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 wo…
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?
So, just to be clear, you believe that there is nothing wrong with a Catholic politician who personally supports the institution of slavery receiving the Holy Eucharist - is that correct?
The question is not what I believe but what the actual practice of the Church has been. Certainly I believe that all economic exploitation is wrong be it slavery, or union busting, or substandard wages. But do I condemn Lincoln for not supporting immediate and uncompensated emancipation? No, I consider him a political genius for his approach for emancipation.
So you are find no contradiction with a Catholic politician who actively supports and defends the institution of slavery receiving the Holy Eucharist, is that accurate?
First, I have not commented on what I find. I have noted what the Church has found. Any historical study can answer that question for you.
Second, setting aside those who are actual enslavers, what is "actively supports and defends"? Of course, I am not speaking of a prudential judgment on that question but the Church's clear and stated moral teaching. Is it immediate abolition or gradual abolition? What of compensated abolition? What of the Homestead Act, which was designed to prevent the extension of the Plantation system to the West? What of slave revolts? And can you cite not just your own lay opinion but the statements of Catholic bishops and prelates in the antebellum period?
You are avoiding the question, Kurt. Do you believe that a Catholic politician in the United States today - November 2023 - who actively, unapologetically supports and defends slavery *as a right* should be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist? Yes or no. The statements of the Church in the antebellum period are irrelevant; we are talking about today.
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.
So, just to be clear, you believe that there is nothing wrong with a Catholic politician who personally supports the institution of slavery receiving the Holy Eucharist - is that correct?
The question is not what I believe but what the actual practice of the Church has been. Certainly I believe that all economic exploitation is wrong be it slavery, or union busting, or substandard wages. But do I condemn Lincoln for not supporting immediate and uncompensated emancipation? No, I consider him a political genius for his approach for emancipation.
So you are find no contradiction with a Catholic politician who actively supports and defends the institution of slavery receiving the Holy Eucharist, is that accurate?
Your question has two flaws.
First, I have not commented on what I find. I have noted what the Church has found. Any historical study can answer that question for you.
Second, setting aside those who are actual enslavers, what is "actively supports and defends"? Of course, I am not speaking of a prudential judgment on that question but the Church's clear and stated moral teaching. Is it immediate abolition or gradual abolition? What of compensated abolition? What of the Homestead Act, which was designed to prevent the extension of the Plantation system to the West? What of slave revolts? And can you cite not just your own lay opinion but the statements of Catholic bishops and prelates in the antebellum period?
You are avoiding the question, Kurt. Do you believe that a Catholic politician in the United States today - November 2023 - who actively, unapologetically supports and defends slavery *as a right* should be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist? Yes or no. The statements of the Church in the antebellum period are irrelevant; we are talking about today.