’s his choice, not the priest.
If Biden wants communion, that’s his choice, not the priest.
No clue how you got this idea in your head.
I got it by growing up Catholic, sitting in church, watching as a well known mobster, Mafia goon, drove up in his shiny Cadillac, took his place in the front row, with his family in tow, and went to receive communion every Sunday. He was not turned away.
I got this idea because there’s a thing the Church teaches called forgivness. I got this idea because I believe it is not the priest’s role to judge another man or woman as unworthy to receive holy communion. Their job, as I see it, is to bless, forgive, teach, and serve.
I got this idea because it is impossible, imo, for the Church to go down this road with priest’s permitted to cast judgment, while singling out the unworthy, and saying “you sir, are not welcome” to receive the sacrament.
“Officer! How can you give me a ticket with all these other cars going by faster than I was going?” Anonymous’ logic: no law must be enforced till there is absolutely perfect law enforcement.
If only the Church was “perfect” like anonymous, never ever going against his/her own version of morality, whatever that is.
You know, “perfect,” like Peter, the “Rock” on whom Christ found the Church, the guy who denied Christ three times to save his hide, then later demanded to be crucified upside down, not deserving to die as Christ did.
I’m not perfect. Or am I? Neither is the Catholic Church. Or is it? Nor is the Pope. Or is he? I am not a practicing Catholic. Clearly its teachings do not resonate with me. I do, however, know and believe the teaching of Jesus that tells me I am healed, whole and perfect because I am as God created me. I like that teaching. Not so much the Catholic church’s teachings.
its not impossible. they’ve been denying communion to bigwigs all along. this is one of their tools. if you don’t like it, don’t darken their doorstep and quit whining about it.
priests are out there dispensing communion to reprobate serial offenders of one sort or another all the time. it’s on them to follow their own rules. I see them handing it out to people they knew they shouldn’t have many a time. it’s not for me to go out and slam the priest for not following the priestly rules. if one of them gets their courage up to deny it, I say good for that priest for having some cojones.
you want to be a Protestant go be a protestant. You’re free to do that and and the Church is free to do its thing.
I meant, imo, it is impossible to sustain a robust and growing membership in the Catholic Church as it is today. I understand the Church is free to do its thing. I am free to have an opinion about it. Just as I am free to no longer be a member of the Catholic faith.
The Church wants a membership and it will do what it will to maintain and expand it. maybe they will follow their own rules or maybe not.
the irony in every extrinsic religious order in the modern era is much the same. they relax their cult and rules, to get more members, and in the process, they lose their identity, and eventually lose their followers. this is how it’s worked in the West at least, for every variety of Christianity and other religions too. this is the process of modernization which is a process of social atomization and the loss of particularly strong sources of social cohesion in favor of the cult of the individual who gets to pick all his own identity even on down now to socalled “gender”
being a sort of Neanderthal myself, it rather makes me want to puke, and the occasional story of a priest denying communion is an eye catcher, a sort of man bites dog story. fun to hear about once in a while since it bucks the trend.
I got this idea because there’s a thing the Church teaches called forgivness. I got this idea because I believe it is not the priest’s role to judge another man or woman as unworthy to receive holy communion. Their job, as I see it, is to bless, forgive, teach, and serve.
And again, you’re utterly misinformed about canon law. (And I don’t take seriously your anecdote, btw).
You are correct that I am utterly misinformed about canon law. And yes, it’s a true story: the mobster and his family attended my church, faithfully.
that’s not how it works. sorry, if it’s not your thing, but don’t dictate how somebody else runs their church.
would you go down to a synagogue and tell them who is qualified for a jewish marriage?
would you go down to a mosque and say who’s a Muslim or not?
would you crash a Wiccan coven and dictate to them who they have to accept as a witch?
it’s amazing how people are so careful about offending some religious groups but then Christians and especially Catholics get the hammer of every unqualified opinion.
Does the aspiring President have a right of appeal of the refusal under Canon Law?
Biden does not oppose abortion. Saying he does is a lie. Period.
I do not see why Biden’s political stance puts him outside of the sacraments.
This isn’t that difficult.
The CC is unequivocal here. Voting for abortion rights [0] is not allowed and is a mortal sin [1]. A politician voting to continue abortion rights is excommunicated. Biden (and Kerry) should know that, so they should keep sitting in their pew during communion instead of putting the priest in the position of knowingly committing blasphemy [2].
Some of us are capable of sitting in our pews during communion time, even though we’re anonymous nobodies so the priest has no way of knowing if we’re ineligible for communion. Why can’t the Bidens and Kerrys do the same?
[0] This is not the same as merely voting for a politician who supports abortion rights. It’s voting for said politician for, among other reasons, his stance in abortion.
[1] Confessing before the ceremony doesn’t count here. Confession necessitates an honest commitment not to re-offend (even if we’re doubtful that we won’t). For example, I can’t confess my state of adultery (married to a divorcee) because I have no intention to leave my wife (and two kids).
[2] Jeez this pisses me off. Why do you have to put another person’s concious in the mix?
well said sdfsafa — really well said
SDSFAFA: I find it interesting – and I am not condemning you (to coin a phrase) – that you apparently feel comfortable as a sinner (married to a divorcee) continuing to attend mass. My own sister-in-law who is divorced also feels no inconsistency in continuing to regard herself as Roman Catholic and attend mass. So, are she and you entitled to call yourselves Roman Catholic – or perhaps just “Catholic Light”?
BTW, my sister-in-law and her second husband (also RC and divorced from his first wife) tried for years to get a Church annulment. Turned out after years of Canon lawyers and expense that they did not have enough cachet to pull it off. So, as I said, they just went on being “Catholic Light.” No harm done; unless they are damned for eternity!
Got to add that I am always amazed how the Church is comfortably able to grant annulment to spouses with multiple children – on the basis that the marriage was never truly consummated – or some such mumbo jumbo. As they say, “Money talks.” Even with a heavenly organization.
Luther had something to say about indulgences.
Didn’t the Church do away with those after Martin Luther? Or does there remain a back door?
I’m not Catholic, but I believe the official practice ended in the 16th century.
Can i get a referral please? lolz
the one thing the enemies of the Church have in common with zealots: a lack of humor
Please note that Joe Biden had always supported the Hyde amendment language that restricted federal funding of abortions (supposedly because he was a self-described Catholic) and he has recently flipped on that position to be more in line with Dem activists because he is running for President. Is that expedient or what? Where should the Catholic church draw the line?.
I do not recall the good fathers ever denying their paedophile brethren access to Holy Communion. Hypocrisy comes in many shapes, beliefs and religions.
In full disclosure, I am an apostate former Catholic who would probably be burned at the stake if the Holy Roman Church had been able to continue that fine tradition in our day.
I do not recall the good fathers ever denying their paedophile brethren access to Holy Communion.
1. Can you give us a list of priests who were public advocates of paedophilia or pederasty?
2. Can you give us a list of priests who have received communion without absolution?
Nice thing about Xtianity, all the evil doers need do is ask for forgiveness and voila on to a new parish.
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.
He was not wrong and your being raised Catholic and attending Catholic schools as a child show how stunted your “Catholic faith” is today as an adult.
Being a man of Faith is like anything else in life: being a bodybuilder, being a good physician, a competent lawyer, an efficient politician requires practice, a daily rhythm, much like the 10,000 hours paradigm. You don’t rely on the childhood exposure of Catholicism to carry you into adult years. You have to practice it and more importantly feed it, grow it, and live it daily. These do not describe you, and that’s on you
If you seek to be a Catholic as a man, you need to grow your faith, work at it, feed it, develop a daily discipline. Ora et labora is the phrase of St. Benedict of Nursia to describe the life of the Benedictine monks in an abbey: “prayer and work”
You can’t call yourself a Catholic if you are relying on your childhood years to define your faith today. No more than going to the gym once a year, or having trained in a high school sport makes you a competitive bodybuilder or pro athlete as an adult
Joe Biden has an opportunity to learn from this experience and reconcile his views with natural law and God’s laws. Hopefully he will
Expect the parish numbers to grow in attendance. Father Morey is a priest who resonates pastoral concern for his flock. This is a win win situation for him, the parish and the Catholic Faith.
Thank you, Estovir. Perfectly explained. And unrepentant sinners excommunicate themselves. I’m not even Roman Catholic, and I know that much.
The sense of entitlement is a new and foreign construct in this country and it came from a lax attitude brought to the public square by the godless. All throughout the Old and New Testaments, there is a disposition of “fear and trembling” towards God, “remove your sandals for you are on holy ground” and knowing you are imperfect because “He must increase while I must decrease”. Today none of these exist.
Being perfect, being holy, turning the other cheek, dying to self, loving when another spits on you..these take work…daily work
Biden and Turley have a burden that few of us share: “for him whom much is given, much shall be expected” is a truth Christians fear.
Biden showing up to Mass as a defender of abortion is as arrogant as they get. Its a wonder he wasnt struck by lightning
i have to disagree, secularism is not new to this country. Jefferson was a Deist which is to say, not a Christian, basically. And quite a few others. I think there was one Catholic who signed the Declaration. The American constitution is clearly a secular regime and its nearly contemporaneous occurrence with the anti-clerical rebellion in France was no accident. Freemasonry was an important social movement at the time in both nations, in somewhat different forms, but with an essential indifferentism as common denominator. So, I believe the US federal regime was in fact hostile to Christianity as formal religion, if not a cultural source, at least from its inception. If you are Hispanic perhaps you know about Simon Bolivar, another anti-feudal, secular, freemason Republican figure from history.
The state governments, not necessarily so, as someone else explained.
It should be noted kurtz, that what sets our government apart from every other from the dawn of monotheism and perhaps beyond, is that it does not claim to be exercising “God’s” will. It is spectacularly secular and God is banished from our legal system, with an occasional sop to the dim.
the Swiss Confederation predates the US Constitution as a secular regime that tolerated sectarian differences. I’m not aware of any other examples of non-confessional states which precede the US and Swiss Confederations. but maybe there were some I don’t know.
I don’t think that the trappings of monotheism are sops. The symbology and slogans were heavily drawn from Freemasonry is not atheistic it is specifically theistic, just with indifferentism as to specific sect.
So I don’t think people are dim for seeing Christianity in certain symbols and invocations, such as sessions of government that open with prayer. Prayer is a literal form of worship. But there is some level of dis-ingenuousness to it, at least a little. And maybe there was an element of deception occurring between the Founders and the general population which probably was more religiously observant than they.
I don’t mock Christians for their beliefs. The loss of belief in Divinity is terrifying if you understand it fully. You look into the abyss. How anybody can be enthusiastic about considering themselves mere protoplasm and the consequence of electrochemical bonds arising from a random cosmic bubble in spacetime is sickening. And look at how the likes of Elon Musk have seized upon “simulation theory” to imagine an alien godlike programmer for a creator which they can infer no differently than the Bible thumpers who talk about “intelligent design.” dont get me started
I’m not sure any of us can understand eternity and our temporal place in it, but we do better than any other beings we have knowledge of, though some of us imagine superior being(s). The obvious indifference of our world to our well being, individually or collectively is similarly difficult to grasp, but the utility of religion as a mental pacifier is hardly an argument for God’s existence. I’ll take my existence straight and revel in our powers of reason and the freedom to live without bogeymen under the bed.
Two thoughts to leave with you:
Christopher Hitchens:
“Religion is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life, before you’re born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you’re dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate?”
Stewart Brand:
“We are as gods and might as well get good at it,” -the Whole Earth Catalog’s statement of purpose.
Anonl, finally somebody that is not blinded by fundamentalism.
Something you may enjoy. It is a BBC series that you can still see in Netflix, “The Bible buried secrets”. It is presented by an archeologist specialized in Biblical studies. Her name is Dr.Stavrakopoulou.
There are only three videos, very well documented. Enjoy it!
You are partially correct, anon1. We are not set up, not configurated that well, to really understand concepts like eternity and Supreme Being(s).
And since we have no intrinsic ability to figure those things out, you “know” these concepts are like believing “boogeymen under the bed”.
So I congratulate you on your supreme confidence in knowing the unknowable; that’s a good look for you, or at least a familiar one for one with the “Supreme Knowledge” of anon1.
I’m not the one claiming the universe listens to me whenever I imagine a connection and then guides my personal life and decisions.
You are the one who stated we have no real understanding of eternity and our place in the world.
Then you declare with your usual degree of certainty that those whose believe in God’s existence
must only “imagine” that existence.
And evidently equate belief to imagining “the boogeymen”.
So we have anon1 first declaring that we probably have no real understanding of eternity and our place in the world, then anon1 confidently stating that those who have a different take on eternity and our “place in the universe” must only believe that because of their imaginations.
The only thing lacking is anon1 equating his opinion with his “and that’s a fact” assurance.
“He who denies the existence of God, has some reason for wishing that God did not exist.”
― St. Augustine
I’m not sure…though some of us imagine superior being(s).
If you’re not sure, then you could just as easily be wrong. So what can we be sure about?
We can be sure that man has done and will do the very things he ascribes to God. And why does man do these things? As Brand asserts, it’s in man’s nature to believe he is god. Evidence? Mountains of evidence that proves at no time in history have leaders that acted as gods ever been good at it. And there is nothing in man’s nature that indicates they will ever be good at it.
Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate?
That whole paragraph is projection. He’s describing what history has proven when the people are subject to leaders that believe they are as gods. Those rejecting the divine right of king’s, those demanding equal justice under the law and a government accountable to the people, are doing the opposite of what Brand is saying. It’s actually those that don’t believe in inalienable rights, those that believe all rights come from government, that ignorantly enable the government to be their masters and them their slaves.
And guess what? One can believe in natural rights without having a belief in God.
Olly, only humans have the ability to both discover the complex nature and operations of our world and – besides for maybe your dog – comfort and encourage and reward good behavior of your 3 year old and ourselves. If you leave her out in the rain, no God or principle of nature will do a g.d damn thing about it.
Those qualities are what Brand was referencing, not power over other humans. Given most imagined supreme beings are wrathful SOBs, I understand your confusion.
If you leave her out in the rain, no God or principle of nature will do a g.d damn thing about it.
If you’re expecting God or nature to save you from your own stupidity, then you don’t understand either God or nature.
Those qualities are what Brand was referencing, not power over other humans.
Yet you decided to drop Brand’s quote, incomplete and out of context, and directly after the Hitchens quote, to further a point Brand wasn’t trying to make. You are one deceitful SOS.
No Olly I don’t understand your imaginary friend.
The Brand quote – given he doesn’t harbor dictatorial goals – should be self explanatory, but since it wasn’t to you, I added context.
“then you could just as easily be wrong”.
I don’t know if that thought ever occurred to anon1, Olly.
Would it help if he added “and that’s a fact” to his declarations? That always convinces me🙄that his opinions are as good as fact.
I don’t know if that thought ever occurred to anon1, Olly.
He lacks the humility. The IG and Durham reports won’t require his admission of being wrong. It will be a self-evident truth.
Yes, Olly I lack your humility in claiming to know the mind of God.
understanding eternity is an interesting proposition. i gather from what i have learned of relativity that “time” is actually just the movement of things in space and that while causality is real, time is illusory
https://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
as for Hitchens, he like many other materialists, questions well, but never quite profoundly enough
if you deconstruct philosophy like math, you come to the conclusion that there are always some AXIOMS
things that are taken as self evidently true. a = a the law of identity for example, or causality
and yet in science, quantum mechanics, through what’s called the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, they have apparently inferred things about quantum particles ie electrons which suggest that causality and identity are not as simple as we once thought it was: (the mere act of observation of a particle can cause it to spin differently) and (particles can be in two places at one time)
then you get down to the discussion of “simulation theory”. this is a computer geek’s version of “intelligent design.” Nick Bostrom. Look it up.
So you have all these non-Christian, atheist, materialist scientific people out there now speculating that alien intelligence actually evoked our universe as a literal programmed simulation. yeah, like the matrix. this is taken seriously– I will post more material if anybody cares. I think it’s interesting to speculate about it, myself, but I ask how different is it than saying “God Created the Universe?”
so if the edge of physics is taking us back around to magic sounding “principles” like quantum entanglement, and theistic sounding cosmological narratives, then maybe all the mocking criticisms of religion are misplaced disrespect, at the very least
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs
Nick Bostrom explains the simulation argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAG9dAfy8U
Neil De Grasse Tyson explains simulation hypothesis to Larry King
Kurtz, there is a difference between speculating on intelligence in the universe and thinking you know it’s intent, including GAFF about you and me and caring about who we have sex with.
I prefer my own counsel with occasional help with friends and family.
so what you’re negating is essentially the personality of God, that He cares?
I don’t know if I’m right, & I am not claiming this is true or not, but on that account. I too suspect that we are less like children and more like the bacteria on His shoes and He does not really care. at best we amuse Him.
I realize that is a heathen viewpoint, at best Calvinist-like, but it’s my usual sense of things. I could be wrong. And certainly I am very fortunate for my own existence, and not complaining. We’re lucky to be alive even if just a minuscule iota of cosmological being.
For all my Catholic education and joining and efforts, I can’t really escape my Presbyterian upbringing for this sense of life, perhaps:
“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked. His wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be cast into the fire.” — Jonathan Edwards
Kurtz, I am saying that even if we think there might be a universal creating life force, we do not if it cares about us, or if it does, what it wants. In any case, we’re best to rely on the abilities which have gotten us to habitation of the entire world, no matter the environment, and to visiting the moon. It was reason and hard work, not prayer or consulting books from 2 millennia back.
anon1 said:
“we’re best to rely on the abilities which have gotten us to habitation of the entire world”
i generally agree with the use of reason. but you have to ask yourself, is religion itself a form of evolved behavior which advances the species?
before you dismiss that notion, consider that the strictest criterion of evolutionary fitness, is survival not only of the organism but new generations of it.
here’s where the zinger should come in. Secularism is directly correlated with a decline in reproductive outcomes. Whereas, Religiosity is directly correlated with numerically superior reproductive outcomes
here someone spins out the implications of this
https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/03/16/atheists-could-die-out-because-religious-people-have-more-babies
ergo, it is possible that religion is pure fiction, and yet, it’s a fiction that works in the most materialistic, mechanistic, cold hearted standards of biology imaginable.
Interesting point, but not with the example you give.
1. Our survival in the future will require a smaller population.
2. Declining birth rates and secularism both track with prosperity.
Well done Estovir
Very well stated Estovir!
“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.”
Should we be personally opposed to murder but believe that every person should have the right to decide that question for themselves?
There is no inalienable right to decide if a human being gets to live.
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.
Jim,
That statement reminds me of the Buddy Ryan quote: If you listen to the fans, you’ll be sitting up there with them. Biden put his politics before his faith and the priest essentially told him his seat is not at the Lord’s table.
I wasn’t much of a fan of Buddy Ryan’s but that is a good quote. My personal growth on this issue is much like Biden’s. Whan I was younger, I thought the same. The libertarian in me felt that a choice is better than no choice but I would hope that people would not partake in the practice of abortion. It wasn’t until I thought about inalienable rights combined with life itself that I realized that “choice” was taking rights away from a separate individual. After that, all I needed was that it is alive, human and has value to know that it is wrong.
