Denver Newsroom, Aug 12, 2020 / 09:05 pm (CNA).-
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has been working from home these last few months, like a lot of people have. Biden has been campaigning from his house in Delaware: livestreaming interviews, appearing on radio shows, and releasing videos.
But now that Biden has selected a running mate, and is less than three months from Election Day, the candidate is expected to hit the road again — while respecting social distance, of course.
Biden, a Catholic, is in the habit of going to Mass while traveling. If he resumes that habit, it will soon raise questions familiar both to bishops and to pundits: Can pro-choice politicians like Biden receive the Eucharist? And will anyone stop Biden if he approaches the communion line?
The norm of canon 915 itself is clear: Catholics “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” But debate over that canon, and its application to pro-choice politicians, has vexed the Church in the U.S. every election year since John Kerry’s presidential campaign, and often in between elections, too.
In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Church’s doctrinal office, wrote a memorandum to the U.S. Catholic bishops, explaining the application of canon 915 to the question of pro-choice politicians.
The case of a Catholic politician who is “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” would constitute “formal cooperation” in grave sin that is “manifest,” the letter explained.
In such cases, “his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist,” Ratzinger wrote.
If the individual perseveres in grave sin and still presents himself for Holy Communion, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”
Shortly after Ratzinger wrote that memo, the U.S. bishops agreed the application of those norms should be decided by individual bishops, rather than by the bishops’ conference.
Some bishops have prohibited politicians advocating for “permissive abortion laws” from receiving communion, but others have demurred, or said outright they would not deny such politicians the Eucharist.
Asked by a journalist, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York said in October that he would not deny Biden the Eucharist. Before that, in January 2019, Dolan had said that he would not deny the Eucharist to New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo, who signed into law one of the most permissive abortion laws in the country’s history.
Biden’s own shepherd, Bishop William Malooly, has said in the past that he does not want to “politicize” the Eucharist by denying communion to politicians. Washington, D.C.’s ordinary, Archbishop Wilton Gregory, has said that the Eucharist should be denied only as a last resort, and is not on record as ever having done so.
But while bishops are circumspect about the issue, many active Catholics are not. Practicing pro-life Catholics have in recent years lambasted bishops for their reticence to withhold the Eucharist from pro-choice politicians. Some have called the bishops’ approach a scandal. Many young priests have echoed those calls.
In the frustration of not being heard, and in the wake of the McCarrick scandal, those calls intensified last year as several states passed expansive abortion laws. The controversy widened an already broad gap of distrust between many Catholics and their leaders.
Biden, who supports the federal funding of abortion and in 2016 officiated at a same-sex wedding, is likely to prompt similar calls from lay Catholics in the months to come.
So here’s what’s likely to happen:
At some point between now and election day, a young priest will find Joe Biden in his communion line. Because of the priest’s convictions about the unborn and his sacramental theology, he will deny Biden the Eucharist.
Someone will see it, a report will get out. CNA may well break the story (our reporters are the best in the business.)
Biden will say very little himself, and he won’t have to.
The priest will issue a statement explaining himself, and then be roundly criticized. A cardinal will appear on television, and he’ll disagree with the young priest’s decision. Pro-choice or progressive leaning Catholics will on social media call the priest a fundamentalist, and point out, correctly but as a distraction, that Trump also takes positions contrary to the Church’s teaching. The priest’s diocese will say very little. Other priests will wonder whether their bishops will support them, if they too act to follow the Vatican’s guidance on the matter.
After a news cycle or two, the issue will mostly die down, leaving those who continue to raise their concern ever more alone, and looking ever more like zealots.
In their frustration, some will turn to a growing chorus of anti-episcopal conservative media figures who make a living criticizing the Church’s leaders. Bishops will lament the popularity of those figures.
If that prediction sounds quite specific, that’s because it’s what happened in October 2019, the last time Biden was denied the Eucharist.
Some version of that story will happen again because, as things stand, the policy and the practice of the Church on this issue diverge from each other, dramatically.
That leaves priests who put the policy into practice standing often by themselves. It leaves some Catholics confused about how seriously the Church takes its own teaching and its own sacramental discipline. Other Catholics, those who have watched that cycle play out a few times, are less confused than demoralized, and cynical.
But if election pollsters have it right, this issue isn’t going away. Biden, who would be the second Catholic president, has a big lead over Trump. Unless something changes, he’s likely to be the first Catholic president since Roe vs. Wade, and the first to publicly support abortion.
