The issue of the meaning of the Eucharist is still percolating.A proposal for a document came from the Bishop’s doctrine committee according to Bishop Gomez the Bishop’s conference president.A document will possibly introduced at the November 2021 scheduled conference.A three year strategic plan adopted in November 2020 convened in the aftermath of Biden’s election recommending a teaching document on “Eucharist Consistency “One of the interesting items outlined in an editorial in the current issue of “The Beacon “,the newspaper of the diocese of Paterson New Jersey indicated “Eucharist Consistency “ had its roots in the 2007 closing document of the Aparecida conference of Latin American and Caribbean bishops a document which Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio had a hand in drafting.He currently has the title of Pope Francis.The document makes specific reference to “ legislators ,,heads of government and health professionals stating “We must adhere to Eucharistic Coherence ,that is,be conscious they cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the Commandments,particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged “.Since the Vatican recently cautioned against saying bishops should be very careful in denying communion to dem pols in the US pushing abortion legislation etc.looks like Pope Francis May be walking back his previous position possibly open borders ,climate change,wealth redistribution take preference and since liberal pols are pushing these issues got to help them get a pass in this area.This thinking let’s a cleric like Cardinal Tobin support Joe Biden and not ask him to turn in his rosary beads.May be one reason why a majority of supposed Catholics don’t believe in the real presence in latest Pew survey.
Bishops denying communion to catholic pols
- Thread starter ed odowd
- Start date
Maybe if certain Bishops didn't make this the abortion only matters religion id take them more seriously as a Catholic
So the traditional mortal sins are
Lust
Gluttony
Avarice
Sloth
Anger
Envy
Pride
The Vatican has modernized this list adding others such as:
Taking or dealing in drugs
Polluting the environment
Engaging in “manipulative” genetic science
Paedophilia
Abortion
Social injustices that cause poverty or “the accumulation of wealth by a few”
So after the 3 eligible people receive communion, what do they do with all that excess?
As long as you’re Catholic, pretty much yes.
If you have committed a grave sin, you are supposed to confess your sins before receiving. Though if you don’t have time to go to confession you are still allowed to receive communion as long as you are mindful of the requirement.
It will only further drive people from the church if they go through with it.
Actually you are confusing "capital sins" with "mortal sins." Capital sins are called as such because they lead to other sins which may be mortal.
To clarify, only Christ can judge if a sin is a "mortal." This word implies that it surely leads to eternal death (ie Hell). One won't find out for certain if a sin is "mortal" until one's judgement.
The correct terminology here is "grave." No one who has knowingly committed a "grave" sin should present himself for Holy Communion. The Church has strictly defined many "grave" sins but the general rule of thumb is to follow the Ten Commandments. The Catechism of the Catholic Church elaborates on the Commandments to provide more specific guidance.
In this particular case, a public official who supports abortion is guilty of a "grave" sin against the Fifth Commandment ("Thou Shalt Not Kill"). Unless he both confesses his sin AND makes a firm purpose of amendment (ie publicly amends his position), he may not receive Holy Communion. This is for his own safety because, as Saint Paul writes in 1 Cor 11:27:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
Oddly, the rules are already firmly in place and are indisputable so the debate at the Bishops' conference is somewhat confusing as to why it is necessary.
Last edited:
How is being pro choice killing someone though? Certainly you’d think there would be something to distinguish people who actually commit sins as opposed to believing you shouldn’t impose your belief on others?
Politicians by virtue of their influence over laws and behaviour are extremely susceptible to the sin of scandal . From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
No point asking logical questions because the answers will be befuddling and absurd. I am the product of a Catholic education from kindergarten through to my BA from the Hall. I have many fond memories of those years, and I had some wonderful teachers and professors along the way. But the Church's hypocrisy, ridiculous views and policies drove me away many years ago.
Now we have only the second Catholic US President in history but rather than embracing him, the US bishops want to deny him the very Sacrament he cherishes. It's entirely possible --I can't say this for sure-- that some of the bishops who want to do this are guilty of having failed to protect the many children and adolescents who were molested by priests. And of course many of these bishops stayed silent and recommended no action against Trump for his manifold immoral statements and actions. Shame on these men. There are innumerable good and devout Catholics in this country, but that 70%+ of US bishops who want to take this action against the President are absolute scumbags.
What was "befuddling" or "absurd" in the response posted to his question?
Separately, the Sacrament is Christ really and truly present. If one truly "cherishes" Christ, he will strive to follow the Ten Commandments. "If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) Why are the 70% of bishops who love Christ enough to actively seek to enforce the commandments "scumbags?"
The very things you cite are examples of why I left the Church. I simply don't accept that Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist. I believe that he is symbolically present. I also don't accept the literal inerrancy of the Bible. I would gladly accept the word of God...if we actually had it. What we do have is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of Scripture.
My intent is not to ridicule your beliefs. I have my own and I belong to an Episcopal church where any and all baptized Christians are freely welcomed at the Communion rail. Denying anyone Communion in my church is an abhorrent idea. So when I see all those US bishops threatening to do that to Biden for what to me (but surely not to you) are political reasons it sickens me and leads me to call them scumbags.
I sincerely commend your integrity for leaving the Church.
Belief in the Real Presence is extremely difficult. It has been since the days of Christ. "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:60). We don't need to go into the centuries of political and social turmoil over transubstantiation.
Yet this belief is the summit of the Catholic faith. If anyone doesn't accept it, walking away is much more honest and truthful than attempting to influence any changes to this core belief from within the same body.
I respect this opinion. Difficult to impose your beliefs on another. Each must choose.
Hypocracy is everywhere. Just in this thread alone we have a bunch of people who used to believe it's cool to hold the president to a higher standard. I guess it's cool when the media holds the president to a higher standard, not bishops. Bishops should have no say they protected sex offenders. The media only protected Harvey Weinstein.
For the record, I really don't like this movement to deny people communion, but there's a saying they will know we are Christians by the way we live. I don't think you see Christianity shining through American policies anywhere. The amount of Christianity shining though Biden's policies is equal to the amount of Christianity shining through Trump's policies.
I don't believe that being a pro choice politician is a deliberate action leading to a grave offense. If you follow that statement down different paths, no politician should be able to receive communion and would easily flow down to those who vote these politicians.
Thank you. We clearly disagree, but I admire your sincerity and your tone.
I hold the president to a higher standard that other politicians because of their role in setting the tone similarly to how I would hold the Pope to a higher standard than a group of Bishops.
Biden was not elected to be the President of Catholics, but a country of people with different beliefs.
To be fair, we are all hypocrites, myself included. It seems to be a fixture of human nature.
Catholics or Americans are no more and no less hypocritical than Jews, Muslims, Frenchmen or Italians, etc. Same goes for atheists, agnostics, etc.
A religion is its doctrines and liturgies, not it's people.
In fact you are correct. Voting for a pro abortion (pro choice) politician is also a "grave" sin. I believe it was Pope Pius XI who wrote a detailed encyclical on how voting for scandalising politicians is potentially a mortal sin (again only Christ judges definitively).
I personally just don't see it as that clear cut.
Politician A is pro-choice but promotes policies which I believe will reduce the number of abortions.
Politician B is pro-life but opposes policies which I believe will reduce the number of abortions.
Is it really preferable to vote for politician B in the view of the Church, even though I believe that the policies of politician A would result in a better outcome on the issue?
That's why, in the end, only Christ can judge if we have broken any commandment to the point of "mortal" sin. All we can do is assimilate with sincerity and humility what the Church has always taught and then pray for the best possible discernment.
Yes, partaking of the eucharist unworthily is far worse than not taking it at all, but everyone's worthiness is not on the Bishops to decide. The instruction in 1 Corinthians is to "examine yourselves" before partaking, not be examined by a Bishop. They're welcome to advise him against it, but outright denying is a step too far for me as ultimately it should be his own decision and his own risk.
Edit to add, if I were a Bishop I wouldn't want that burden anyway. Examining the worthiness of everyone who presents themselves for communion would be an impossible task and I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for being wrong on someone. I also don't see how they can reasonably be the ones to determine the worthiness of some people but not all. Yes he's the president of the United States, but as far as the Church ought to be concerned, he's no different from any other layman. I'm no fan of Joe Biden, but this (whether its their intention or not) gives the appearce of using the eucharist as a political weapon which is a massive mistake.
Edit to add, if I were a Bishop I wouldn't want that burden anyway. Examining the worthiness of everyone who presents themselves for communion would be an impossible task and I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for being wrong on someone. I also don't see how they can reasonably be the ones to determine the worthiness of some people but not all. Yes he's the president of the United States, but as far as the Church ought to be concerned, he's no different from any other layman. I'm no fan of Joe Biden, but this (whether its their intention or not) gives the appearce of using the eucharist as a political weapon which is a massive mistake.
Last edited:
So you can hold the president to a higher standard on topics of your choice, but the bishops cannot. Like I said hypocrisy is everywhere.
Topic of my choice? In anything, we all hold the leaders to a higher standard than those who are members of an organizations.
Politics - President
State politics - Governor
Police - Chief
Catholicism - The Pope
Business - CEO
Local McDonalds - Manager
The people who set the tone are the ones we hold to a higher standard.
I have no issue with the Bishops holding Biden to a higher standard in regards to his job performance, but saying he can't receive the eucharist just takes it too far. These Bishops would probably vote to exclude it from Christ himself if he were here today. There is nothing in the bible that says someone like Biden should not receive communion.
Saint Paul writes in 1 Cor 11:27:
“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”
BS. Evey President and governor gets looked at outside the scope of politics. Marital affairs get brought up all of the time, they have nothing to do with politics. Managers do a great job at their office, bring in a ton of business, do they get fired if they say something racist on Twitter. Absolutely. People get judged outside the narrow scope of what they preside over all of the time. You just have a problem when the conservative Catholic Church does it. And I don't agree with the bishops here, but this is par for the course the way the country is going. Cancel culture. Just don't cancel anyone on the left.
“Let a man examine himself”
Judged in the eye of God of what is in your own heart. Again, you will get to a point where no one is able to receive it.
Self sabotaging by the Church.
Right, we hold them to a higher standard of what we expect of our leaders. That was my point.
The Bishops are not judging Biden on what they expect of a leader. They are viewing him through a narrow scope without recognizing that he is the president of more than Catholics.
Yes, but that self examination is done relative to what the Church has always taught are "grave" sins. The examination of oneself is to ensure that one isn't guilty of those "grave" sins. Otherwise, if one wishes to determine for himself what constitutes "grave" sin, he should be honest enough to call himself a Protestant.
But he wasn’t committing a grave sin. if he were having abortions himself, I would get that point, but I believe that there are certain liberal policies which would have a more meaningful impact at reducing the number of abortions compared to policies designed to restrict access to abortion.
If he believes that or not is between him and God.
This thread just shows that organized religion is just another form of politics.
The bishops are saying that he is committing the sin of scandal. I pasted the lines from the Catechism above. If you would like a scriptural corroboration of the Catechism, it is based on Christ's own words in Matthew 18:6-7:
But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
I think one can make the argument they are judging on what they expect of a leader with Catholic beliefs.
Yeah, I get that. I just disagree that Biden meets that definition of scandal (attitude of behavior which leads another to do evil)
I'd think the Church would embrace a Catholic politician that supports policies which have shown reductions in abortion rates.
Similar threads
