Catholic bishops this week will discuss if Biden qualifies for Communion.

[7,052,770]

Decent Catholics should stage a walkout during Communion on Sunday and show these sicko loser bishops how out of line they are.

[Xeuma]

The Church in the US is effectively confirming it's nothing more than a pro-prenatal-life pressure group. Which is understandable as it's the only issue that it has capital on (and indeed has shaped in many ways over the past forty years) Why pressure on issues of human trafficking, welfare based poverty solution or against the death penalty when on those issues not only is it ignored, but most Republican Catholics don't choose to advocate? Let it be consumed into serving one wing of the culture wars like everything else from the NFL to tinned beans.

That's just plain ignorant. The USCCB was very clear throughout the Trump presidency about the immorality of his policies, and works on all those issues as well.

Are you actually reading and responding to the words I've said, or to some strawman you've created in your mind? Yes, religious freedom is a good thing. You, however, appear to be against the religious freedom of the Church to enter the political arena. If it does, you want the Church to face a government-imposed penalty, and a pretty steep one at that.

The church entering the political arena is literally the opposite of religious freedom: it's religious oppression.

Also, tax exemption is a privilege.

As for American history, let us not forget the long history of anti-Catholic bias in this country that still rears its head today. There would be no where near as much vitriol against another religious congregation that decided to discipline one of its members as there was been on the original issue of this thread.

There is your strawman.

That has literally nothing to do with the discussion.

How is the Church saying, for example, "We think Donald Trump is not suited to be President," religious oppression?

The church successfully made abortion illegal.

An atheist wants to get an abortion, but can't do so.

What do you call that besides religious opression?

What does this even mean? If paying taxes is against my religious beliefs, can I call it "atheist oppression" when the state forces me?

[Xeuma]

Decent Catholics should stage a walkout during Communion on Sunday and show these sicko loser bishops how out of line they are.

Please stop telling other people how to practice their religion.

[pppolitics]

The Church in the US is effectively confirming it's nothing more than a pro-prenatal-life pressure group. Which is understandable as it's the only issue that it has capital on (and indeed has shaped in many ways over the past forty years) Why pressure on issues of human trafficking, welfare based poverty solution or against the death penalty when on those issues not only is it ignored, but most Republican Catholics don't choose to advocate? Let it be consumed into serving one wing of the culture wars like everything else from the NFL to tinned beans.

That's just plain ignorant. The USCCB was very clear throughout the Trump presidency about the immorality of his policies, and works on all those issues as well.

Are you actually reading and responding to the words I've said, or to some strawman you've created in your mind? Yes, religious freedom is a good thing. You, however, appear to be against the religious freedom of the Church to enter the political arena. If it does, you want the Church to face a government-imposed penalty, and a pretty steep one at that.

The church entering the political arena is literally the opposite of religious freedom: it's religious oppression.

Also, tax exemption is a privilege.

As for American history, let us not forget the long history of anti-Catholic bias in this country that still rears its head today. There would be no where near as much vitriol against another religious congregation that decided to discipline one of its members as there was been on the original issue of this thread.

There is your strawman.

That has literally nothing to do with the discussion.

How is the Church saying, for example, "We think Donald Trump is not suited to be President," religious oppression?

The church successfully made abortion illegal.

An atheist wants to get an abortion, but can't do so.

What do you call that besides religious opression?

What does this even mean? If paying taxes is against my religious beliefs, can I call it "atheist oppression" when the state forces me?

You use the services that the government provides so you have to pay for them.

That has literally nothing to do with religion.

[7,052,770]

Decent Catholics should stage a walkout during Communion on Sunday and show these sicko loser bishops how out of line they are.

Please stop telling other people how to practice their religion.

Um, is there anyone on the whole forum better established to be Catholic than me?

ETA: ok, Nathan. But I'm #2 surely.

[2952-0-0]

While I very much agree with the spirit of your post, there is a distinct difference between abortion and the death penalty or child detainment in that only the former is held by the Catholic Church to be intrinsically immoral whereas the others are context-dependent.

But why is this the case? Of course, while Rome has always condemned abortion as an evil practice, its vehemence wasn't always consistent, and often varied with contemporary developments.

The death penalty can only be done by agents of the state, and can be eliminated immediately with the stroke of a pen. Abortion is done by private actors (not including the horrors of China's One Child Policy). One's the equivalent of killing, while the other is the equivalent of standing by when someone else is being killed.