The U.S. bishops decided on a patchwork, diocese by diocese, approach to canon 915 in 2004, in part under the influence of Theodore McCarrick, who was then the Archbishop of Washington. In some senses, from an ecclesiological perspective, that localized approach might make sense.
But the country may soon find itself with an aggressively pro-abortion president who likes going to Mass, and a piecemeal approach to an important question of sacramental discipline. Practically, that situation is likely to foment further division in the Church, as bishops promulgate dueling policies under a national spotlight.
Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that any bishop will take up the project of making a nationwide change on this issue, and there are only a few positioned well to do so.
The Archbishop of Washington and the Bishop of Wilmington, both of whom have a platform as Biden’s shepherd, are among those who could.
If either of those bishops took the initiative to say that in his diocese the Church’s canonical discipline on the Eucharist would be applied fairly and consistently to politicians of all parties who break from the Church on grave and clear matters, a precedent would be set, and easily followed across the country.
Failing that possibility, if Cardinal Dolan had a change of heart, and announced that in the Archdiocese of New York the Church’s sacramental discipline would be applied in accord with the Church’s instructions, other bishops would likely follow suit. Church watchers would likely see that as a recovery of Dolan’s once praised legacy on pro-life issues, which was tarnished amid the controversy over Cuomo.
Bishops don’t like to go first, generally, but many are willing to follow the right leader. If a nationally leading Churchman set a change in motion, many would follow suit. Eventually, only a dozen or so bishops staunchly opposed to “politicizing” the Eucharist might be left.
Both Washington and Wilmington are led by bishops rarely characterized as conservative. Washington’s Archbishop Gregory is struggling to gain trust as a reformer, the job for which he was sent to Washington. Insistence on applying the Church’s law, as written, would likely bolster Gregory’s credibility on that front. But the archbishop led the U.S. bishops’ conference in 2004, when he and McCarrick were seen to push for a permissive interpretation of Ratzinger’s letter, and there is no evidence to suggest he has changed his thinking on the subject.
Bishop Malooly, who is almost 77, is even less likely to change his long-standing policy than Gregory is. But his successor, who could be appointed as early as September, might be of a different mind. And he would have to his advantage the unique window of time in which a new bishop can make a major change before getting bogged down in the myriad reasons he hears not to make any changes.
If he is appointed before the election, it would be all the easier to make his position clear.
There is one other bishop who might be expected to lead a charge on this issue: Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference. Gomez, who is both pro-life and a strong advocate for the Church’s moral teaching on immigration, has the credibility among a broad swath of bishops to call for a unified approach to a vexing problem. But the conference has not passed major sweeping policies in recent years, and is still recovering from the shockwaves of McCarrick and 2018. Gomez would have little luck unifying the conference on anything so controversial.
But the L.A. archbishop has personal influence: If he decided to announce a policy for Los Angeles, after lobbying other prominent U.S. bishops to announce the same, a swath of bishops would probably follow them.
For any of those bishops, the media blowback of such a move would be immense, and difficult to get past. But the support among many practicing Catholics, and among priests, who are looking to the Church for leadership, would also be significant. Such a move would not soon be forgotten.
By many estimates, the result of those bishops taking the lead, however unlikely, is that the integrity of the Church’s moral witness might be strengthened. Catholics might grow in respect for their embattled bishops. And, just maybe, a few Catholic politicians who defy the Gospel, from either party, might be moved to conversion.
Whether any bishop will actually decide to break the cycle, or whether Catholics will watch the ‘Communion Wars’ play on for the next several years, is up to the handful of bishops who could meaningfully change the narrative. It seems unlikely they’ll do so. But as America contemplates a change, the Church’s leaders have the chance to make one too.
[…]
There is good reason to believe that Vance will promote the pro-life cause as VP despite the recent politically expedient comments he made in support of access to the abortion pill. He campaigned hard against the abortion legalization initiative in Ohio last fall and has a perfect record on the issue as a Senator. He has not declared himself “pro-choice” and has made it clear that he wants judges that will not impose abortion by judicial fiat and opposes federal funding for it. He deserved to be called out, but his critics need to keep some perspective.
I’m hoping for the best also.
It’s very disappointing that more American voters are not on board as they should be on this human rights issue but Mr Vance is not our enemy. I think we can work with him.
