CNA Staff, Aug 6, 2020 / 11:30 pm (CNA).- Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday spoke about his Catholic faith, in response to comments from President Donald Trump that a Biden presidency would “hurt God.”
“Like so many people, my faith has been the bedrock foundation of my life: it’s provided me comfort in moments of loss and tragedy, it’s kept me grounded and humbled in times of triumph and joy. And in this moment of darkness for our country — of pain, of division, and of sickness for so many Americans — my faith has been a guiding light for me and a constant reminder of the fundamental dignity and humanity that God has bestowed upon all of us,” Biden said in an Aug. 6 statement.
“For President Trump to attack my faith is shameful. It’s beneath the office he holds and it’s beneath the dignity the American people so rightly expect and deserve from their leaders,” he added.
Speaking in Ohio today, Trump said that Biden wanted to “take away your guns, destroy your Second Amendment, no religion, no anything. Hurt the Bible, hurt God. He’s against God, he’s against guns.”
Biden has spoken about his Catholic faith on the campaign trail, and is known to attend Mass when he is at home in Delaware and when he travels. But the former vice president’s positions on some issues, most notably abortion and sexual orientation/gender identity policy, have put him at odds with Catholic teaching.
Brian Burch, president of political advocacy organization CatholicVote, told CNA that Biden’s faith itself should not be called into question, but his position on issues of importance to religious believers should be a matter of consideration.
“Joe Biden says his Catholic faith is important to him, and it’s not our place to question that,” Burch told CNA. “It’s obvious Biden attends Mass, and it’s obvious his Catholic faith has been a comfort to him at critical moments in his life.”
“But the question in this election is about what his plans are for this country, and that’s what believers should focus on,” Burch said.
“What matters here isn’t his devotional life, but his policies. And his policy agenda threatens the freedom of the Church in America,” he added, not only on life, but also on religious liberty.
Burch said that in his view, Biden’s positions could impact the Church’s social and charitable ministries.
“I worry that the Catholic Church in America is not taking seriously enough how a Biden presidency might threaten the freedom of the Church in America. Catholic hospitals, schools and charities will surely be forced to choose whether to operate in communion with what we believe as Catholics, compromise the Faith, or shut down altogether. Hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state grants that serve the poor and vulnerable could be at stake,” Burch said.
In October 2019, Biden was denied Holy Communion at a South Carolina church because of his support for legalized abortion.
“Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse Holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden,” Fr. Robert Morey, pastor of St. Anthony Catholic Church in the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina, told CNA Oct 28.
“Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the Church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching,” the priest added. Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law states that
“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a memorandum to the U.S. Catholic bishops in 2004, explaining the application of Canon Law 915 to the reception of Holy Communion.
The memorandum stated that “the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin.”
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 continued.
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.
At the time Biden was denied Communion, his website stated that one of his priorities as president would be to “work to codify Roe v. Wade” into federal law, and that “his Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate the constitutional right to an abortion,” including laws requiring waiting periods, ultrasounds, and parental notification of a minor’s abortion.
“Vice President Biden supports repealing the Hyde Amendment because healthcare is a right that should not be dependent on one’s zip code or income,” said his website.
Biden’s website also pledges him to “restore federal funding for Planned Parenthood,” and promises to “rescind the Mexico City Policy (also referred to as the global gag rule) that President Trump reinstated and expanded.”
During his career as a senator, Biden voted numerous times in favor of the Hyde Amendment and Mexico City Policy, and opposed public funding for abortions.
But as he campaigned for the Democratic nomination last year, Biden shifted his views on abortion funding.
Over the course of one week in June 2019, Biden went from publicly supporting the Hyde Amendment–which prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for most abortions–to pledging to repeal it if he were to be elected president.
Previously, Biden supported some aspects of pro-life legislation. In addition to his Senate vote in favor of the Hyde amendment, he also supported the Mexico City Policy in 1984, voted again in favor of Hyde in 1993, and voted to ban partial-birth abortion in 1995 and again in 1997.
