Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Luminesa]

Not to stir some drama here, but with all the talk about the possible SCOTUS pick and possible rise of anti-Catholicism on the Left, is it weird I've experienced more anti-Catholic hatred from fellow Christians then nonreligious people?

Like I remember in middle school people from my Catholic middle school were banned from a nearby Lutheran school because we were "ungodly".

I mean, historically, it wasn't atheists who persecuted Irish people for practicing "Popery". As an ex-Catholic ex-conservative myself, atheists and liberal progressives saved my life when I lost my faith after the Molestation Scandals of the 2000s.

Blind faith in tradition and dogma dies hard, and it is nobody's fault but our own when we do not abandon it.

I don't know what to say really except that I am sorry that your heart was hurt so badly, as many of our own hearts have been hurt. We expect much from our faith leaders, and hold them to high standards, and many, many of them have fallen short, perhaps even low into the abyss. It is a wound from which we shall not recover for some time. In saying that, we are not blind. We see, and we wish to bring change to what is our home. We all have dirty houses, but we love them and want them to be clean. And it takes a lot of people to clean and sweep the dirt from the floor of the House of God. I would pray that one day you might join us again in bringing that change, in helping us to clean and to bring the Church into a bright new future.

[Luminesa]

As the news on the indictment of officers involved in Breonna Taylor's case comes forward, may we not only pray for justice but also for peace, for the community of Louisville, and for the repose of Breonna Taylor's soul. May she be resting in the arms of God, and may her family receive His consolation. May God restore peace to Louisville, peace which the world cannot give.

[Lower Nubia]

As the news on the indictment of officers involved in Breonna Taylor's case comes forward, may we not only pray for justice but also for peace, for the community of Louisville, and for the repose of Breonna Taylor's soul. May she be resting in the arms of God, and may her family receive His consolation. May God restore peace to Louisville, peace which the world cannot give.

Yeah. No. After the announcement. I suspect Louisville will burn. What a disgrace of justice.

[The Rich Port]

I mean, historically, it wasn't atheists who persecuted Irish people for practicing "Popery". As an ex-Catholic ex-conservative myself, atheists and liberal progressives saved my life when I lost my faith after the Molestation Scandals of the 2000s.

Blind faith in tradition and dogma dies hard, and it is nobody's fault but our own when we do not abandon it.

I don't know what to say really except that I am sorry that your heart was hurt so badly, as many of our own hearts have been hurt. We expect much from our faith leaders, and hold them to high standards, and many, many of them have fallen short, perhaps even low into the abyss. It is a wound from which we shall not recover for some time. In saying that, we are not blind. We see, and we wish to bring change to what is our home. We all have dirty houses, but we love them and want them to be clean. And it takes a lot of people to clean and sweep the dirt from the floor of the House of God. I would pray that one day you might join us again in bringing that change, in helping us to clean and to bring the Church into a bright new future.

Prayer ain't gonna be bringing me back to this house, Sister.

You got some serious mold in the walls, musty old books that give me allergies, and rats in the cellar.

[Diopolis]

Every SSPX chapel has a portrait of Pope Francis and masses said by SSPX priests are una cum, which is why sedevacantists like Sanborn et al say it is a mortal sin to attend SSPX masses.


Nah, you absolutely do. Diocesan TLMs, the FSSP and ICKSP have some great priests, very intelligent people who will provide great spiritual advice, and I still have a soft spot for the Diocesan TLM priest near me and my old priest who was affiliated with the FSSP, but the SSPX is a whole other level. SSPX priests don't take orders from modernist bishops who will forbid them from giving the sacraments in line with the 1962 Missal because of some social distancing bullshit. The SSPX and the older FSSP priests (who tend to be like 99% theologically aligned with the SSPX) are the only ones who are willing to be straight forward about the Council and the problems the Church is facing today. I don't have an issue with people going to FSSP/ICKSP parishes but if I was away from home and the choice was NOM, FSSP, ICKSP or SSPX I would go to SSPX just for quality of priests they produce.


