8.26.2008

Biden, his Catholicism, abortion, and the Bishop

About Biden, let's ask the right questions well

Excerpt:

Canon 916 directs Catholics who are conscious of being in grave sin, regardless of whether that grave sin is known publicly, to refrain from taking holy Communion. Biden, like any other Catholic, is expected to examine his conscience in light of Church teaching prior to approaching the Eucharist and, if he finds himself wanting, to reform his behavior accordingly


Biden's Catholic faith offers risks, rewards

Excerpt:

One outspoken prelate, Denver Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput, said in statement to The Associated Press that Biden should refrain from taking Communion because of his stance.



Denver Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput

Quoting him:

Well, I have a responsibility as a bishop to clearly proclaim the Gospel in its entirety, even when people don’t want me to do that, and even when it’s difficult. So I wouldn’t claim to be particularly courageous, but I feel responsible. And if I don’t speak on the issues that I think the Lord calls me to speak, I feel guilty about that. So for me to be quiet on these issues would have been a harder burden for me to carry, perhaps, than speaking about it. Actually, I mentioned two reasons why I wrote the book. One is some Catholic political folks asked me to, people who ran for office, and were having struggles because of that. But more importantly, I’ve grown tired of so many people in our culture saying to believers that they ought to be quiet, that there’s no place in the public square for the voice of faith. I wanted to make a distinction between separation of Church and state, and separating our faith from our politics. You can embrace the concept of separation of Church and state, but that’s not at all the same thing as separating our faith from our actions, from our political actions.


MORE / Updated

Archbishop scolds pro-choice Biden

But the party's hopes of winning the critical Catholic vote took a hit Sunday when Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver said Mr. Biden should avoid taking Communion as a result of his pro-choice stand on abortion.

Archbishop Chaput, who was scheduled to lead a pro-life candlelight vigil Monday night here in front of Planned Parenthood, called Mr. Biden's support for abortion rights "seriously wrong," said archdiocese spokeswoman Jeanette De Melo.

"I certainly presume his good will and integrity," said the archbishop, "and I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for Communion if he supports a false 'right' to abortion."

The archbishop, who was not invited to speak at any convention events in what appeared to be a deliberate snub, told the Associated Press that he would like to speak privately with Mr. Biden.

9 comments:

  1. What is the official Catholic position, if there is an offical one, on responding and caring for the poor?

    If the Democratic party is the party of the economically average or even below economically average, what are they doing nominating Joe Biden? And what does his church think of his political moves?

    Namely, I'm referring to his votes in favor of the banks when it comes to consumers. Many people think the recent changes were a blow against the little guy and especially burdonsome on the poor of society. How can the Democrats put up this guy who voted in favor of big business along with the Republicans? Doesn't that seem hypocrital?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am referring to the recent changes in consumer laws and bankruptcy laws. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting point.....and I don't know what the official position of Rome vis a vis the poor might be. I would have to assume that excessive interest, deceptive advertising, and such would be prohibited.

    I don't know that the bankruptcy reform bill oppresses the poor, though. One provision that ironically might help them is the higher minimum payment rule--more or less it sends a signal to people that they're in way over their heads before they're in way, WAY over their heads.

    How to totally equate modern moneylending for lucre to the ancient practice of lending the poor enough to eat is difficult, though....especially given that the biggest health problem of the poor these days is obesity!

    Maybe we just stick with the reality that being Mr. "100% NARAL"'s running mate ought to earn Biden the condemnation of any Bible-believing church, and then figure out the moneylending issues?

    ReplyDelete
  4. BB, good points about being supported by NARAL. If they support you, that should be a good sign right there that your position is not in favor of life, to say the least!

    I just find it very odd that Democrats would nominate Biden. Clinton in her speech at the convention gave great platitudes about "remembering those the government has forgotten the last 8 years," etc. I have never had an abortion and don't plan on it. Most people have not had an abortion. It's mainly a political talking point. Granted, it's a very important issue and I'm not trying to downplay it. But let's be real, most people don't deal with it in their personal lives. Or maybe it would be better to say that COMPARATIVELY speaking, abortion is a non-factor in most peoples lives, while money and economic issues are something that the entire population deals with. It seems as if the right and the left both trump up abortion (again - I'm not downplaying its significance as a legitimate issue) as the ONLY issue in life, even though it directly affects few people compared to economic issues which affect everyone.