In politics that’s the best you can hope for sometimes.
I agree.
Idea for a t-shirt – “I’m voting for the guy with the pierced ear”
Dude, that’s an awesome idea. Hilarious comment.
Part of my own story includes the chairman of my dissertation committee (1970s). A transparent fellow, formerly an anthropologist who had worked in the Afghanistan of the 1960s to reform the education system. In a small group around the coffee table, he switched tracks completely and confided:
“My wife is Catholic and I am Episcopalian…and I don’t really know if God talks [!] to people.” The ACHILLES HEEL of the entire secularist education system and worldview! Does God ever talk to people?
All to the point that the historical and even alarming event of the INCARNATION, Jesus Christ, is not just another a religious “expression.” But, rather, the self-disclosure (!) of the Triune God. Christians listen to “the Word made flesh.” And, Catholics are also converted to the sacramental Real Presence which/Who assembles the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. More than a sola Scriptura congregation, or a synodal convener of some polyglot Worldreligion.
Moreover, in the reasonably distinct SECULAR DOMAIN of robust and political rough and tumble, however, it is quite enough to simply respect the universal and already inborn Natural Law. Beyond respect for the moral absolutes, the Catholic Social Teaching (CST) does offer added perspectives, but: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 36). The CST is the negation of all ideology…
Plenty of room there for robust dialogue and negotiation on the means for communities to define and achieve their moral and complex ends.
The attentive reader will be able to spot the eyebrow-raising statements, in light of aligning oneself with a political platform that doesn’t merely wait for a better, politically possible reality in order to defend unborn human life, but has scrubbed it and actively allowed for the opposite. One may also notice that Sen. Vance has deleted statements defending the unborn from his website, all presumably for political expediency. Will we ever learn not to rush and promote public converts especially for their Catholicism, before they are allowed time to develop and/or consistently express doctrinal coherence? Or in the case of abortion, before they are aware of the need to express one’s “absolute personal opposition” (Pope John Paul II) when faced with political realities that make the Good “impossible” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Daniel. Vance’s initials JD appear to be John Donald. His duplicitous adoration of his great leader comes with a signifcant historical flip.
Before and during his 3 years as a fledging US senator his hypocractical moment was when he fierecely disparaged and unCatholic like said…
he was a “never-Trump guy.” “the reason, ultimately, that I am not … is because I think that (Trump) is the most-raw expression of a massive finger pointed at other people.”
Trump is “reprehensible” and an “idiot.”
In another deleted tweet following the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape on which Trump said fame enabled him to grope women, Vance wrote: “Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man. Lord help us.”
Trump was “unfit for our nation’s highest office.”
“I’m a Never Trump guy,” Vance said in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2016, according to Politico. “I never liked him.”
Vance also deleted a tweet saying he found Trump reprehensible from October 2016. “My god what an idiot.”
Vance has not mentoned his support for Project 2025. The so called GOP “platform”. If you haven’t read it you should. The most egrious part is “Install A Totalitarian Administration”. A monarchy!
Which must mean that, per Harris, Biden did “praise racists” opposed to busing, and therefore her attitude could not evolve within the political reality of assuming the office, and her support of Biden has ulterior motives, similar to Vance/Trump, correct?
Grieving the departure of the public defense of the unborn, for political “reality”, does not equate to therefore supporting the Progressive celebration of abortion as emancipation, the enabling of the mutilation of gender dysphoria subjects, etc.
The “lesser of two evils” remains an applicable description of the situation.
Mr. Morgan, I’m partial to constitutional monarchies. It would save us the election circuses we endure every 4 years. But that’s not what Donald Trump or any other GOP candidate has in mind. And again, please don’t go down that rabbit hole.
Mr. Vance was correct that many people thought of Donald Trump as a giant “finger” at the elites. And that’s still true. But after his term in office he earned more credit than just a protest against the status quo.
If you venture down that TDS rabbit hole please say hello to my friend from grade school. She’s been down there incommunicado since last November.
🙂
Balderdash on the 2025 GOP Platform.
I’m not sure if your are calling Project 2025 bunkum, or my article?
Thanks.
Project 2025 is not any part of the Trump platform, per Trump himself. Once again you are simply spouting talking points.
