Should President Biden be denied Communion for support of abortion?

[roguenuke]

There are a variety of reasons (as you have pointed out) for the woman’s choice. The RCC doesn’t consider many of them valid as long as there are alternatives. Their viewpoint is that the fetus is a living being and as such any attempt to end that life is unacceptable. We can argue all we wish on behalf of the woman’s right to choose but the arguments matter not. I’ve simply pointed out some of the objections to the arguments.

Which don't matter to how Catholics as a whole already believe. There are lots of Catholics that do not agree with every single thing that the RCC puts out, especially not when it is just a small group of clergy/Bishops (overall) within the RCC, since the Vatican told them they did not approve of denying communion to politicians for "public political positions".

 

[Overitall]

Which don't matter to how Catholics as a whole already believe. There are lots of Catholics that do not agree with every single thing that the RCC puts out, especially not when it is just a small group of clergy/Bishops (overall) within the RCC, since the Vatican told them they did not approve of denying communion to politicians for "public political positions".

I’m not sure what you mean by “small group. . . .”

Bishops and Dioceses

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is an assembly of the Catholic Church hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands....

www.usccb.org

There are 433 active and retired (arch)bishops in the United States

It’s not the size that matters but the force of their decrees. Yet, as you point out there are many laypersons that don’t give a crap what they say. Many of them, however, probably won’t publicly stand their ground. Outside of coming out of church on Sunday most people couldn’t identify a Catholic.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Lifestyle decisions are always rooted in morality.

That's not true either. Lifestyle decisions are personal and conscious decisions to perform a behavior that may increase or decrease the risk of injury or disease, or acquiring a set of attitudes, habits or possessions associated with a particular person or group that are regarded being desirable or fashionable. Things like smoking or drinking less or exercising more. Or buying designer clothing or luxury high status cars.

 

[roguenuke]

I’m not sure what you mean by “small group. . . .”

Bishops and Dioceses

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is an assembly of the Catholic Church hierarchy of the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands....

www.usccb.org

It’s not the size that matters but the force of their decrees. Yet, as you point out there are many laypersons that don’t give a crap what they say. Many of them, however, probably won’t publicly stand their ground. Outside of coming out of church on Sunday most people couldn’t identify a Catholic.

Why would church be necessary to identify a Catholic at all?

Also, I stated relatively speaking because many Bishops throughout the RCC do not support the stance of these Bishops. With 5600 RCC Bishops total, and the Vatican telling the US Bishops that they don't support this, that seems to suggest strongly that the group that were supporting this was small.

Ahead of Communion document vote, Pope Francis' US allies urge delay

Pope Francis' closest U.S. allies made an at times desperate appeal during the U.S. bishops' spring assembly not to charge ahead with plans for a divisive document regarding Communion and pro-choice Catholic politicians.

www.ncronline.org

The zealots demand the US bishops name names in Communion document

Distinctly Catholic: My fear is not that the eventual document will adopt this lousy EWTN theology hook, line and sinker. But if the bishops give so much as an inch to the zealots, the harm to the church will continue.

www.ncronline.org

Seems there are many Catholics who don't agree with the positions of these Bishops.

 

[Overitall]

Why would church be necessary to identify a Catholic at all?

Also, I stated relatively speaking because many Bishops throughout the RCC do not support the stance of these Bishops. With 5600 RCC Bishops total, and the Vatican telling the US Bishops that they don't support this, that seems to suggest strongly that the group that were supporting this was small.

Ahead of Communion document vote, Pope Francis' US allies urge delay

Pope Francis' closest U.S. allies made an at times desperate appeal during the U.S. bishops' spring assembly not to charge ahead with plans for a divisive document regarding Communion and pro-choice Catholic politicians.

www.ncronline.org

The zealots demand the US bishops name names in Communion document

Distinctly Catholic: My fear is not that the eventual document will adopt this lousy EWTN theology hook, line and sinker. But if the bishops give so much as an inch to the zealots, the harm to the church will continue.

www.ncronline.org

Seems there are many Catholics who don't agree with the positions of these Bishops.