There is a state of necessity in the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre's writings make it clear he believed this, therefore he didn't need papal permission.


There was no excommunications in the first place.


Yes, Bishop Williamson is a very intelligent man but one of those people who is too intelligent they go absolutely crazy and let their intelligence be overshadowed by the insane stuff they spew out every now and then.


Such as what?


The SSPX as an organisation has no canonical status but their priests are validly and licitly ordained (something the Vatican has affirmed since like 1976), as are their sacraments.

Have u ever used that?

Yes, I have.

[Salus Maior]

I don't know what to say really except that I am sorry that your heart was hurt so badly, as many of our own hearts have been hurt. We expect much from our faith leaders, and hold them to high standards, and many, many of them have fallen short, perhaps even low into the abyss. It is a wound from which we shall not recover for some time. In saying that, we are not blind. We see, and we wish to bring change to what is our home. We all have dirty houses, but we love them and want them to be clean. And it takes a lot of people to clean and sweep the dirt from the floor of the House of God. I would pray that one day you might join us again in bringing that change, in helping us to clean and to bring the Church into a bright new future.

Prayer ain't gonna be bringing me back to this house, Sister.

You got some serious mold in the walls, musty old books that give me allergies, and rats in the cellar.

Yeah, we know.

[Luminesa]

I don't know what to say really except that I am sorry that your heart was hurt so badly, as many of our own hearts have been hurt. We expect much from our faith leaders, and hold them to high standards, and many, many of them have fallen short, perhaps even low into the abyss. It is a wound from which we shall not recover for some time. In saying that, we are not blind. We see, and we wish to bring change to what is our home. We all have dirty houses, but we love them and want them to be clean. And it takes a lot of people to clean and sweep the dirt from the floor of the House of God. I would pray that one day you might join us again in bringing that change, in helping us to clean and to bring the Church into a bright new future.

Prayer ain't gonna be bringing me back to this house, Sister.

You got some serious mold in the walls, musty old books that give me allergies, and rats in the cellar.

I am very aware, but mold, allergies, and rats can all be cured in time. Either way, I am sorry for what you lost, whatever it was, and I would hope that one day your heart might be healed and you might return.

[Ghost in the Shell]

Considering the current Democratic nominee is a practicing Catholic last I checked

Somebody who publicly rejects the teaching of the Catholic Church, with full knowledge that they are rejecting Church teaching, is not a Catholic. Biden is a Catholic insofar as he was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church, but so was Martin Luther. It is meaningless. He is not a Catholic and he does not promote Catholicism. The Democrats are fine with "Catholics" like Biden and Pelosi, and Muslims like Ilhan Omar, because they do not actually practice their faiths. They practice a watered down bastardisation of their faiths that is acceptable to secularists.

Catholic’s are often disproportionately in positions of political and judicial power - the idea about “anti-Catholicism” is not a thing outside the Fundamentalist Baptist South and other Independent Church’s.

So are Jews, but people flip out when that gets pointed out.

[Lost Memories]

@numbia
To get back at what i was saying before:

I wasn't saying there weren't abuses of power by the catholic church before the protestant reformation(1517-20), while the clergy had been busy administrating state matters, like dukes or feudal lords did at the same time, side by side with them, because such was the need of having educated and competent administrators of public matters in those times, and the catholic church had those characteristics.
That mix of roles, religious and of public administration, had been a reality at least since the 800, when the church of Rome got involved with the French monarchy of Charlemagne. Should it have continued like that? No, the catholic reformation, before the protestant one, had already started to deal with the problem of the influence of state matters into religious matters.