Morgan D brings into discussion a very significant set of issues regarding his concerns about Project 2025. I think it is less that adequate to argue as Michael Caldwell and Athanasius have done in providing a one or two sentence rebuttal that is essentially dismissive of Morgan D’s stated concerns. The Heritage Foundation has been around for decades and were major players in policy direction for the Regan Administration therefore thy have influence in the heavy hitting end of the spectrum of influence. Secondly Project 2025 was authored almost entirely by individuals who were at the apex level of Pres Trump’s admin when in office and are likely to hold positions high up in Pres Trump’s admin if elected. Several spoke at the convention.
Secondly it is accurate to acknowledge that together with recent rulings of the Supreme Court coupled with some relevant Project 2025 proposals, the checks and balances on executive power are effectively removed. The posibility that foundation principles of the Constitution become open to the Presidents interpretation seems a likely outcome. The Republic then has the potential to move in the direction of that of an Emperor. Surely this is worthy of careful, informed and impartial examination.
Donald Trump pays little attention to the Establishment. There are some good people in the Heritage Foundation but I doubt Mr. Trump pays a great deal of attention to them either.
Americans voted for President Trump the first time around because they wanted a disruptor against the Establishment and status quo. Not someone who took instructions from a Reagan era think tank.
I personally wish Donald Trump would pay a little more heed to folks at places like the Heritage Foundation but that’s not who he is.
You are concerned about nothing, and you are mindlessly parroting DNC talking points here. At his Grand Rapids, MI speech, Trump clearly stated that he does not endorse or support Project 2025. He would know, after all. You are simply spreading lies, and that’s not appropriate. One cannot have legitimate concerns about something that isn’t legitimate. It needs no further elaboration.
It seems to me upon further investigation that Project 2025 is very relevant to this election cycle and the political agenda Trump intends to pursue from, as he has often mentioned, from Day One. To dismiss Morgan’s point by offering Trumps recent statements of distancing is not an acceptable rebuttal.
I will begin with this observation:
Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president and the architect of Project 2025, the conservative thinktank’s road map for a second Trump presidency, has close ties and receives regular spiritual guidance from an Opus Dei.
Trump has repeatedly referenced the Heritage Foundation in recent years and particularly in the aftermath of his 2016 victory.
Trump knows personally most of the major contributors to the document because they worked in his administration. The authors include Trump’s former Cabinet secretaries, top White House officials and senior aides — including former Trump appointees to EPA, the Interior Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Thomas Homan, former acting director of the US immigration and customs enforcement agency, responsible for the disastrous tactic of separating children from their families is a major contributor.
The list goes on.
What is of some concern at present is are the recent actions of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court Justice’s wife flying the US flag upside down…. here we have another example of the influence of Opus Dei. Leonard Leo is a conservative activist who has led the Republican mission to install the rightwing majority in the supreme court and finances many of the groups signed on to Project 2025.
[Nov. 18, 2023, 6:17 AM GMT+11 / Updated Nov. 18, 2023, 10:18 AM GMT+11
By Katherine Doyle]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/donations-surged-groups-linked-conservative-project-2025-rcna125638
We can see that the Heritage Foundation are heavy hitters in the Republican Parties history:
Major input into President Regans policy suit.
Engaged in restructuring Iraq with policy and personnel.
The Trump Campaign’s other formal policy document Agenda 47 has many close parallels to Project 2025
I am of the opinion that the agenda outlined by Project 2025 is central to Trumps agenda and will be perused with haste from Day One if he is elected.
You write that James Donald Vance ‘adores’ Trump? Seriously, dude, you need to get out more. Any Catholic worth his salt understands that adoration is directed to God alone. Not even the BVM gets it from us.
Iv’e been to a DUDE ranck though. And, I got plenty of fresh air. Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements. I do not.
Thanks.
“Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements.”
Says the guy who disparages Trump at every turn. Pot meet kettle, etc.
I am actually concerned that too much is being made of Vance’s Catholicism.
Cleo, Tmthat’s an odd comment for a Catholic to make (forgive me if I assumed you are a Catholic but are not).
As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”(EV 73; also CPL 4). (Source: Priests for Life “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics”)
Trump/Vance are doing exactly what Pope John Paul II has acknowledged as “licit:” “supporting proposals aimed at limiting the harm done” by abortion laws that they cannot fully undo at this time and expect to get elected in this political climate in America.