On Thursday, Biden said that his Catholic “faith teaches me to love my neighbor as I would myself, while President Trump only seeks to divide us. My faith teaches me to care for the least among us, while President Trump seems to only be concerned about his gilded friends. My faith teaches me to welcome the stranger, while President Trump tears families apart. My faith teaches me to walk humbly, while President Trump teargassed peaceful protestors so he could walk over to a church for a photo op.”
The candidate’s statement did not address his position on abortion.
In July, a grop of 115 Christian leaders, including Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky and other Catholic clergy, religious, and laity, signed a letter to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Platform Committee, asking the party to support pro-life policies including “legal protection for pre-born children.”
“We call upon you to recognize the inviolable human dignity of the child, before and after birth,” the letter stated, asking for a rejection of “a litmus test on pro-life people of faith seeking office in the Democratic Party.”
Biden, who as the 2020 presidential candidate is de facto leader of the Democratic party, did not comment on their letter, and has not responded to other entreaties from pro-life Democrats.
Earlier on Thursday, CatholicVote and former Congressman Tim Huelskamp called on Biden to denounce a recent spate of vandalism and arson at Catholic Churches across the U.S, which they called “a rising climate of anti-Catholicism” in the country. Biden has not spoken out about the matter, and his campaign has not responded to a request for comment on that issue from CNA.
For his part, Trump has faced criticism from U.S. bishops for his positions on the death penalty, immigration and refugee policy, social welfare programs, housing policy, and other issues. At the same time, the president has been praised by bishops and other Catholic leaders for policies that restricted abortion funding, and addressed religious liberty and conscience protections.
Trump has also been criticized by some Christian leaders for incidents they said instrumentalized religious faith, especially a controversial June appearance outside of a Washington, DC church, at which the president displayed a Bible while posing for photographs at the height of protests immediately following the death of George Floyd.
The Trump campaign has made a push in recent weeks for religious voters, after polling showed the president’s favorability declining among some religious voters. Among white Catholics, a crucial voting block for Trump in 2016, support dropped by almost half between March and June. Polling has shown that Catholics who say they attend Mass regularly are more likely to support Trump’s reelection than those who do not.
In addition to his statement on faith, Biden also made efforts on Twitter Thursday night to walk back controversial comments he’d made earlier in the day on race.
In an interview, Biden had told journalists that “what you all know but most people don’t know, unlike the African American community with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.” His tweets Thursday night said that “in no way did I mean to suggest the African American community is a monolith — not by identity, not on issues, not at all.”
A campaign adviser told CNN that Biden was “referring to diversity of attitudes among Latinos from different Latin American countries,” on some issues, including immigration policy.
[…]
From the “father” who wants women priests, communion for all, lgbtmnop+… Who knew that he’d go to the fringes to push traditional Catholics aside…
This is NO surprise. Cupich has proven through his actions and inactions that He is The power that runs the archdiocese and will do everything he can to eliminate traditional Catholocism in favor of “whatever you want” catholicism.
Thank God the Sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not subject to approval by priest and elder! Else where would the world-church be??
Meiron,
Actually, the Jewish leadership of Jesus’s day condemned him and did not give their approval of his ministry. God, of course, merely bypassed them.
Does Cupich actually think that he can outfox God?
Steve,
It seems your genius may have actually understood an incoherent post! I attempted irony and failed. Maybe I can explain.
The Father willed Jesus’s sacrifice. God’s will is not subject to approval. Yes, elders and priests played out the parts or roles the Father’s foreknowledge knew they would, and so yes, they did condemn Jesus.
Just so, Cupich’s words are meaningless. He may believe and pride himself on his leadership, but he is nothing more than a pawn to the principalities and powers who he has allowed to use him. The Sacrifice of Jesus and its re-presentation (at Mass) continues to effect, as does God’s will, whether Cupich knows or likes it or not.