I was saying, that the abuses of power of the church weren't out of the norm, or worse off, than what commonly happened in society at their time.
And that there has been a recurring theme in general post-reformation historiography to single out the abuses of the catholic church as special and unique, when they weren't.
When actually, the catholic church has been across history more moderate in abuses, when holding the same roles, when compared to the societies from which the clergy obtained their new priests, officials and authorities. As it shows the changes in societal norms across the whole world, the chief example being the introduction of the concept of the value of human life, which didn't really exist before christianity, and which said concept of the value of human life did gradually lead to the abolition of slavery all over the world, even in non-christian lands, just out of influence from the christian lands.


Secondly, you may still hold the notion that past english historians who did deal with the history of the reformation and catholicism were reliable.
But it is becoming more and more clear, with each new year and new pubblication, since the change of focus in historical research since some 80 years ago (focusing more on the lives of the people who lived in the past, moreso than the big events big dates and big figures), it is becoming more clear that for multiple centuries english historians have tampered with historical truth.
Or said more simply, what they abused and tampered with was: Historical Factuality, and Historical Context

Historical Factuality: english historians up to the last century had the habit of filling the gaps of incomplete informations and incomplete sources with their own prejudices, of strong anti-catholicism. Creating basically, half-truths about history.
Not only there are cases of english historians to have fabricated historical events, which fabricated events can't be verified, since there aren't sources to support them, but over the following centuries new generations of historians have reaffirmed the fabricated events of their predecessors. These second historians maybe were not even realizing they were reading polemic works, and not first hand witnesses, yet even if mistaken, they still didn't bother to further investigate, or to critically evalue their second hand sources, since they already aligned with their own biases.
All in a vicious circle of biases getting carried over time, people learning from biased sources as factual, the modern biases reinforcing the old biases, and sometimes even building up more prejudice on the old biased sources.

Historical Context: post reformation english historians have been focusing on the crimes of the church, often while not giving any context of what did happen in the rest of society at those same times.
This played with the narrative that the "oh so pure and innocent" society was getting corrupted by the presence of catholic clerical institutions, when actually it was the opposite, of secular institutions creeping into religious institutions, bringing with them all their moral defects and weaknesses and old bad habits of pre-christian origin.

So you may read a most probably biased work and be fine with it, i'm not going to take that same work at face value, unless i see at least multiple mentions from not suspicious sources confirming it, and giving a critical observation on the events, and outlining the context in which those events took place.

Also, things may be different in the united kingdom, or even in the US, where anti-catholicism (or anti-christianity) may still sometimes manage to get a pass into professional publications (news media, non-professional publications, and popular beliefs, are sitting ducks, they have none of those academic filters to biases).
But most historians from elsewhere around the world, are growing more and more cautious when dealing with past english historians and writers, or really anyone politically involved, more cautious in evaluing if they are reliable historical sources or not, and how to filter or contextualize the biases included in politically motivated works, because of the historical english inability to put their biases/prejudices aside when doing works dealing with knowledge.
Or rather, present historians are wary of, the past english academic refusal to evalue and label their own and past biases as historical facts, treating explicitly those biases like all other historical facts are treated when under scrutiny. Because all historical facts (historical biases included) contribute in shaping and influencing the understanding of a give time in history, the understanding of the events happening in that time, and how those events were storytelled by the people of their time.


This is what i was talking about.
My previous posts quoting historical details from sources, weren't addressed at anyone specifically, nor were a reply to you, they were something i shared since they looked interesting, after looking into the matter of history and protestantism.


I rather recommend to you Nubia (but also anyone else) to save the pdf of:
Luther's House of Learning: Indoctrination of the Young in the German Reformation - Gerald Strauss (1978)
and give it a read, or just skim the chapters which catch more your attention, since it's a long tecnical book, when you can find some time.
It's really a work rich of many interesting historical details, which help to build the context of the examined time, the reformation in germany during its first century. The author looks pretty honest in making clear what is the degree of reliability of the sources he used, he himself created the room to look critically at his own findings, which is how history should be dealt with, critically.