The truth (if we are willing to face it) is that we are living in a Constitutional Republic that is fading away. The moral character of the country is such that it cannot be sustained. I encourage readers to convince me otherwise (please don’t make appeals based on pure sentimentality).
It would behoove my fellow Catholics to listen to an interview with J.D. Vance at the NAPA Institute Conference three years ago. Here goes…
https://youtu.be/Mhgz-03M-7w?si=c96QHVecr9guIf35
Having now been behooved, I thank you for this link…especially Vance’s criticism about corporate boardrooms and the culture wars.
Recalling, here, that in 2015 corporate America formally positioned itself in favor of gay “marriage”. As broadly reported and rewarded in the media, AT&T and Verizon, Dow Chemical, Bank of America, General Electric, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, and the San Francisco Giants, were among nearly four hundred corporations and business organizations that weighed in with probably duplicate amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Together they orchestrated their dollar-sign argument for a constitutional right to the oxymoron same sex “marriage.” The reason: stock market numbers might benefit (very, very marginally) from spending patterns (one billion dollars: sounds big, but not even an infinitesimal fraction of the $20 Trillion annual GNP).
In this hostile takeover by the tribal LGBTQ religion, the empty-suit business world gave an entirely new meaning to the term “bottom line.”
I assume the readership here are aware that JD Vance’s entire career and upward trajectory has been financially supported and facilitated by Peter Thiel, who in 2017 married his long term partner Mat Danzeisen.
Many of us have worked for employers or corporations that differed with us ideologically or politically. How does that signify?
I assume the readership above IS aware that Mother Teresa received $1.25 million from one Charles Keating, a major player in the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. So? That Vance’s campaign may have taken money from a man practicing homosexuality proves what? Nothing!
I once inadvertently gave $1000 to Francis’ Peter Pence Collection. That in no way means that I agree with its leader or its goals. I entirely disagree with the idea of structured global charity drives; funds have sometimes been proven subject to dishonorable misappropriation. I do not particularly like the personality and leadership style of Francis. And many organizations and persons that I do approve don’t receive a dime from me. So what!?
My first point would be to say that such association when applying to a Democrat candidate would elicit much opposition from many here. So this situation at least indicates the existence of confirmation bias.
I did not specify what this financial and other support for JD Vance did prove but proof is likely not the appropriate word here. The support implies a common agenda, overt or hidden. The relationship gives Peter Theil some influence simply because when such consistent and significant support is given it is wise to assume something is expected in return. My main point would be this is worth exploration. JD Vance is direct in line to become POTUS if Trump is elected and he is a relative newcomer with limited experience. There surely would be many more qualified for the position of potentially leading the nation. Personally I am somewhat mystified by Trumps choice of VP.
Certainly people with diverse views on some issues can find common ground on others. Why not?
You need to consider which issues are being promoted. That’s what counts.
To John Allan, wondering about intersecting interests of Thiel, Vance, and Trump, see Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/content/408fb864-5831-4b1d-beef-fd1966b3beed
If he is truly converted to Catholicism, his first order of business is to apply Catholic principles of justice and compassion to the plight of the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, like Trump, he greenlights the ongoing murderous ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
Chris Albrecht: There was no killing until the Palestinians in Gaza invaded, raped, killed and kidnapped innocent civilian Israeli, American and other nationals who were minding their own business. It’s no different than the invasion of our Southern border by illegals who come here and rape, murder and bring their Fentanyl to sell to our children. Your version of reality is woefully warped.
Thank you
If Vance did anything like what you want, he wouldn’t be a senator let alone vice-presidential candidate. If trimming your sails is essential when it comes to abortion, it is even more so when discussing foreign policy in the Middle East. You have to rhetorically bend the knee to Israel if you are to survive in American politics. BTW, the same principle applies in Europe as well. Even Orban sides with Israel. The Israelis have committed outrageous injustices and brutalities against the Palestinians. That doesn’t mean that the conduct of the Palestinians has been in any way admirable – it has not been. The relevant point is that the US unjustifiably and, contrary to its national interests, supports Israel to the hilt. Vance, despite some his almost obligatory comments, is a voice of reason and peace through strength on international affairs.
Of course, there is a problem of israeli dominion over american political speech, but resistance must begin somewhere, and we need moral principles and a more than natural courage. I would point out as an example of standing up to Israel Rep. Thomas Massie–who explained on Tucker Carlson’s program that every republican and democrat has an assigned AIPAC handler to make sure that they submit to Israel. Massie stands up to Israel and wins. It can be done.
As Joan of Arc said: fight! God will provide the victory!
Chris Albrecht. Who should listen to an anti-semite?
A fine Catholic columnist, Joseph Sobran, once wrote:
An “anti-semite” used to mean someone who hated Jews.
Now it means someone whom Jews hate.
This quote is relevant to today’s controversies.
Joseph Sobran was a brilliant writer and I always looked forward to his articles.
Perhaps his illness played a part in his going off the rails. It was a shame.
May he rest in peace.
Mrs. Cracker: Sobran did not “go off the rails,” rather he had the courage to touch the “third rail” of American politics: the issue of Jewish/Israeli control over what constitutes acceptable political discourse. This control is destroying the American Republic.
Massie is terrific, but he is neither a senator nor a vice-presidential candidate. Also, he merely objected to the aid package to Israel, largely on the grounds that, with our towering national debt, we should not be giving aid to a First World nation. Of course, that was enough to put him in the crosshairs of AIPAC. I am sure he would offer much deeper criticisms of Israel and its lobby among friends. The same is true of Vance, I am confident.
I hope that you are right and I have not given up on Vance, but so far he looks like a neo-con who has simply decided to pivot a half-step, because of the many failures of the neo-con agenda. thus it is easy now to oppose aid to Ukraine or criticize the now distant Iraqi invasion.
But he argued recently for “hitting Iran hard” (that is, with violence,–and he approved of Trump’s murder of Solemani)
and “focusing on China” as the main enemy, and, by implication, he continues to press ardently for an “endlosung” for the Palestinians (i.e. the complete removal of Palestinians from that region of the middle east).
It is a mere shift of emphasis, tactically and optically necessary.
Same agenda–America as Israel’s golem, hater of dem Ay-rabs and dem Muslims, and the overweight bully on the world playground.
Re: the Palestinian issue. if a person votes for an arms and aid to israel package, *knowing full well that it will be used to wage war on the civilians of Gaza–he is complicit.* God will hold Vance accountable.
But pray that God may amend him–and Trump.
It is not too late. “The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord” (Proverbs?)
All it takes to end the war is to for Hamas to surrender and free the captives. At least one or twwo kidnapped victims are American citizens. Hopefully if Trump is elected we will hear good news from the Middle East. Sort of like when Reagan took office and our citizens were being held by Iran.
For all intents and purposes it’s Iran all over again today.
trump should be in prison.
Okay. Why don’t you fill out the appropriate form to put him there? You don’t have it? Well, back to school with you then. September is only a month away.
The Palestinians who committed and/or supported the October 7 massacre, have no just call for our support. They are thenauthors of their own fates. Hamas hates Christians as much as it does Jews. It is an arm of the Muslim world domination culture.
I doubt Vance will save us.
No one who is truly Christian would expect anyone but Christ to save us. Only Christ can save us from our own individual wantoness.
De above – It’s early days. I think people are putting a lot of expectations on Vance.
I am disappointed in the lack of nuance in his position on mifepristone. As I understand it, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case because the presenters didn’t have standing, i.e. they lacked the necessary qualifications to present the case. That’s not the same as approving mifepristone.
Yes, Cleo that’s what I understood also.
And currently, each state has the right to restrict abortifacient drugs. So both chemical & surgical feticides can be banned state by state.
Further to De above – Fr. De Souza has an article on Vance’s Catholicism today, July 19, in The Catholic Thing.
I think Fr. De Souza’s assessment is more tentative, wait-and-see than I’m getting from many commentators.
This is the time for Catholic thought to grow. Morality must be seen in terms of an ascent towards transcendence that can be realized only by the free and mature individual. This implies both a kind of gnosis by which conflicting transcendental invitations are experienced and a conscious synthesizing of the opposites. Epistemology and politics are challenged to expand. This can be seen as where Catholic thought must go rather than where it has been.
Frank Ruppert
You’re insight is enlightening, appreciated and spoken truthfully. In summation, we are all a work in progress in our search for the Wisdon, Knowledge, Understanding of God, His Merciful Love and Abundance of Grace.
i certainly hope trump does not get in. i cant believe anybody would actually want a felon to be in the white house. he should be in prison.
i certainly hope biden does not get in. i cant believe anybody would actually want a hair-sniffing groomer to be in the white house. he should be in prison.