I meant it would be difficult to identify any woman going into an abortion clinic as being a Catholic. How would any of those serving a person communion know they had an abortion? If one of them thought there was nothing wrong about getting an abortion they would have no reason to include that detail in their confession before communion. And unless those providing you the abortion saw you coming out of a church how would they know you were a Catholic. Even if they knew I doubt it would be an issue for them.

 

[Overitall]

That's not true either. Lifestyle decisions are personal and conscious decisions to perform a behavior that may increase or decrease the risk of injury or disease, or acquiring a set of attitudes, habits or possessions associated with a particular person or group that are regarded being desirable or fashionable. Things like smoking or drinking less or exercising more. Or buying designer clothing or luxury high status cars.

You have pretty much agreed with me.

 

[jmotivator]

So first of all, nothing about my post had anything to do with communion and excommunication.

Second, not a guy.

Third, your sources are highly biased.

The Western Journal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Western Journal Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of The Western Journal. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Seems that your stance that Democrats are threatening political retaliation over this is from a single, maybe a few Democrats saying that their tax status should be reviewed, looked at for them basically doing something that they aren't supposed to do, get involved in politics. The Vatican told them not to do it. So the only reason that they would take such an action would be their political stance.

You seem to think the Church wants to throw Democtats out, they don't..

Second, I don't care.

Third, ad hominem fallacy. Are you saying those politicians public declarations stated in the article are false?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You seem to suggest that aborting a fetus is a health issue as if it was cancer. It’s not. Although in a few cases it might be a health issue for the most part it’s a life-style choice. There are alternatives.

It’s been clearly established that the government cannot stop a woman from getting an abortion but no where in the Constitution does it infer that it’s the government’s responsibility to make it easier to get one or pay for it. Trump put restrictions on funding to nonprofit groups that promote or provide abortions. Biden reversed those EOs. That goes above and beyond supporting a woman’s right to abortion; it helps her get one.

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if the majority registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if 40% registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if 30% registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if 20% registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if 10% registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I agree but that’s not what this is about. It’s about the RCC doctrinal stance on abortion and Biden’s willingness to ignore it to make it easier for a woman to get an abortion.

Still abortion, imo, isn’t always about healthcare. It’s about choice. Abortion itself can be risky, which is one reason why it was important to get it away from back-alleys procedures. The risks are mitigated but not entirely removed.

When did the Roman Catholic Church become the government of the United States of America?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

universal refers to how it is eveyrwheree, not open to all

Not all religions ban abortions.

You did know that, didn't you?

 

[TypicalRussian]

Not all religions ban abortions.

You did know that, didn't you?

most of them im sure do

 

[Overitall]

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if the majority registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if 40% registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if 30% registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if 20% registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

Would you support legislation that required everyone in the country to register as either "Abortions should be allowed" or "Abortions should not be allowed" and, if 10% registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" then abortions would not be allowed (except in cases of actual threat to the life of the mother) and making it mandatory for anyone who had registered as "Abortions should not be allowed" to accept any new born that the mother does not wish to rear AND do so to some set standard for housing, clothing, feeding, and education?

If that were "the law of the land" and if the majority of the population agreed that "Abortions should not be allowed", then there would be no abortions and every child would be properly raised. (It would also eliminate the [mythical] "welfare baby machines".)

If not, why not?

For the most part tl;dr.

This issue isn’t about what I would support or not. It’s about what the Bishops of the U.S. do or don’t support and whether they have a right to expect their parishioners to follow the Church’s doctrine.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

most of them im sure do

As usual, lack of knowledge does not preclude posting.

​

Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Abortion

Please do some research. After all Nicholas II was NOT "The Czar of Russia" - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

For the most part tl;dr.

This issue isn’t about what I would support or not. It’s about what the Bishops of the U.S. do or don’t support and whether they have a right to expect their parishioners to follow the Church’s doctrine.

Aside from evasion, what do you have to offer.

OF course, the leaders of a religion have a right to expect their parishioners to follow the teachings of their church IN THEIR PERSONAL LIVES. They do not, however, have a right to expect their parishioners to substitute "church dogma" for "law" in their public lives.