The English Reformation - A.G. Dickens
seems a work with an honest approach, even if with defects for shortage of available sources, and more of an anticipation to future researches
and yet, even with the best intentions from the author, there are notes of bias
Dickens was hopeful and excited for what would have been discovered by the historians of the future inside local church archives, Gerald Strauss did such work, he looked into the archives of the churches.

A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years - Diarmaid MacCulloch
he is full of his own shit, that isn't even a serious research, that's a commercial book, not a professional history publication

Luther's House of Learning: Indoctrination of the Young in the German Reformation - Gerald Strauss (1978)
this work in part proved my initial supposition that the reformation in germany, for the general populance, was a big moment of "fuck the system", all the system, secular state included, like the poor population often desired, since their life was hard, and once the first moment of hype passed, very little affection to the reformation was left among the wider population, this up to the first century after the reformation
The protestant reformation in germany was created for the middle class capitalists(the same social status from where Luther came from), refined around them, and that's from where the protestant reformation gained its support and faithful.

[Luminesa]

Considering the current Democratic nominee is a practicing Catholic last I checked, I think the supposed rise of anti-Catholicism on the American Left is a tad overblown - I personally suspect that it has more to do with where the two parties have positioned themselves on the matter of public expression of religion and admittance of how your views are shaped by religion combined with the Catholic position on everything related to reproductive and LGBTQ+ issues being nowhere near the Democratic position on the same.

Edit: Or to be more general, from where I sit it seems more like issues the American left has with the American religious right than something with Catholics specifically.

Biden is pro-Abortion, so he really should not be used as the model Catholic in this situation.

[Salus Maior]

Considering the current Democratic nominee is a practicing Catholic last I checked...

A nominal Catholic, sure.

[Luminesa]

Considering the current Democratic nominee is a practicing Catholic last I checked, I think the supposed rise of anti-Catholicism on the American Left is a tad overblown - I personally suspect that it has more to do with where the two parties have positioned themselves on the matter of public expression of religion and admittance of how your views are shaped by religion combined with the Catholic position on everything related to reproductive and LGBTQ+ issues being nowhere near the Democratic position on the same.

Edit: Or to be more general, from where I sit it seems more like issues the American left has with the American religious right than something with Catholics specifically.

It is overblown. The target of the left* are Evangelicals, not Catholic’s, the left* won’t target Catholicism while Pope Francis speaks softly about the Environment, at least. Catholic’s are often disproportionately in positions of political and judicial power - the idea about “anti-Catholicism” is not a thing outside the Fundamentalist Baptist South and other Independent Church’s.

*The left of course is not some monolithic entity that’s coming for your rights.

It’s odd, because generally Catholics are thought to lean (statistically) more left in the US anyway, but that’s only really due to American Catholics being mostly cultural and not devout. Then again, American Catholicism’s problems are not solely from the left. Most don’t even believe in the True Presence. But the “cultural Catholicism” is part of a larger problem.

I think Pope Francis has spoken a little more than “softly” on environmental issues. While I haven’t taken the closest look at his encyclicals (and I should), I get the feeling it is something he is very passionate about. The disconnect comes any time Pope Francis mentions environmentalism in light of the Catechism, or when he actually goes into defending Catholic teachings, and then some people don’t know what to do with him.

Anti-Catholicism in the US has been around even outside of the South, given that Al Smith was kept from the presidency, and people were quite anxious about Kennedy being a Catholic even after he was elected. I think it managed to subdue for some time, but devout Catholics in places of power has always made some politicians shudder. It has more to do with “cultural” or even “fashionable” Catholics being at the top versus “devout” Catholics.

It’s why some people tolerate Biden and say he is a practicing Catholic (no offense at Lord Dominator, this is an example I’ve heard from others but not from casual conversation; he is occasionally pushed in even Catholic newspapers as a devout Catholic when he very clearly is not), but when Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich pop up they are chased out the room. (This is not to say that either of them do not have their skeletons, perhaps, most politicians do. I have a softer spot for Santorum due to his story of his daughter with special needs. They also are both Republicans, Gingrich a very prominent one, which does play into the equation.)