God writes straight with crooked lines. And everybody plays a part on God’s chessboard, even those destined (having chosen themselves to be) losers.
NO! Absolutely Cupich cannot outfox God. But he is kept busy and occupied, helping to show to some of us, perhaps, what is clean and what is dirty in the house of the Lord.
Best wishes for a merry Christmas season.
The Austrian adage is that “everything has an end, except for sausage which has two.”
But with the Cupich clique we find there is no end to single-minded duplicity… While the Church in the United States is now committed to restoring “Eucharistic coherence,” the Chicago cardinal appeals to only a “Eucharistic revival”, as if the link between faith and morality is still off the table.
Austrian sausage is one thing, a hot dog is another.
One pope gives, another taketh away. Amazing that a church closing parishes due to diminishing attendance chooses to deliver a smackdown to some of its more faithful members. I guess no more amazing than forcing the faithful to use the NAB. Things continue apace. Continuity.
I guess diversity doesn’t include faithful Catholics who wish to worship God in the same form that has been used by the universal Church for hundreds and hundreds of years.
One can’t help suspecting that Cupich has traded his birthright for a mess of leftist political pottage.
Which is obviously the least savory, most disgusting kind.
Cupich, Roche. Who else?
Spare me.
Faithful Catholics have Christ whom we worship as God and Savior. Churchmen like Cupich come and go; Christ remains.
This is the essence of the ideology (I dare say it’s not theology) that permeates the Catholic Church leadership. Sure, there are a few voices that resist, with little effect, the modernist (liberal, progressive) strongholds. However, it is clear that under this Pope’s leadership, the voices that promote syncretism (“we’re all on our own paths to God regardless of the Gospel of Christ”) and humanism apart from complete surrender to the laws of God and the only King, Jesus (“let’s accept LGBTQx lifestyles, celebrate gay weddings, be led by the UN, bow to Pachamama, etc.) will be endorsed, while all dissent will be censored and silenced.
Jesus OUR LORD AND GOD = The Man-God, is for ever in all perfection = “Heaven will pass away, the earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away!” Mark 13:31. Jesus the Man-God was, is and forever will be the same in the universe! He is now here with us as He was in Person in our HISTORY! We grow up with the LATIN MASS! The change from LATIN TO the current has reduced the SERINITY OF OUR HOLY MASS! Change is not always for the Better! To return to LATIN MASS, we must, first, teach LATIN! The early CHURCH communicataed in Latin accross the globe ~ it was the unifing laungage within our Holy FAITh!
Well the (eminently predictable) lesson from mainstream Protestant denominations, and by the German Catholic church, as cited, is pretty clear – you remove standards, you remove tradition, and the people can’t find a single reason to remain in the pews, nor to believe you have anything useful to teach them. It is not “unifying,” it is not “Eucharistic revival.” It is: ita Missa est, in saecula saeculorum.
Great! This is truly the road to the long overdue complete implementation of the reform of the liturgy set by Vatican II (especially Sacrosanctum Concilium 21, among many others), that in having only one form of the Roman liturgy eventually the liturgy of Trent be gradually extinguished while correcting the great mistake of the theological gymnastics introduced by Benedict XVI in having two forms of the liturgy in Summorum Pontificum.
Where exactly did Vatican II mandate a single form of the Roman Liturgy? Don’t come here to lie. It did no such thing.
“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” Annibale Bugnini March 1965
In this article, the question is raised about whether what we call “traditional” is really traditional or only goes back to the 17th century: https://wherepeteris.com/walking-on-the-water-traditional-or-truly-traditional/
The liturgy of the “traditional Latin Mass” may go back to St. Damasus, who changed the liturgy from Greek to Latin for the western church, but apparently there are questions about the theology of what is known as the “traditional” Church.
ICYMI – Succinct twitter analysis from Hans Fiene re “elderly ecclesiastical supervisors” . . .