    I don't have time at the moment to do research, but many people think that the recent laws enacted or changed were just another example of the little guy getting run over by huge corporations. Yes, I agree with you that some good could come out of it, such as higher payments which in theory should help people get out of debt sooner. But even I, a conservative, can see the side of the consumer and how this could really hurt the little guy and give greater power in our society to the "evil" corporations Democrats are always railing against......It's amazing to me that the liberal media and Democrats fail to talk honestly about this. Instead, it's as if you talk about abortion (whether you're for it or against it) enough, the voters will forget about all other issues. Abortion is used by BOTH sides simply to gain votes. When the actually do get elected, abortion is never an issue that's actually dealt with. It was simply a political ploy you used to garner votes. That's why Democrats can mess with the little guy and vote just like all the supposed "big business bad Republicans" and get away with it. As long as the candidate says they are for abortion rights, all other issues can be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bike, one example is the Universal Default Clause. This is onerous, in my opinion. If you have paid your bill on time for years and years, yet you are just a few days late paying ANOTHER bill to ANOTHER company, your rates can be jacked up sky high overnight. They can change the terms of the contract greatly in their favor pretty much literally overnight, even though you have a perfect record with them. Of course I realize we should have "read the fine print," and yes that's a valid point. But I've got to say, to me it seems as if the consumers are being railroaded by these big companies. My conservative friends might not like me for saying that, especially because I'm conservative, but oh well, that's ok.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmm....OK, that certainly doesn't help any debtor, but I don't know that the UDC is that unfair. What you've done when you miss payments is tell your creditors, all of them, that you're not as good a credit risk as they thought you were. No?

    More or less, this is just almost a necessary outcome of a system where we put everyday expenses on credit. As long as we do this, we will have usurious rates on credit cards for those whose credit is not good.

    Maybe the issue isn't the UDC, but rather unsecured debt to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bike, I see what you're saying, but I still think the big corporations are running over the little guy. For example, you've paid your bill on time (if you'd had one) for 10 years in a row and have been a perfect customer. Maybe during a bad week when you've been in a hurry you forgot to pay your utility bill on time and it's therefore a few days late. The utility company couldn't care less; they got their money and everything is back to normal. But the credit card company you've been with for 10 years, with a perfect record, all of a sudden jacks up your card to very high rates without your knowledge simply on a caprice of their own.

    And it's not like you can function in today's world without a credit card: try getting a hotel, plane ticket, or renting a car without it. (ok, now we have debit cards, so this isn't quite the captive issue it once was)

    Yes, I realize people abuse credit and companies don't deserve to get ripped off by customers who blow them off. Just like I think people should actually know they are getting an ARM - before they get an ARM - and be ready for the possible higher rates. But on the other hand, I'm not totally on the side of the big banks who decide to push around the little consumers and change their contracts because they know the consumer has to do what they say or go into default.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Agreed that the big guy is going to take advantage of you if you carry a balance on your credit cards.

    But then again, there's your solution, isn't it? Not the easiest thing in the world to do, for sure, but probably the best.

    Ever wonder how much "the economy" could shrink without anyone being any poorer if we just gave up on owing a lot of debt and lived within our means?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Interesting points, Bike. In a lot of ways I agree with you: if you carry a balance, the big guy is going to mess around with you and you instead probably want to not carry a balance. But, that's a choice the consumer has CHOSEN to live with. In other words, a person is well aware that their card is charging 8.9% or 11%, or whatever. There is no hidden agenda; the company stated in big bold terms when the person got the card what the rates would be and the consumer decided they could live with this. Likewise, when you get an ARM (I've never had one), I'm assuming the terms are pretty clearly and well laid out before you sign on the dotted line that yes, this mortgage can likely adjust UP. (But then again, if it is so obvious, why were so many people apparently "duped" into getting ARMS? I have no idea.) With things like the UDC, it is on your paperwork, but let's be honest. It is literally (and figuratively) in such fine, small print in amongst what looks like a 300 page essay, that the banks hope the average consumer never notices this. To me it's pretty shady how the bank can jack up an already high 9% to usurious levels basically overnight, on a whim. Yes, I know it's perfectly legal, but it's a little shady to put this clause in such small type and make it so well hidden that the average consumer they realize will never actually notice it.

    I think we all can see that it's best to never carry a balance. But in today's economy, with gas prices being outrageous and employment for many rather tenuous, sometimes I don't fault people for charging the everyday things of life on their cards. I see your point, and I agree completely, about living with in your means and probably most consumer debt is for that type of purchase, but not all of it is.

    ReplyDelete

Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic