Pardon me if I am late to this discussion, but this is the first time I've heard anyone raise this point. Is it possible that the only person with the authority to bar President Biden from communion is Pope Francis? 1/
“It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge in the cases mentioned in canon 1401: 1) those who hold the highest civil office of a state…” (canon 1405 §1). 2/
In other words, assuming this canonist is interpreting the law correctly, in the specific case of the President of the United States, neither the USCCB nor his local bishop has jurisdiction. 4/
I suppose some canonists don't consider it an "ecclesial penalty" but a prudential decision by the minister of Holy Communion (see Cardinal Burke below). But wouldn't that leave it up to individual ministers, as opposed to a general policy? 5/
One thing I do know is that pressing this issue is going to cause greater polarization and division. @MichaelSWinters provides one of the more sober analyses I've read. 6/
"God knows the state of Joe Biden's soul. God has, in his mercy, provided Biden a pastor in the person of Cardinal Wilton Gregory. We must all pray that God's grace is at work in the president's soul — and invite him, a fellow Catholic, to pray the same for us." 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
At least according to @CatholicNewsSvc, @Pontifex is creating a third permanent lay ministry: Catechist. This will be added to the other two official lay ministries of Lector and Acolyte. 1/
"Pope Francis’ decision to formally institute the ministry of catechist seems to be a response to those calls." 2/
"The move follows the pope’s decision in January to open the ministries of lector and acolyte to women." 3/
"While in most dioceses women already served as readers and altar servers at Mass, they were not formally instituted in those services on a stable basis." 4/
This follows their removal from YouTube earlier this year.
"Facebook cited an article posted on April 10, 2021, headlined 'COVID vaccines can be deadly for some.'”
Apparently conspiracy theories are more important to these guys than defending the unborn.
Note they were not banned for their pro-life news coverage or advocacy.
Nor were they banned for their (increasingly unhinged) religious views.
They could've continued with no penalty. But they hitched their cart to quackery and pseudoscience, risking who knows how many lives.
They decided that putting forth false and harmful medical advice (an area far outside their expertise), and they sacrificed a sizeable chunk of their social media presence over the promotion of fringe scientific views.
Why do so many Catholics on the left think pro-life conviction on the Catholic right is insincere?
Are conservative pro-life Catholics exploited? Certainly.
Can they be blind to other evils? Absolutely.
Do most of them TRULY believe it's murder and want to save lives? YES. 1/
I'm in total agreement with those who point out that some Catholics have a very myopic view of abortion, and neglect (and often reject) other vital social issues.
But it's also wrong to downplay the gravity of abortion, which @Pontifex has compared to "hiring a hit man." 2/
Failing to take abortion seriously is a betrayal of a consistent ethic of life.
Working to build a home for future generations that is more just, more peaceful, that serves the poor and needy, that respects human dignity, and has a healthy ecosystem is not optional. 3/
It is a shame that the Catholic voices of those who speak out most strongly on behalf of the unborn are typically the most Trumpified, Burkified, and Viganized in our Church, and have aligned themselves with schismatic conspiracy theorists against the Church and human dignity.
(And I'm only about halfway through, so I'm saying all this while acknowledging that it might get weird later on.)
This isn't a flippant question, by the way. I believe that both Küng and Burke, at their core, were ideologically motivated to reject traditional Catholic teachings on magisterial authority on doctrine and discipline. Both developed theories of authority to justify that dissent.
Obviously, Küng's theories were much better developed and were written over a longer period of time, but Burke has developed his own sort of "Theology of Disobedience" in the last several years, most comprehensively articulated in a 2018 speech.
"If, a member of the faithful believes in conscience that a particular exercise of the fullness of power is sinful and cannot bring his conscience to peace in the matter, 'the pope must, as a duty, be disobeyed'"