Holy Scripture says: “Put not your trust in princes.” I’m sure this applies to Vice-Princes, too.
Mrs. Cracker above – Thanks for the confirmation of my understanding of the Supreme Court’s action on mefipristone. I read an article explaining it but haven’t been able to re-find it.
I wasn’t clear that each state could ban abortifacient drugs. Perhaps we will eventually hear that from Vance. “Hope springs eternal”.
Abortifacient drugs are a controlled substance in our state Cleo.
Got it. Vance has proven his Catholic allegiance at Napa. His conversion to the faith is an example for others. But, his litany of disparagements against Trump proves he isn’t quite there yet. His acceptance of Project 2025, the Trump, not GOP “platform” shows he is an extremist. 2025 is a plan to OVERHALL GOVERNMENT. Paul Dans is the director along with Trumps inner-circle advisers. Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Dearborn, Jennifer Hazelton, Peter Navarro, Steven Miller… Read it.
https://democracyforward.org/the-peoples-guide-to-project-2025/
Thanks.
Every election cycle we get fearmongering talking points like “Project 2025”, January 6th, Christian Nationalism,etc.
There are good people in the Heritage Foundation but President Trump doesn’t take marching orders from them.
Maybe the crowd who cant stop attacking Trump and Vance for not being even MORE pro-life, should direct their energies toward the current Pope. He appears to have a lukewarm approach to the subject. He has provided a smiling warm welcome to those DEM politicians who have given public full throated support of PRO-abortion policy loud and clear. ( Here I mean his welcome to Biden, Pelosi and Whoopie Goldberg, etc, who have met the Pope in person.) NO American politician has any obligation at all to support a pro-life agenda, although many do. Its unfortunate but true that many who voice pro-life support end up voted out of office. If they had an opportunity to remain IN office, they could have helped enact MANY policies which would have assisted our poor and marginalized citizens. Voicing extreme pro-life legislation will almost guarantee they will be voted out of office and then able to accomplish NOTHING. Failing to vote for politicians who appear to be friendly to the pro-life agenda in at least SOME measure is cutting off your nose to spite your race. Like it or not, compromise MUST be used on this topic. Otherwise you will not even get the “half a loaf”. You will in fact get NONE. How on earth does that help anyone or save ANY babies??? Progress is most often made in increments, not in one fell swoop. If you cant see the difference between a party which supports abortion til the day of birth, and one which might allow some rare exceptions but does not support 3rd trimester abortion at all, do us all a favor and stay at home election day.
LJ above – Thanks for your comments.
The battle continues and you’re right, Pope Francis’ welcome mat isn’t helping. And he doesn’t have the problem (excuse) of having to win power.
Retort to Carl. I want to reply to your comment on disparagement of Trump, but you no longer seem to accept a reply.
Carl E. Olson
JULY 23, 2024 AT 12:04 PM
“Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements.”
“Says the guy who disparages Trump at every turn. Pot meet kettle, etc.”
Give me an example.
I don’t use disparagements like, “crooked Joe, crooked Kamala, wackjob E. Jean Carroll, AG Barr a fat pig, lock her up Hilliary Clinton…
Pot? I cook with a pot and a kettle every day.
Thanks
I think in the first place it’s not clear if you meant to write vile but you put “vial”.
If you meant “vial disparagements” it would be an image of disparagements lumped into a sort of container. Like pot and kettle in a combined metaphorical sense.
If you meant “vile” then you’re emphasizing the disparaging and that you think Trump doesn’t deserve that. Pot and kettle in traditional metaphor.
Trump has disappointed A LOT OF PEOPLE and I am not surprised it isn’t going over well. He’s also multiplying his overlaying of his self-management, eg., as we just saw, “I’m going to tell you what I experienced with that bullet and then I never want to have to talk about it again.” Since when there’s Presidential immunity for that?
Some tenants pay rent and suddenly they’re never accountable again. Trump wants to live in your head rent free (not my metaphor but it’s spectacular! at least it’s not VP Harris!) and then even with exempting himself from paying rent he wants to then be unaccountable! Haha good one!
John Allan,
Every election cycle either party comes up with scare tactics and hype. Project 2025 is just the latest one for the DNC. I haven’t seen it getting much traction lately so they probably have other plans in the works to distract voters with
And Opus Dei is not a powerful, sinister organization. That’s more spin.