[Lord Dominator]

I'll take you on that Biden is a nominal Catholic or what have you, but I don't think that distinction is something most non-Catholics are going to really be aware of - if he says he's a Catholic, I'm guessing most people are going to take him at face value on that.

[Luminesa]

I'll take you on that Biden is a nominal Catholic or what have you, but I don't think that distinction is something most non-Catholics are going to really be aware of - if he says he's a Catholic, I'm guessing most people are going to take him at face value on that.

Which is the somewhat dangerous thing, given that Catholics, per the Catechism, cannot vote for a candidate who is willfully pro-abortion/pro-choice. This is not to decide ultimately who they vote for outside of that. This goes for basically any candidate in any year that is not the crackpot nightmare of some Eldritch Abomination. But it should be a pro-life candidate, as well as one who has respect for other issues of Catholic social teaching.

That said I watched Trump’s executive order and his explanation, and I knew immediately that whoever wrote his speech pulled directly from the Catechism. I don’t think he would have ever used the phrase “dignity of the worker” in his whole life, if he had not been handed a script from a clearly Catholic speechwriter. Though I was glad for the ruling about babies surviving abortions needing to be treated by medical care. (Not to turn this into an abortion thread either, but something I was happy for.)

[Salus Maior]

I'll take you on that Biden is a nominal Catholic or what have you, but I don't think that distinction is something most non-Catholics are going to really be aware of - if he says he's a Catholic, I'm guessing most people are going to take him at face value on that.

They're not going to care about his alleged Catholicism, because he doesn't actually believe in any of the important points of Catholicism and none of that is really part of his policy making.

If someone were to campaign and was personally defined by Catholic values and that played a part of their political positions, that's when the bigotry comes out.

So, really, the bigotry is only on meaningful Catholicism. Not so much vague and limp Catholicism.

[The Archregimancy]

Considering the current Democratic nominee is a practicing Catholic last I checked...

A nominal Catholic, sure.

I'm raising an eyebrow at the number of Catholics in this thread who seem to be uncomfortable with Biden's status as a fellow Catholic.

I acknowledge that Biden is on public record as disagreeing with at least one significant area of Catholic doctrine, but even if this means that that this makes him a bad Catholic - and one that you can't bring yourselves to vote for (though why anyone who foregrounds religion as the basis of their vote would prefer Donald Trump over Joe Biden escapes me) - it surely doesn't make him a nominal or lapsed Catholic; just an imperfect one. And if you can find me a perfect Catholic, I'd very much like to meet them.

Obviously I'm not Catholic myself, so I may well have misunderstood, and I'm very prepared to be corrected on this point, but my understanding was that 'once baptised Catholic, always Catholic' (acknowledging the oversimplification) was a fairly basic point in Catholicism, and one specifically acknowledged in your catechism.

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation

[Northern Davincia]

A nominal Catholic, sure.

I'm raising an eyebrow at the number of Catholics in this thread who seem to be uncomfortable with Biden's status as a fellow Catholic.

I acknowledge that Biden is on public record as disagreeing with at least one significant area of Catholic doctrine, but even if this means that that this makes him a bad Catholic - and one that you can't bring yourselves to vote for (though why anyone who foregrounds religion as the basis of their vote would prefer Donald Trump over Joe Biden escapes me) - it surely doesn't make him a nominal or lapsed Catholic; just an imperfect one. And if you can find me a perfect Catholic, I'd very much like to meet them.

Obviously I'm not Catholic myself, so I may well have misunderstood, and I'm very prepared to be corrected on this point, but my understanding was that 'once baptised Catholic, always Catholic' (acknowledging the oversimplification) was a fairly basic point in Catholicism, and one specifically acknowledged in your catechism.

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation

An imperfect Catholic is expected to fail in their actions, but still know right from wrong. Biden does not. We demand orthodoxy of belief.