If those Bishops are so intent on excommunicating anyone who violates ONE "church dogma" then they had better start acting honourably and excommunicate anyone violates ANY "church dogma". Of course, that is highly likely to cause a very large number of vacancies in the "priestly ranks" due to the fact that large numbers of priests have NOT been "celibate".

And, of course, it is a sin to conceal a crime, so that means that those Bishops had better open the church archives so that those priests and ancillary personnel who have been sexually molesting and physically abusing children can be brought to justice.

BTW, how do you feel about the number of Canadian RCC Inc. retail outlets that have been torched by disgruntled customers in the last few weeks. You do know that they are finding "unmarked graves" at EVERY Canadian residential school that was operated by the RCC Inc. where they have searched the grounds, don't you? Am I ticked off at the fact that the Canadian government didn't supervise those residential schools closely enough to prevent the deaths of _[fill in the blank with the latest number]_ First Nations Children but rather relied on the word of the RCC Inc. franchise managers that they were honourable, kindly, caring, upright, Christian people who would never harm any children? You bet your bootie I am. Am I ticked that the RCC Inc. franchise managers WERE NOT honourable, kindly, caring, upright, Christian people who would never harm any children? Damn rights. Am I ticked that the RCC Inc. is doing everything in its power to hinder, delay, and defeat any attempts to find out exactly how outrageous the situation is and to ensure than none of its franchise managers, or district directors get tagged with any liability for what happened? Does the sun rise in the East?

 

[Atomic Kid]

You have pretty much agreed with me.

Sorry, but no I didn't pretty much agree with you. All those things I mentioned about lifestyle choices have not anything to do with morals or morality.

 

[roguenuke]

I meant it would be difficult to identify any woman going into an abortion clinic as being a Catholic. How would any of those serving a person communion know they had an abortion? If one of them thought there was nothing wrong about getting an abortion they would have no reason to include that detail in their confession before communion. And unless those providing you the abortion saw you coming out of a church how would they know you were a Catholic. Even if they knew I doubt it would be an issue for them.

Except this isn't about a Catholic woman having an abortion, but rather people supporting abortions being legal. Everyone is not quiet about their stances on issues or laws. So there are likely many Catholics who do not keep it a secret that they support abortion being legal eventhough they would never have one themselves.

 

[roguenuke]

You seem to think the Church wants to throw Democtats out, they don't..

Second, I don't care.

Third, ad hominem fallacy. Are you saying those politicians public declarations stated in the article are false?

No. But since most Democrats, including those who are simply voters vote for politicians who hold their personal positions, it makes sense that if you are going to deny communion to a politician for their stance that you would also have to deny it to a voter for his/her stance that matches that politician's, that is in line with that politician. Those voters are not going to accept that their church is denying politicians communion who represent their stance on a certain issue. They will leave the church.

I'm saying that the slant on those things doesn't represent the feelings of at least half of the Catholic population, so is biased. Most Catholics believe abortion should be legal and easy to access, agree with President Biden and his stance on this issue. I'm saying that one or two politicians cannot alone change any sort of tax exempt status, and haven't even legitimately tried (since that would require putting up a bill). They also cannot target any particular religion. They would have to go after other churches/religions who have also been involved in political discourse, actions against others for their political stances.

 

[jmotivator]

No. But since most Democrats, including those who are simply voters vote for politicians who hold their personal positions, it makes sense that if you are going to deny communion to a politician for their stance that you would also have to deny it to a voter for his/her stance that matches that politician's, that is in line with that politician. Those voters are not going to accept that their church is denying politicians communion who represent their stance on a certain issue. They will leave the church.

Again, your attempted analogy asked if the Democrats were throwing pro-LIfe Democrats out of the party. If I were to assume your were making a sane analogy, the analogue in the Catholic Church would be excommunication. These Democrats are not being excommunicated, only denied one of seven sacraments.

That would be like the Democrat party denying pro-LIfe Democrats party leadership appointments.

Also, if people leave the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church stands by its beliefs then those people weren't cut out for the Catholic Faith.

And yes, a Democrat voter who supports abortion should also be denied communion. Though for that to be analogue you'd probably need that Catholic to take an active role in the abortion industry. For those who are only theoretically in support of abortion, they should still not accept communion, but the Church wouldn't know... but in some ways that is worse because you would know the Church's position and take the sacrament anyway.

I'm saying that the slant on those things doesn't represent the feelings of at least half of the Catholic population, so is biased. Most Catholics believe abortion should be legal and easy to access, agree with President Biden and his stance on this issue. I'm saying that one or two politicians cannot alone change any sort of tax exempt status, and haven't even legitimately tried (since that would require putting up a bill). They also cannot target any particular religion. They would have to go after other churches/religions who have also been involved in political discourse, actions against others for their political stances.

The polls on the subject vary dramatically between "Catholics" who don't actually attend mass, and those who attend mass... practicing versus non-practicing. Why would the Church even care about the opinions of "Catholics" who aren't really Catholic at all? The Catholic Church is a religion, and there is only one stated authority on their moral principles, and it isn't Joe Biden. This wouldn't be the first time an authoritarian head of state decided to make a political spectacle of their disagreements with Church doctrine...

Maybe the anti-Catholic Democrat "Catholics" can create a new Protestant faith and put Joe Biden as it's figurehead. The DNC is practically a religion already.

 

[roguenuke]

Again, your attempted analogy asked if the Democrats were throwing pro-LIfe Democrats out of the party. If I were to assume your were making a sane analogy, the analogue in the Catholic Church would be excommunication. These Democrats are not being excommunicated, only denied one of seven sacraments.

That would be like the Democrat party denying pro-LIfe Democrats party leadership appointments.

Also, if people leave the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church stands by its beliefs then those people weren't cut out for the Catholic Faith.

And yes, a Democrat voter who supports abortion should also be denied communion. Though for that to be analogue you'd probably need that Catholic to take an active role in the abortion industry. For those who are only theoretically in support of abortion, they should still not accept communion, but the Church wouldn't know... but in some ways that is worse because you would know the Church's position and take the sacrament anyway.



The polls on the subject vary dramatically between "Catholics" who don't actually attend mass, and those who attend mass... practicing versus non-practicing. Why would the Church even care about the opinions of "Catholics" who aren't really Catholic at all? The Catholic Church is a religion, and there is only one stated authority on their moral principles, and it isn't Joe Biden. This wouldn't be the first time an authoritarian head of state decided to make a political spectacle of their disagreements with Church doctrine...

Maybe the anti-Catholic Democrat "Catholics" can create a new Protestant faith and put Joe Biden as it's figurehead. The DNC is practically a religion already.

What "attempted analogy" of mine are you talking about? You seem to be just connecting random dots that only you can see here.

The Catholic Church is led by the Vatican, not the US Bishops. The Vatican told those Bishops "don't deny communion to politicians based on their political stances".

President Biden isn't actively in the "abortion industry". Your analogy fails.

Either they count as Catholics or they don't. Don't try the "No True Scotsman" crap unless you are willing to reduce the number of actual Catholics in the world. If they are counted in the numbers of Catholics that the RCC puts out, then they count as Catholics, regardless of how you feel they should believe. You don't get to count them publicly, in statistics, but then denounce them as "not true Catholics" anywhere else.

 

[jmotivator]

What "attempted analogy" of mine are you talking about? You seem to be just connecting random dots that only you can see here.

Well, no, I was assuming that your posts were meant to contain a non-random, rational string of thought. My mistake?

The Catholic Church is led by the Vatican, not the US Bishops. The Vatican told those Bishops "don't deny communion to politicians based on their political stances".

... And what is the Vatican's position on abortion?

The Vatican does not concern itself with the minutia of Church dealings with individual parishioners, that is left to the Church, and the Diocese. Unless the Pope chooses to make an infallible declaration, something that Popes have only done twice in the history of the Church, it still falls on the Cardinals to administer the faith within their region. The Church can not hold that abortion is a sin and knowingly give communion to a member that supports it. The Sacrament of contrition is required to be in communion with the Church, and you can't be contrite for something you have decided is not a sin.

And, in fact, the story of the Vatican talking a solid position either way on the issue appears to be wishful thinking, for the most part. The letter in question asks the US. Catholic Cardinals to be careful in their deliberations... which just proves my point that the Vatican isn't the final word there.

Also, while Pope Francis stated that communion is not the "reward of saints" but rather "the bread of sinners", that also doesn't actually effect the final decision, especially when those over whom the deliberations are concerning don't even admit to the sin.

President Biden isn't actively in the "abortion industry". Your analogy fails.

He is actively seeking to fund the abortion industry that promotes and conducts abortions. You are just fooling yourself to think that isn't involvement in the abortion industry

Either they count as Catholics or they don't. Don't try the "No True Scotsman" crap unless you are willing to reduce the number of actual Catholics in the world. If they are counted in the numbers of Catholics that the RCC puts out, then they count as Catholics, regardless of how you feel they should believe. You don't get to count them publicly, in statistics, but then denounce them as "not true Catholics" anywhere else.

It's not a "no true Scotsman", Jesus wept.

The Catholic Church is an organization that believes in and teaches a very specific Catechism. If you don't believe that Catechism then you simply aren't a Catholic, find another faith, or no faith.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, no, I was assuming that your posts were meant to contain a non-random, rational string of thought. My mistake?



... And what is the Vatican's position on abortion?

The Vatican does not concern itself with the minutia of Church dealings with individual parishioners, that is left to the Church, and the Diocese. Unless the Pope chooses to make an infallible declaration, something that Popes have only done twice in the history of the Church, it still falls on the Cardinals to administer the faith within their region. The Church can not hold that abortion is a sin and knowingly give communion to a member that supports it. The Sacrament of contrition is required to be in communion with the Church, and you can't be contrite for something you have decided is not a sin.

And, in fact, the story of the Vatican talking a solid position either way on the issue appears to be wishful thinking, for the most part. The letter in question asks the US. Catholic Cardinals to be careful in their deliberations... which just proves my point that the Vatican isn't the final word there.

Also, while Pope Francis stated that communion is not the "reward of saints" but rather "the bread of sinners", that also doesn't actually effect the final decision, especially when those over whom the deliberations are concerning don't even admit to the sin.



He is actively seeking to fund the abortion industry that promotes and conducts abortions. You are just fooling yourself to think that isn't involvement in the abortion industry



It's not a "no true Scotsman", Jesus wept.

The Catholic Church is an organization that believes in and teaches a very specific Catechism. If you don't believe that Catechism then you simply aren't a Catholic, find another faith, or no faith.

Your posts had nothing to do reasonably with what I posted.

And the Vatican is in charge of the Catholic Church. They get to decide on their doctrine. And the Pope has said that the eucharist should not be used to punish people, withheld from those who aren't perfect.

It isn't involvement in the abortion industry, no matter how much you want to frame it as such.

And it is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, regardless of your feelings. You can't tell people that they aren't Catholic only when it suits you, but claim them in statistics. Do you really have 1.2B Catholics throughout the world, or is it less than half that number due to the amount that don't even follow the beliefs in relation to abortion? Won't even get into how few Catholics believe birth control is a sin or homosexuality is truly an issue the Church should care about (lots of Catholics support same sex marriage, including most of the Catholics in my family).

 

[jmotivator]

Your posts had nothing to do reasonably with what I posted.

And the Vatican is in charge of the Catholic Church. They get to decide on their doctrine.

You clearly don't understand the subject. The Vatican sets Church doctrine, the Church leadership oversees the teaching and management of the diocese and the Churches. The Vatican does not get involved directly in the local decisions of the diocese or churches on matters of enforcement of doctrine. That is why there is such a variety of opinions within the Catholic church on all matter of subjects, because Since Vatican I, and certainly since Vatican II, the Church has taken on an advisory role in the function of the Church at ground level. THis is why the Vatican representative's letter was not a demand to cease and desist, but rather a contributing opinion on how the US Church should proceed.

And the Pope has said that the eucharist should not be used to punish people, withheld from those who aren't perfect.

