The canon you cite simply says "a state of grace." It says not one word about public policy positions. NOT ONE WORD. Applying Church teachings to public policy and criminal law is a matter of prudential judgment.
The canon you cite simply says "a state of grace." It says not one word about public policy positions. NOT ONE WORD. Applying Church teachings to public policy and criminal law is a matter of prudential judgment.
That's a specious argument, Kurt, and you know it. How does a Catholic become in a state of grace? Generally by receiving absolution through confession, penance, and a firm purpose of amendment. Do we have any evidence that President Biden has performed any of these requirements?
Or do we have plentiful evidence that he remains in an obstinate state of manifest grave sin?
I don't send trackers out to the President or any other Catholic to keep up on their frequency of confession (nor should I, nor anyone). I see no evidence the President avoids the sacrament of confession. I would bet he goes to confession more often than the average Catholic, so if there are 70 million American Catholics, why don't you attack without evidence 35 million of them by name before getting to the President? Frankly I find public speculation on other people's state of grace unChristian.
You don't have to send trackers, the President makes it available for all to see. He proudly and unapologetically supports abortion on demand and mutilation of children in furtherance of a transgender agenda. If this were something about which he remained quiet, then yes, it would be uncharitable to speculate on his state of grace. But that fact that he is manifestly in grave sin and obstinately refusing to amend his celebration of infanticide makes the question of his state of grace fairly obvious.
The President affirms the Church's teaching on the morality of abortion. Like with divorce, adultery, masturbation and every other moral issue, the matter of what criminal, civil and social assistance responses one takes is a matter of prudential judgment.
No, President Biden does *not* affirm the Church's teaching on the inherent evil of abortion, as explicitly spelled out in the Catechism. The President states that he "respectfully disagrees" with the Church's teaching. However, *even if he did* affirm the Church's teaching, that wouldn't matter, because he claims to be a Catholic. It would be as if he affirms the Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception, but stated that he respectfully disagrees on this dogma. One cannot be a Catholic and deny the Immaculate Conception. Similarly, one cannot be a Catholic in a state of grace and continually and obstinately support abortion on demand, not merely in statements, but also with public funding and policy.
You have destroyed your own point. The President has never said he "respectfully disagrees" with Church TEACHING. He publicly affirmed it. And (and let me say abortion is a much more serious matter, but these are the two issues you chose), just as Catholics are to affirm the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, no Catholic objectively sins by any particular opinion on what the civil and criminal status of the Immaculate Conception should be. I would welcome civil law making the Feast Day a paid holiday for all workers. I very strongly believe that employers should make "reasonable accommodations" so Roman Catholics can attend Mass for the Feast. However, no one sins because they have contrary views as to the civil and criminal status of this.
You're kind of missing the point, Kurt. The Church is not teaching what civil law should be. First, what the Church is teaching about the inherently sinful nature of abortion is the dogma: those things that are to be believed by all the faithful. Therefore, to reject the teaching *is* to reject the dogma, which is gravely sinful. President Biden is not forbidden from the reception of the Eucharist because of some banal disagreement about civil and criminal statutes in US law; President Biden is unambiguously forbidden from receiving the Blessed Sacrament for being in an obstinate and persistent state of grave error in violation of explicit teachings *about the dogma*.
Ah, we are in agreement but you are misunderstand the facts. The President has never denied but has even affirmed the Church's teaching on the wrongfulness of the act of abortion. You are correct that a person's opinion about civil and criminal statutes in US law on abortion is not a basis for denial communion. Just as my Republican friends are obligated to believe that adultery is wrong but not obligated to believe that Trump should be in jail for his adultery (though God knows the criminal should be in jail for other things).
This is a fictitious argument, and here is why: the Church does not deny the Holy Eucharist as a result of disagreement on civil and criminal statutes, let's say tax evasion. The Church *does*, however, deny the Holy Eucharist based upon obstinate rejection of fundamental Church doctrine, such as the inherent evil of abortion and the unapologetic defense of the same.
If the President does indeed affirm the Church's teaching (and there is a huge difference between affirming and acknowledging), yet he still obstinately refuses to be bound by it, then that could be interpreted as heresy. Here's why: Catechism 2089, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it [in this case, the revealed truth is the inherent evil of abortion]. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."
I feel like an analogy would be instructive: suppose that the President understood the Catholic Church prohibition on slavery, and even acknowledged that he understood the reasons for the Church's teaching, yet he maintained that this is an issue for civil laws to regulate through criminal statutes. Should that President be denied the Holy Eucharist? Why or why not?