[Salus Maior]

A nominal Catholic, sure.

I'm raising an eyebrow at the number of Catholics in this thread who seem to be uncomfortable with Biden's status as a fellow Catholic.

I acknowledge that Biden is on public record as disagreeing with at least one significant area of Catholic doctrine, but even if this means that that this makes him a bad Catholic - and one that you can't bring yourselves to vote for (though why anyone who foregrounds religion as the basis of their vote would prefer Donald Trump over Joe Biden escapes me) - it surely doesn't make him a nominal or lapsed Catholic; just an imperfect one. And if you can find me a perfect Catholic, I'd very much like to meet them.

Obviously I'm not Catholic myself, so I may well have misunderstood, and I'm very prepared to be corrected on this point, but my understanding was that 'once baptised Catholic, always Catholic' (acknowledging the oversimplification) was a fairly basic point in Catholicism, and one specifically acknowledged in your catechism.

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation

The difference here is that Biden would likely be under a state of Latae Sentientae excommunication for his support of the pro-choice movement. This happens automatically, and without needing any kind of statement from the clergy.

Now, one could probably debate what it means to be "Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty", but it's not far fetched to say that protecting or drafting laws which support the right to commit an act that incurs excommunication is being accomplice to that act.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of Trump either.

[Punished UMN]

I'm raising an eyebrow at the number of Catholics in this thread who seem to be uncomfortable with Biden's status as a fellow Catholic.

I acknowledge that Biden is on public record as disagreeing with at least one significant area of Catholic doctrine, but even if this means that that this makes him a bad Catholic - and one that you can't bring yourselves to vote for (though why anyone who foregrounds religion as the basis of their vote would prefer Donald Trump over Joe Biden escapes me) - it surely doesn't make him a nominal or lapsed Catholic; just an imperfect one. And if you can find me a perfect Catholic, I'd very much like to meet them.

Obviously I'm not Catholic myself, so I may well have misunderstood, and I'm very prepared to be corrected on this point, but my understanding was that 'once baptised Catholic, always Catholic' (acknowledging the oversimplification) was a fairly basic point in Catholicism, and one specifically acknowledged in your catechism.

The difference here is that Biden would likely be under a state of Latae Sentientae excommunication for his support of the pro-choice movement. This happens automatically, and without needing any kind of statement from the clergy.

Now, one could probably debate what it means to be "Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty", but it's not far fetched to say that protecting or drafting laws which support the right to commit an act that incurs excommunication is being accomplice to that act.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of Trump either.

That's for the priest he confesses to to decide.

[Lord Dominator]

I'll take you on that Biden is a nominal Catholic or what have you, but I don't think that distinction is something most non-Catholics are going to really be aware of - if he says he's a Catholic, I'm guessing most people are going to take him at face value on that.

They're not going to care about his alleged Catholicism, because he doesn't actually believe in any of the important points of Catholicism and none of that is really part of his policy making.

(Emphasis mine) - I see how Biden isn't a true Catholic by his explicit rejection of certain portions of the Catholic position on social policy, saying he believes in none of the important points of Catholicism is something rather extra that I'd like explanation/citation on what you mean.

If someone were to campaign and was personally defined by Catholic values and that played a part of their political positions, that's when the bigotry comes out.

So, really, the bigotry is only on meaningful Catholicism. Not so much vague and limp Catholicism.

And to go back to what originally started this (the possibility of Barret being Trump's upcoming SCOTUS nominee), I have yet to really any evidence that she's being attacked on Catholic-specific grounds (for the weak definition of attack), but rather more generic uneasiness the American left has with the American religious right.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

The difference here is that Biden would likely be under a state of Latae Sentientae excommunication for his support of the pro-choice movement. This happens automatically, and without needing any kind of statement from the clergy.

Now, one could probably debate what it means to be "Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty", but it's not far fetched to say that protecting or drafting laws which support the right to commit an act that incurs excommunication is being accomplice to that act.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of Trump either.