The Pope has an advisory role in the function of the Church, and as is usually the case with non-Catholics arguing about Catholicism, your simplifications of the Pope's advise is not worth much.

Scripture: “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A Man should examine himself first, only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:27-29)

Church Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law: “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.”

So a priest knowingly giving Communion to an unrepentant sinner is, themselves, sinning "against the Body and Blood of the Lord".

There is no contrition possible when the person in a state of sin doesn't believe what they have done is a sin. As such, until the person repents, they simply compound the sin by taking communion. It doesn't matter if they are a politician or not.

It isn't involvement in the abortion industry, no matter how much you want to frame it as such.

It is, in fact, involvement. It is active promotion of the sin of abortion. You don't like the term "sin of abortion" because you don't believe it to be a sin? Great, you aren't a Catholic.

And it is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, regardless of your feelings.

No, it is not. A Scotsman is a Scotsman by birth, they can't choose to be born as anything else.

A Catholic is an affirmative choice that your personal faith and beliefs are in accordance with the Catechism of the Catholica faith. If you choose not to believe the Catechism, then you aren't a Catholic.

You can't tell people that they aren't Catholic only when it suits you, but claim them in statistics.

Where have I claimed them in Statistics?

Do you really have 1.2B Catholics throughout the world, or is it less than half that number due to the amount that don't even follow the beliefs in relation to abortion? Won't even get into how few Catholics believe birth control is a sin or homosexuality is truly an issue the Church should care about (lots of Catholics support same sex marriage, including most of the Catholics in my family).

If they engage in abortion and don't repent then they further their sin by taking communion.

 

[TypicalRussian]

As usual, lack of knowledge does not preclude posting.

View attachment 67340611​

Religious Groups’ Official Positions on Abortion

Please do some research. After all Nicholas II was NOT "The Czar of Russia" - right?

literally says the catholic church is against abortion

why are you shooting yourself in the foot?

plus the ones who support abortion are judaism and some american knockoff version of european Protestantism

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No. But since most Democrats, including those who are simply voters vote for politicians who hold their personal positions, it makes sense that if you are going to deny communion to a politician for their stance that you would also have to deny it to a voter for his/her stance that matches that politician's, that is in line with that politician. Those voters are not going to accept that their church is denying politicians communion who represent their stance on a certain issue. They will leave the church.

I'm saying that the slant on those things doesn't represent the feelings of at least half of the Catholic population, so is biased. Most Catholics believe abortion should be legal and easy to access, agree with President Biden and his stance on this issue. I'm saying that one or two politicians cannot alone change any sort of tax exempt status, and haven't even legitimately tried (since that would require putting up a bill). They also cannot target any particular religion. They would have to go after other churches/religions who have also been involved in political discourse, actions against others for their political stances.

The personal beliefs of a politician are a distant second to the belief that affiliation to a particular political party will be their best course of action in order to obtain elective office in determining the political party affiliation of almost every American politician.

The belief in the espoused positions of a political party are a distant second to the belief that affiliation to a particular political party will be their best course of action in order to obtain elective office in determining the political party affiliation of almost every American politician.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

literally says the catholic church is against abortion

why are you shooting yourself in the foot?

plus the ones who support abortion are judaism and some american knockoff version of european Protestantism

You stated that MOST religions were opposed to abortion. That simply isn't true.

Where did you see me saying that the RCC Inc. was NOT opposed to abortion (well, except for pregnant nuns and women who had been impregnated by priests, that is)?

"Conservative Protestants tend to be anti-abortion whereas "mainline" Protestants lean towards an abortion-rights stance. The Black Protestant community is strongly pro-choice, with 56 percent supporting legal access to abortion in all or most cases vs. 35 percent holding abortion should be illegal in all or most cases."

The adherents to "Christianity" comprise approximately 31.2% of the world's population. However not all of those "Christians" are customers of the RCC Inc. That would mean that somewhat less than 31.2% of the world's population belongs to a religion that is opposed to abortion on doctrinal grounds.

Less than 31.2% does NOT constitute "most" of the people in the world.