It wasn’t until I thought about inalienable rights combined with life itself that I realized that “choice” was taking rights away from a separate individual.
Very good choice. The alternative belief is that all your rights are given to you by the will of the state (majority). Those that believe that are a cancer on humanity.
I agree with the priest and it should be done to Pelosi if she is still going to church. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
https://bustatroll.org/2019/06/22/no-more-bake-sales-nancy/
Mr. Schulte,
As you can see from the attached link, they came down even harder on Pelosi, but not for her views on abortion.
(You just have to look outside of the mainstream media to get this kind of information)😉.
That’s hilarious. “Hey Nancy, you drunk, don’t come back here, to this here church, until you find God and slay your demons. Ya here?”
Anonymous – it is clear she has a head tremor when speakings and if this article is true, she probably has “wet brain.” If so, she is on her way out.
If she lasts another two months, she’ll be the oldest person ever to hold the Speaker’s chair. No clue why she (or Feinstein) wish to be traveling coast to coast at their age. Louise Slaughter, then aged 85, was shuffling between Rochester and Washington as her husband was dying of cancer. I think Congress attracts and retains pathological people.
government positions at the high level are like a mafia. in history we see these old mafia guys blowing off their families and running risks that will certainly lead to prison or their own murder, why?
the sense of power and how it operates on a person in social networks like that, is incredibly compelling, to the kinds of personalities that are willing to be initiated into them in the first places
most people who are wise don’t want to be in the mafia, nor the higher reaches of government, either. that’s my guess at least.
Child abuse fine! Genocide ok. Adultery, discrimination, violence against women and children in cages, no problem but refuse to support a theocracy and you are denied the sacraments. The Church is hungry for the benefits the GOP has poured into its pockets and it turns a blind eye to everything it does.
So how’s that throuple working for ya?
You don’t have to show us your pics. Your gal Rep. Katie Hill’s pics were enough to put Americans in therapy for a few sessions, but thanks tho
the Church has tripped over itself in scolding politicians who seek to restrict illegal immigration Justice Holmes.
if you think the Catholic Church in America is in some kind of conspiracy with the Republican party as you suggest, that’s a joke. the laity are roughly split between the parties.
https://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/#religious-affiliation-and-party-identification
I am pretty certain most of the priests are actually democrats. maybe the lowest level are Republicans but you go up in rank in the hierarchy and the proportion of Democrats increases. I’m not sure statistics are available but my sources come from personal knowledge so I’ll trust my own modest experience on that.
A census of Chicago priests was undertaken about 15 years ago and discovered that about 21% were registered Republicans. Other survey research suggests that about 30% of the ordained priests in the Church in American were in their views frankly outside the Church. (A disgruntled named Fr. Joseph Wilson used to pen articles for the Catholic press from his rectory in Queens. His description of many priests: “Jungians, unitarians, and goofies”). Mainline clergy are indubitably worse.
1/5 around Chicago, closer to 1/3 nationwide, confirms my suspicion
there is a nice old church building, Episcopalian church, couple hundred years old or so, in the middle of Flushing New York which is Queens and an intensely concentrated population of Chinese migrants in the neighborhood. the sign says in so many words, “we take all kinds” – spelled out in about 10 different languages. lucky for us English is the lingua franca most places in the world if there is one.
Primitive beliefs about the nature of reality are an American specialty.
As opposed to “advanced” China, where they murder political enemies and sell the body parts, right?
When Rome ruled the Western World, even the Roman Senate voted back and forth between abortion being legal/illegal.
Constitutional scholars, even rabid pro-abortionists, have well documented that the Roe v. Wade decision is one of the all time worst/weakest judgements by the SCOTUS. On the majority side are surprising examples of leaps of logic and connecting the dots. This point is only magnified by the fact that it is also one of the all time most controversial SCOTUS judgements.
Considering the above, I wonder why Turley does not provide more of this thoughts on the subject.