Whether Biden (or pro-abortion rights politicians more generally) are excommunicated is a bit of a grey area, but here is an article from a canon lawyer on the issue. I do take issue—and this is not specifically directed at you—with Catholics who seem to almost celebrate the fact that they believe Biden is excommunicated, given that it misses the whole point of excommunication. Excommunication is medicinal, not punitive.

And to go back to what originally started this (the possibility of Barret being Trump's upcoming SCOTUS nominee), I have yet to really any evidence that she's being attacked on Catholic-specific grounds (for the weak definition of attack), but rather more generic uneasiness the American left has with the American religious right.

I haven't seen much on her potential nomination specifically, but Sen. Harris (D) and Sen. Hirono (D) have previously engaged in anti-Catholic bigotry while questioning then-nominee Brian Buescher, which was condemned by the U.S. Senate with unanimous consent.

[Lord Dominator]

And to go back to what originally started this (the possibility of Barret being Trump's upcoming SCOTUS nominee), I have yet to really any evidence that she's being attacked on Catholic-specific grounds (for the weak definition of attack), but rather more generic uneasiness the American left has with the American religious right.

I haven't seen much on her potential nomination specifically, but Sen. Harris (D) and Sen. Hirono (D) have previously engaged in anti-Catholic bigotry while questioning then-nominee Brian Buescher, which was condemned by the U.S. Senate with unanimous consent.

Fair enough on that front, though I would of course observe that the unanimous consent angle means that Democrats other than them two agreed with such

[The Rich Port]

Prayer ain't gonna be bringing me back to this house, Sister.

You got some serious mold in the walls, musty old books that give me allergies, and rats in the cellar.

I am very aware, but mold, allergies, and rats can all be cured in time. Either way, I am sorry for what you lost, whatever it was, and I would hope that one day your heart might be healed and you might return.

And in some cases some people want the mold and the rats to stick around, and to bathe in it, and too many of them are the ones who are supposed to be keeping the house from falling into disrepair.

I'm not living in filth because otherwise I would be homeless.

[The Archregimancy]

An imperfect Catholic is expected to fail in their actions, but still know right from wrong. Biden does not. We demand orthodoxy of belief.

Well, NSG apparently does, anyway.

I'm just not convinced that this attitude is particularly, well, Christian. Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

The difference here is that Biden would likely be under a state of Latae Sentientae excommunication for his support of the pro-choice movement. This happens automatically, and without needing any kind of statement from the clergy.

Now, one could probably debate what it means to be "Accomplices who were needed to commit an action that has an automatic excommunication penalty", but it's not far fetched to say that protecting or drafting laws which support the right to commit an act that incurs excommunication is being accomplice to that act.

An answer that at least has the benefit of rooting itself in actual theology. But I'm still not convinced that focusing so much on abortion to the exclusion of all other moral issues is necessarily helpful or morally consistent. As I understand it, the catechism of the Catholic Church is now unambiguously against the death penalty; acknowledging this position has evolved over time in a manner that opposition to abortion hasn't, at what point am I going to see more moral handwringing over Republican Catholics (which obviously doesn't include the current POTUS) who support the death penalty?

Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,’ and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide

Again, conceding that I'm neither Catholic nor American, so I'm very much looking at this as an outsider; but from my admittedly limited and flawed perspective there's more than a hint of the Pharisees here.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

-snip-

With regards to Can. 1364 §1, "heretic[s]" are considered excommunicated. Can. 751 defines heresy as "the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith". Pope St. John Paul II issued, in 1998, Ad tuendam fidem, and Cardinal Ratzinger published a commentary to further clarify it. In this, it is made clear that it is a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" that abortion is gravely immoral. Denial of such thus constitutes heresy and heretics are excommunicated latae sententiae.

The immorality of the death penalty is not generally considered a "truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (although it is certainly shameful that so many Catholics still support it), and as thus those supporting it are not excommunicated.