A simple question: Has there ever been any formal condemnation issued by any ecclesial authority against the sort of clown Masses that Pope Francis participated in as both a priest and a prelate in his years in Argentina?
Another simple question: Has there ever been any formal condemnation issued by any ecclesial authority against the sort of Hindu pagan rituals that Cardinal Cupich has welcomed and incorporated into his Masses in Chicago?
For some context and insight about the Archbishop Arthur Roche, author of “the Vatican’s explanatory document” on Traditiones custodes, one can listen to the podcast of Damian Thompson of England, who begins by candidly stating that the Pontiff Francis’ attack against the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is a “Cromwellian campaign,” and describes the Moto Proprio Traditiones custodes, signed by the Pontiff Francis, as a document “badly drafted and venomous,” and “so dripping with malice” that most Bishops (unlike the sycophant Blaze Cupich) are intent on ignoring it. A link to Thompson’s podcast is here:
https://spectatorworld.com/radio/why-the-catholic-church-is-facing-chaos-this-christmas/
The Extraordinary Form of the Mass has been explicitly and increasingly permitted by the only three Pontiffs who participated in the Second Vatican Council (Paul VI, participating as the Pope, John Paul II participating as a Bishop, and Benedict XVI participating as a “peritus”).
Vatican II ran for 4 years in four autumn sessions, from October 1962 to December 1965. Pope Paul VI was 68 years old when V2 ended; then-Bishop Wojtyla (the future Pope JP2) was 45 years old when it ended; V2 “peritus” Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope B16) was 38 years of age when it ended. The man who wrote the newly issued “explanatory document” (which claims to assert the intentions of the Second Vatican Council, and its participants above), His Excellency Archbishop Arthur Roche, was 15.
CNA staff relay that the newly issued “explanatory document,” written by Roche, states that the intent of custodes “to re-establish in the whole Church of the Roman Rite a single and identical prayer expressing its unity, according to the liturgical books promulgated by the Popes Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council and in line with the tradition of the Church.”
His Excellency Roche’s statement is incoherent, since everyone knows that the “Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite” does not offer “a single and identical prayer;” instead of a single prayer, it offers four different ones.
His Excellency Roche apparently isn’t sure what happened with the Ordinary Form. Perhaps he should catch up on what has been happening since 1965.
Every time I see a picture of Cardinal Cupich, he radiates “ I am a tough guy, I play hardball, so don’t even think of crossing me”. I am thankful that I do not live in the Archdiocese of Chicago.
Cardinal Cupich is my bishop. In my experience, Cupich is very approachable, warm, and friendly on an individual level. He seems to be well liked as an administrator by most priests and deacons because he communicates with them consistently and is responsive to their inquiries even if he doesn’t deliver solutions always to their liking. That said, conservative Catholics like me tend to feel seriously alienated by Cupich for reasons that are obvious. I offer these observations in a spirit of obedience and charity.
Hitter was also very approachable, warm, and friendly. In a spirit of obedience, charity, and truth, I offer this photos:
https://c.ndtvimg.com/2018-11/sd3kri08_adolf-hitler-jewish-girl-wp_625x300_15_November_18.jpg?im=Resize=(1230,900)
Philip;
Your 12/29 @9:25 – Thanks for that. I too am a conservative Catholic and I would feel, like you “seriously alienated”, if I lived there.
“Obedience and charity” – a combination that is indeed difficult, but not impossible.
Interesting. Back in 2015, when I reported on then-Bishop Cupich’s curious (and nearly disastrous) time in Spokane, WA, I talked to at least two dozen people who have known or worked with Cupich. The picture that emerged was consistent: he was rarely accessible, was usually distant, and was often difficult. But, perhaps Chicago suits him; after all, it’s fairly clear he never wanted to be in Spokane.
Father Paul Kalchik and Father Frank Phillips would likely disagree with your assessment of the diminutive Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago.
Dear Mr Seitz,
Thank you for offering a comment on your Bishop. Living in California, I have no idea how it is to be in Chicago. You provided a very helpful corrective to my untutored perception, colored by his draconian approach to the Latin Mass. No, I do not attend the pre-Vatican II liturgy, so that is not an axe I have to grind.
But apparently no problems with LBGTQ Masses.
Someone on Twitter posted a terrible example of one of the worst Masses I have ever seen in his diocese of Chicago. Is on YouTube
We don’t want our Bishops to act like clowns.
At seminary in the late 80s itcwas taught that V2 was superceded by the post-conciliar documents. It is important that those responsible for the post-conciliar documents be held accountable. A collective Protestantism was in put into place by Martini. Canonisations of Roncali and Martini without requisit miracles nor explanation for the public domain photos of Roncali in French luciferian Lodge nor the public domain scandal of the ginger actor friend of Martini – has been committed to further damage and destabilise the City in ruins.
I am a Priest of the Eastern Church, and I am not quite sure why Western Church faithful just ignore these renegade prelates who simply have gone against St Pius V’s Quo Primum, placing the Latin liturgy as that which is in perpetuity the rite of the Western Church, the Roman Catholic Church. I am not sure why these renegades (and I include Jorge Bergoglio in that group) are doing what they are doing. If their expectorations were just ignored (for surely they violate even Paul’s sciptural admonition”tenete traditiones”) their power would be lost. No one in the Eastern Church would tolerate an individual like Jorge Bergoglio. Now it emerges with ever greater clarity, I am hoping, why the East and West separatd in 1094, the actions of communion and reunification that Paul VI and JP II undertook and sanctioned. Again, I repeat, Pius V’s Quo Primum as an Apostolic Constitution cannot canonicaly be abrogated by any successor precisely because Pius issued it as an Apostotlic Constitution.
I reject all that you write here. First, of all, we are not a “Western Church”. We are the very Church established by our Lord having “Peter” in a special place. Our Lord even changed the Apostle’s name from Simon to Peter to emphasize the importance of his choice. Do you have Latin in your Churches? If you do not accept our Pope – whoever he may be – then do not get involved in our affairs with your bigoted view.
Regarding Pius V’s Quo Primum you have it wrong. Writing for EWTN, Jeffrey Mirus said: “liturgical directives are matters of policy that affect the Faith, but not matters of Faith themselves. There is no guarantee of infallibility for Church policy. This in no way implies that liturgical directives are “unimportant”. They just aren’t matters of faith in and of themselves; they can, in fact, be good, bad or indifferent.” https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/pope-st-pius-v-and-quo-primum-did-the-pope-intend-to-bind-his-successors-from-changing-the-tridentine-mass-1132
Sadly I must disagree with you in toto. Paul VI and JP II formally in writing recognized the Eastern Church (you probaly did not know that). You have a leader, Jorge Bergoglio, who claims Christ did not say “the Lord’s prayer” as it should have been prayed. That simply boggles the mind. No wonder his Jesuit superior told JP II “do not make Bergoglio a Bishop.” Bergoglio has sua sponte closed down the Latin ritual of the holy Mass which a predecessor, St Pius V, said must hold in perpetuity. If this is what you want as a “vicar,” fine with me. Bergoglio’s recent accquesence to the Chines Communists is in stark contrast to how Russian Orthodoxy fought off Stain– and won. The Eastern Church has a glorious history, and nowhere near the scandals the Roman Church has had– and continues to have as I type this reply. You probably also do not know that some in the Eastern Church hold if JP II had lived only a few more years the Eastern and Western Churches would have re-entered the communion that was severed in 1094. It would have been a boon to the Latin Church as the Eastern Church, recognized by all, is far closer in its rituals of prayer and Eucharist to the days of the proto-communities than Rome is today. I recommend you take a look at the Eastern Church’s Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for verification. Let me add here also: as for the claim that Chirst made Peter head of his Church [You are Peter and upon this rock…”}, it is no secret that Christ did not speak Greek– nor did his Apostles. So taking the Greek word “petras,” that the West took to prove Peter was the rock has no basis in Scripture at all. I am sanguine, however, that you already knew this.
What you fail to comprehend is the fact that thee Jesuit superiors did not like the future Pope because he did not go along with some of the views including liberation theology. But, importantly, he was liked by the common people – jus as he is today.
I see that you cannot even get yourself to even call our Pope by his title. So, no wonder your views are just as skewed.
Nazareth, I believe, was just a
Pope Francis did not surrender to nthe Chinese. He signed a deal that was many years in the making, and involved three Popes. But what you seem ignorant of is that that deal was just one part of our great Pope’s strategy. Along with the deal, he asked the global Church to pray for our brothers and sisters in China, and then placed China under the protection of our Lady. One does not always have to fight or resist to win a battle.
Nazareth, I believe, Nazareth, was a short walk from Sepphoris – a town of Greek speaking people. So, he and Joseph, being tradespeople, would have done some business with these people and so would have known Greek. In any case, the people would have mingled. Anyway, I will go with what scripture tells me and not what your narrow, bigoted view suggwests.
Dear Rev. Chryostomos,
Reading beyond prior replies to you, one observes that the views of one protesting CWR poster do not represent the vast majority of others. Contentious, error-filled, prejudicial thoughts are not non-charitable and do dishonor to the name of ‘Christian.’ More postings at CWR represent less modernist, more thoughtful, decidedly non-pope-idolatrous Catholics of the Western Church.
Thank God the Liturgy of the Eastern Church shows reverence to the Lord; the NOM of the Western Church has much to learn by its example.
Best regards.
No doubt that there are some like you who will say stuff like that. There are less Pope-haters in the Catholic Church than those who accept the position and dignity of that position.
Thanks to Rev. Chrysostomos.
Good question. Why don’t we just ignore the lunacy coming from the Vatican? I don’t know enough (anything really) about the cause of the split between the East and West. Or about Pius V. More, please.
Perhaps the schism of the Eastern Church was God’s permissive plan to rescue His Church post-Politicoglio? It is noteworthy that the Eastern Church now possesses part of the relics of St Peter… Should St Peter’s succumb to “Twin Tower Ground Zero Syndrome”, the future is secured. For the widely silenced Archbishop Lenga, the realisation of the Fatima prophesy for Rome is within the next 2 years. Tourists wanting a final view of St Peter’s Basilica should get the hell out of there before October 13?
While you are dreaming, Mike, our Lord’s Church moves on – as it always has. There is no salvation outside this Church.
The present renewal is with the TLM. They are well-attended and display heart-felt communion. It is about holiness, not duty. CC might be a Kantian scholar.
Cupich follows his master like an obedient dog and he always will.
The Popes attacks on the Latin Mass are incomprehensible to any rational person.
In western society Christianity is in steep decline and the Latin Mass communities are one group that buck that trend. Are they perfect? No. But why go into bat against them so malevolently. As I say it’s incomprehensible.
Is the Pope a Pathological Narcissist? That is someone who is mentally ill and who is energised by the total destruction of small and vulnerable groups and individuals around him. Who know but the signs seem to be there.
So much of the commentary about his attacks on the Latin Mass skirt round the seemingly unanswerable question. Why on earth would the Pope of all people act in this way?
Is it that the answers to that question are too frightening for faithful Catholics to face?
The late Fr amorth stated that the pre conciliar sacramentals and rites liberated souls sooner and quicker because ecclesiastical Latin had more power behind. So why do these prelates hate it? Eastern Rite: your next!!!
Is that so? Wow! I was always believed that it was the powerful name of Jesus – in whatever language – that made the demons flee.
Cardinal Robert Sarah once stated that opposition and hostility to the Mass of Ages comes from the Evil One, who seeks our downfall. Considering the type of prelates who despise the TLM and seek to punish and restrict it, I would say his Eminence was spot on.