The accusation of "politicization" is strange to me, as (to a lesser degree) is Abp Cordileone's asseveration that his aim is purely pastoral. I mean, the focus of this entire dispute is one of lawmaking an laws. It's impossible for it not to be "political" if lawmaking is political.
The more complicated question that is raised here is this: Abp Cordileone specifically identified Pelosi's newly stated aim of codifying Roe in federal law as the step-too-far that impelled him to bar Pelosi from communion. But let's imagine that Pelosi says she no longer aims to do this (it probably wouldn't go through Congress anyway, right?) but otherwise doesn't change her views or her advocacy of legal abortion.
Has Cordileone identified a condition Pelosi has to meet to return to communion? Ought he do so?
I am always bemused by Bishop McElroy’s advice that his brother bishops eschew getting involved in political issues. He’s the same guy who said “we must all be disrupters” in the first month after Trump’s inauguration and who promptly called for us to be “proud collaborators” with the Biden administration, even before the last write in ballots had been counted. It’s all there in print, as Yogi always said, “You could look it up.”
The prohibition against receiving the Eucharist, for obstinate sinners, is a supreme act of charity (see 1 Corinthians 11:27).
Every time she receives Communion with the stain of mortal sin, she profanes Our Lord and brings ruination to her very soul. Keeping her away until she can reconcile with Christ's Church is the only rational, and humane, response.
Far from "weaponizing" the sacrament, it's recognizing the horrifying reality of her sacrilege and exhorting her to repentance.
Pray for her, because one day she will have to make account, and I cannot imagine standing before The Throne of Heaven and having to defend the advocacy of committing infanticide for the sake of a few votes.
Funny how such emphasis is put on "weaponizing" the Eucharist, and none is placed on "weaponizing" the entirety of the Catholic faith. Pelosi, Biden and other faux Catholics wrap themselves routinely in the mantle of their nominal Catholicism, in a selective excerpt of Pope Francis' latest commentary, or a handpicked biblical verse to support their latest legislative endeavor or political attack.
"Why, they have asked, isn’t similar action taken against politicians who support the unjust application of the death penalty, or even policies on the treatment of migrants which are deemed immoral by the Church?'
These are prudential decisions and the morality of specific acts or legislation is open to legitimate discussion and debate, even among orthodox and observant Catholics. Not so with abortion and it is dishonest for anyone to pretend otherwise. What constitutes "mistreatment" of migrants or an "unjust" application of the death penalty? Which Catholic politicians are promoting laws to "mistreat" migrants? Which Catholic politicians are advocating for the "unjust" application of the death penalty? Is there universal agreement among the bishops on these issues? I think the answers are clear to anyone who is not a rabid partisan.
One of the absolutely lamest arguments being bandied about is "Oh, yeah, well, what is Cordileone doing about Catholic politicians who are promoting the death penalty?? Nothing! Hypocrite." Wake me up when there is actually a pro-death penalty elected official, Catholic or non-Catholic, in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. I'm in San Francisco, and I'm aware of exactly zero local politicians out there promoting or advocating the death penalty.
Thanks, Ed! Though I wish it were as colorful as your statements on the podcast 😂
The accusation of "politicization" is strange to me, as (to a lesser degree) is Abp Cordileone's asseveration that his aim is purely pastoral. I mean, the focus of this entire dispute is one of lawmaking an laws. It's impossible for it not to be "political" if lawmaking is political.
The more complicated question that is raised here is this: Abp Cordileone specifically identified Pelosi's newly stated aim of codifying Roe in federal law as the step-too-far that impelled him to bar Pelosi from communion. But let's imagine that Pelosi says she no longer aims to do this (it probably wouldn't go through Congress anyway, right?) but otherwise doesn't change her views or her advocacy of legal abortion.
Has Cordileone identified a condition Pelosi has to meet to return to communion? Ought he do so?
I am always bemused by Bishop McElroy’s advice that his brother bishops eschew getting involved in political issues. He’s the same guy who said “we must all be disrupters” in the first month after Trump’s inauguration and who promptly called for us to be “proud collaborators” with the Biden administration, even before the last write in ballots had been counted. It’s all there in print, as Yogi always said, “You could look it up.”
The prohibition against receiving the Eucharist, for obstinate sinners, is a supreme act of charity (see 1 Corinthians 11:27).
Every time she receives Communion with the stain of mortal sin, she profanes Our Lord and brings ruination to her very soul. Keeping her away until she can reconcile with Christ's Church is the only rational, and humane, response.
Far from "weaponizing" the sacrament, it's recognizing the horrifying reality of her sacrilege and exhorting her to repentance.
Pray for her, because one day she will have to make account, and I cannot imagine standing before The Throne of Heaven and having to defend the advocacy of committing infanticide for the sake of a few votes.
Funny how such emphasis is put on "weaponizing" the Eucharist, and none is placed on "weaponizing" the entirety of the Catholic faith. Pelosi, Biden and other faux Catholics wrap themselves routinely in the mantle of their nominal Catholicism, in a selective excerpt of Pope Francis' latest commentary, or a handpicked biblical verse to support their latest legislative endeavor or political attack.
"Why, they have asked, isn’t similar action taken against politicians who support the unjust application of the death penalty, or even policies on the treatment of migrants which are deemed immoral by the Church?'
These are prudential decisions and the morality of specific acts or legislation is open to legitimate discussion and debate, even among orthodox and observant Catholics. Not so with abortion and it is dishonest for anyone to pretend otherwise. What constitutes "mistreatment" of migrants or an "unjust" application of the death penalty? Which Catholic politicians are promoting laws to "mistreat" migrants? Which Catholic politicians are advocating for the "unjust" application of the death penalty? Is there universal agreement among the bishops on these issues? I think the answers are clear to anyone who is not a rabid partisan.
One of the absolutely lamest arguments being bandied about is "Oh, yeah, well, what is Cordileone doing about Catholic politicians who are promoting the death penalty?? Nothing! Hypocrite." Wake me up when there is actually a pro-death penalty elected official, Catholic or non-Catholic, in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. I'm in San Francisco, and I'm aware of exactly zero local politicians out there promoting or advocating the death penalty.