The church entering the political arena is literally the opposite of religious freedom: it's religious oppression.

Also, tax exemption is a privilege.

Religious groups are part of civic society, and have the same right as anyone else to comment on the affairs of the day. This is not Quebec under Duplessis, or Spain under Franco, where the Catholic Church worked with the state to enforce a social hegemony.

In any case, churches were at the forefront in advocating for sanctions against the apartheid government in South Africa. Should they also have been told to shut up? What about Black churches today that agitate against police brutality and "voter ID" laws? What if a competent Trump Administration used tax laws to silence these Black churches?

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1405962013696724993

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1405962013696724993

Forgive them, for they now not what they have done.

The Catholic Church in America will never recover from this civil war these sickos started.

[pppolitics]

In any case, churches were at the forefront in advocating for sanctions against the apartheid government in South Africa. Should they also have been told to shut up? What about Black churches today that agitate against police brutality and "voter ID" laws? What if a competent Trump Administration used tax laws to silence these Black churches?

Those aren't really controversal issues.

Unless it is out of self-interest, there aren't many good arguments for, let's say, apartheid or police brutality.

[2952-0-0]

In any case, churches were at the forefront in advocating for sanctions against the apartheid government in South Africa. Should they also have been told to shut up? What about Black churches today that agitate against police brutality and "voter ID" laws? What if a competent Trump Administration used tax laws to silence these Black churches?

Those aren't really controversal issues.

Unless it is out of self-interest, there aren't many good arguments for, let's say, apartheid or police brutality.

So religious groups are indeed permitted to talk about issues, as long as they aren't controversial. It's also surprising to hear that police brutality or voting rights aren't controversial issues.

I'll rephrase my question: if a more competent Trump Administration used tax laws to harass Black churches for agitating against police brutality, or Catholic churches for advocating for the welfare of migrants, or Islamic groups for criticizing Muslim-bashing, would that be acceptable?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/Kerry_McGuire/status/1405999604760399872?s=19

[7,052,770]

https://twitter.com/Kerry_McGuire/status/1405999604760399872?s=19

It's heartbreaking that it's come to this, but she's on to something.

[pppolitics]

In any case, churches were at the forefront in advocating for sanctions against the apartheid government in South Africa. Should they also have been told to shut up? What about Black churches today that agitate against police brutality and "voter ID" laws? What if a competent Trump Administration used tax laws to silence these Black churches?

Those aren't really controversal issues.

Unless it is out of self-interest, there aren't many good arguments for, let's say, apartheid or police brutality.

So religious groups are indeed permitted to talk about issues, as long as they aren't controversial. It's also surprising to hear that police brutality or voting rights aren't controversial issues.

I'll rephrase my question: if a more competent Trump Administration used tax laws to harass Black churches for agitating against police brutality, or Catholic churches for advocating for the welfare of migrants, or Islamic groups for criticizing Muslim-bashing, would that be acceptable?

Voting restrictions and police brutality have historically been used to reinforced racial stratification (i.e. Jim Crow south).

That's why I said, "unless it is out of self-interest..."

[Comrade Funk]

Their arrogance is staggering considering the systematic crimes their organization have committed

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Well, this thread sure has gone well since last I posted in it! [/s]

A few points:

1. We don't know what this "teaching document" is going to actually say yet; the doctrine committee is mostly staunch conservatives but the real nutcases aren't on it. Gomez (USCCB president) and Rhoades (doctrine committee chairman) both indicated that it's not going to include any new "norms" and might only very vaguely address the denial-of-communion issue at all. Naumann, Strickland, and a few others insist that it has to attack Biden directly, but, well, that's Naumann and Strickland for you; Strickland in particular is the Louie Gohmert of the US episcopate, right down to being from East Texas.
2. It won't really matter what it says because, as I said up-thread, there are very few American journalists whose ideological presuppositions aren't flattered by a "BISHOPS SLAM BIDEN OVER ABORTION" narrative, for one reason or another. The intent is to own the libs and the media coverage of the eventual document will faithfully reflect that intent even if the actual text of the document itself is unobjectionable platitudes from beginning to end.
3. A bunch of Catholic House Democrats (not including Pelosi, for some reason, but including everyone from AOC to Cuellar) released a fairly good statement in response to this basically acknowledging the "tension" between their political commitments and Church teaching on abortion but arguing that the principles being invoked here aren't being applied consistently or in a way that honors the centrality of the Eucharist to Catholic worship. The document seems to have been written by someone who knows the Church quite well, i.e. not by one of the "Catholics for Choice" morons who usually churn out these sorts of statements. It isn't satisfactory from an orthodox Catholic perspective, but getting people like AOC and Marie Newman on the record as "promoting alternatives to abortion" is itself an achievement considering how politically damaging any kind of critical commentary on abortion can be in certain circles these days.
4. An eighty-year-old Irish Catholic from Scranton is not going to become an Episcopalian over a political attack from the bishops' conference that his own bishop has repeatedly stated he doesn't intend to join. Give me a break.

[7,052,770]

4. An eighty-year-old Irish Catholic from Scranton is not going to become an Episcopalian over a political attack from the bishops' conference that his own bishop has repeatedly stated he doesn't intend to join. Give me a break.

Sure, but that Tweet was talking about what Biden should do if he's formally excommunicated by the Church as a whole, not how he should react to this particular vote from this set of out-of-touch bigotperv fascist "bishops" who want to exploit people's religious views to inflict their anti-Christian far right political agenda on America.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

https://twitter.com/Kerry_McGuire/status/1405999604760399872?s=19

Yes.

[PSOL]

Will anyone’s vote be changed by this? Will this lead to further gains for Republicans among the Latino community?

[tallguy23]

All of my Catholic friends are pro-choice and LGBTQ rights. Are they going to be denied communion too?

This is why irreligion is growing so fast in America. Churches have become too political and people don't want politics in EVERY sector of their lives.

[RI]

All of my Catholic friends are pro-choice and LGBTQ rights. Are they going to be denied communion too?

This is why irreligion is growing so fast in America. Churches have become too political and people don't want politics in EVERY sector of their lives.

If your religion flows from your politics, you're already lost.

[7,052,770]

All of my Catholic friends are pro-choice and LGBTQ rights. Are they going to be denied communion too?

This is why irreligion is growing so fast in America. Churches have become too political and people don't want politics in EVERY sector of their lives.

Yeah, these "bishops" have either misread the feelings of Catholics or they just don't care. All these articles quote them as saying all their parishioners demand that Biden be denied, but considering how actually Biden won the Catholic vote, it's clear that they aren't hearing representative opinions. They are just totally out of touch with reality (or lying).

Regardless, if they actually manage to pass a rule like this, they're throwing out the majority of Catholics in America and forever diminishing the relevance of the Church. We're on the edge of a watershed moment.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All of my Catholic friends are pro-choice and LGBTQ rights. Are they going to be denied communion too?

This is why irreligion is growing so fast in America. Churches have become too political and people don't want politics in EVERY sector of their lives.

If your religion flows from your politics, you're already lost.

A more logical source than just whatever you happened to be born in, which is basically random chance.

[Torie]

Faith and freedom of conscience, are not always easy to navigate for those of faith, say the old man from the "Godless" bleachers. Good luck to you all who may have to deal with that "conflict," along with the "enforcers," who have to figure out how to navigate to get through the Scylla and Charybdis without hitting the rocks, where there may be not any water left between the two. That is where miracles may be needed, yet again, for those of faith, it seems to me.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

The idea of denying him communion is quite absurd when you acknowledge that he won about half of the Catholic vote. Are you going to deny all of them communion too?

A random given Catholic could morally vote for Biden. Biden himself, persisting in promotion of abortion, is not a random given Catholic. That's a false equivalency.

The bigger point is not necessarily that there’s an equivalency, even though I don’t find your distinction to be that meaningful. It’s that Catholic leaders are clearly out of touch with the views of the majority of Catholic churchgoers who believe that abortion should be legal in some or all instances (56% in the latest Pew report).

[LabourJersey]

Why isn't the Church doing this to all of the European politicians that support abortion? I wonder if this is happening because the US Church (or in this case specifically the US Conference of Bishops) is more conservative than its European counterparts.

The Conference of Bishops is definitely more conservative than Europeans, but also the nature of the Catholic Church in the US is different than in Europe. In the Old World the Church is the establishment, and has always been a place of influence even as secularization continued on.

In the US Catholicism wasn't really fully accepted until the 1940s-early '60s, and the tide of a more secular society coupled with the huge blow to their credibility caused by the abuse scandals gives American Catholic leadership a siege mentality, if you could call it that. That mentality is a big driver behind this situation with the Eucharist and pro-choice Catholics.