The canon you cite simply says "a state of grace." It says not one word about public policy positions. NOT ONE WORD. Applying Church teachings to public policy and criminal law is a matter of prudential judgment.
That's a specious argument, Kurt, and you know it. How does a Catholic become in a state of grace? Generally by receiving absolution through confession, penance, and a firm purpose of amendment. Do we have any evidence that President Biden has performed any of these requirements?
Or do we have plentiful evidence that he remains in an obstinate state of manifest grave sin?
I don't send trackers out to the President or any other Catholic to keep up on their frequency of confession (nor should I, nor anyone). I see no evidence the President avoids the sacrament of confession. I would bet he goes to confession more often than the average Catholic, so if there are 70 million American Catholics, why don't you attack without evidence 35 million of them by name before getting to the President? Frankly I find public speculation on other people's state of grace unChristian.
You don't have to send trackers, the President makes it available for all to see. He proudly and unapologetically supports abortion on demand and mutilation of children in furtherance of a transgender agenda. If this were something about which he remained quiet, then yes, it would be uncharitable to speculate on his state of grace. But that fact that he is manifestly in grave sin and obstinately refusing to amend his celebration of infanticide makes the question of his state of grace fairly obvious.
The President affirms the Church's teaching on the morality of abortion. Like with divorce, adultery, masturbation and every other moral issue, the matter of what criminal, civil and social assistance responses one takes is a matter of prudential judgment.
No, President Biden does *not* affirm the Church's teaching on the inherent evil of abortion, as explicitly spelled out in the Catechism. The President states that he "respectfully disagrees" with the Church's teaching. However, *even if he did* affirm the Church's teaching, that wouldn't matter, because he claims to be a Catholic. It would be as if he affirms the Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception, but stated that he respectfully disagrees on this dogma. One cannot be a Catholic and deny the Immaculate Conception. Similarly, one cannot be a Catholic in a state of grace and continually and obstinately support abortion on demand, not merely in statements, but also with public funding and policy.
You have destroyed your own point. The President has never said he "respectfully disagrees" with Church TEACHING. He publicly affirmed it. And (and let me say abortion is a much more serious matter, but these are the two issues you chose), just as Catholics are to affirm the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, no Catholic objectively sins by any particular opinion on what the civil and criminal status of the Immaculate Conception should be. I would welcome civil law making the Feast Day a paid holiday for all workers. I very strongly believe that employers should make "reasonable accommodations" so Roman Catholics can attend Mass for the Feast. However, no one sins because they have contrary views as to the civil and criminal status of this.
You're kind of missing the point, Kurt. The Church is not teaching what civil law should be. First, what the Church is teaching about the inherently sinful nature of abortion is the dogma: those things that are to be believed by all the faithful. Therefore, to reject the teaching *is* to reject the dogma, which is gravely sinful. President Biden is not forbidden from the reception of the Eucharist because of some banal disagreement about civil and criminal statutes in US law; President Biden is unambiguously forbidden from receiving the Blessed Sacrament for being in an obstinate and persistent state of grave error in violation of explicit teachings *about the dogma*.
Ah, we are in agreement but you are misunderstand the facts. The President has never denied but has even affirmed the Church's teaching on the wrongfulness of the act of abortion. You are correct that a person's opinion about civil and criminal statutes in US law on abortion is not a basis for denial communion. Just as my Republican friends are obligated to believe that adultery is wrong but not obligated to believe that Trump should be in jail for his adultery (though God knows the criminal should be in jail for other things).
This is a fictitious argument, and here is why: the Church does not deny the Holy Eucharist as a result of disagreement on civil and criminal statutes, let's say tax evasion. The Church *does*, however, deny the Holy Eucharist based upon obstinate rejection of fundamental Church doctrine, such as the inherent evil of abortion and the unapologetic defense of the same.
If the President does indeed affirm the Church's teaching (and there is a huge difference between affirming and acknowledging), yet he still obstinately refuses to be bound by it, then that could be interpreted as heresy. Here's why: Catechism 2089, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it [in this case, the revealed truth is the inherent evil of abortion]. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same."
I feel like an analogy would be instructive: suppose that the President understood the Catholic Church prohibition on slavery, and even acknowledged that he understood the reasons for the Church's teaching, yet he maintained that this is an issue for civil laws to regulate through criminal statutes. Should that President be denied the Holy Eucharist? Why or why not?
The President has never been seriously accused of having an abortion or performing one. That ends the discussion of violating Church doctrine.
As to your last question, you need only to look at the Church's 2000 year history of actual practice for your answer there.