Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Report: Pope Francis Just Rejected a Major Request from Biden
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.westernjournal.com/repo ... b2cbe92bd134c5466af5bccb4a232d
Published: Jun 17, 2021
Author: Erin Coates
Post Date: 2021-06-17 18:46:08 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 62
Comments: 6

Report: Pope Francis Just Rejected a Major Request from Biden

by Erin Coates

June 17, 2021 at 12:45pm

The Vatican reportedly rejected a request for President Joe Biden to attend an early morning Mass with Pope Francis.

A Vatican source told Catholic News Agency there is no meeting scheduled between Pope Francis and Biden.

The White House reportedly asked if Biden could attend Mass with the Pope on Tuesday.

“The proposal was nixed by the Vatican after considering the impact that Biden receiving Holy Communion from the Pope would have on the discussions the [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops] is planning to have during their meeting starting Wednesday, June 16,” CNA reported.

The U.S. Bishops are scheduled to vote this week on creating a committee to draft a document about Eucharistic coherence.

Adhering to Eucharistic coherence means bishops should be aware public officials cannot receive Holy Communion and “act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged,” according to CNA.

The Bishops’ vote will decide if Catholic politicians who support abortion should be barred from receiving Communion.

The Bishops discussed during a 2019 USCCB meeting if they should make abortion their top concern, The Washington Post reported.

“We are at a unique moment with the upcoming election cycle to make a real challenge to >Roe v. Wade, given the possible changes to the Supreme Court. We should not dilute our efforts to protect the unborn,” Archbishop Alexander Sample of Portland, Oregon, said, according to the National Catholic Reporter.

The president has run into trouble over receiving Communion because of his support of abortion.

In 2019, he was denied Communion by a South Carolina priest who said any leader “who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of Church teaching,” The Post reported.

John Kelly was part of the Democratic National Committee team in 2008 that would find Catholic parishes that would welcome Biden during the Obama-McCain presidential race.

Kelly told The Post that Biden’s team got mad at him when he suggested one of Biden’s priest friends travel with him to avoid any confrontation.

“They felt, and they were right, that he wants to go to church and should have the right to. He wants to worship with his community,” Kelly said.

“His understanding of the Eucharist was it shouldn’t be done hidden in private. I very much felt the Eucharist was being weaponized.”

Pope Francis and Biden previously met in 2015 while Biden was vice president, according to CNA.

Biden also visited the Vatican on April 29, 2016, and praised Pope Francis, who he said comforted him after the loss of his eldest son Beau a year prior.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

Tell Humper to pay a few mil and he'll get his absolution, on earth any way.

“ On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. ” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2021-06-17   21:27:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Lod (#1)

Give money, go to heaven.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2021-06-17   22:49:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

Roe v. Wade,

Roe v wade. Coming up on 50 years, some 20-25% of the nation's history has occurred with that ruling in place.

Guess what: It won't be overturned. Ever. At least not by the USSC. There is one and only one way to take it down and that's by Constitutional Amendment. The USSC is obligated to bow down to the Constitution, and only with an amendment will the USSC declare RvW overturned. Unless and until that happens, the USSC will treat RvW as the established law of the land.

Even the Dred Scott decision (1857) only stood for no more than 8 years before being effectively overturned. RvW has been in place, far, far longer and that amount of time means too much USSC precedent has already taken place to undo it now.

Pinguinite  posted on  2021-06-18   0:58:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: BTP Holdings (#0)

The RCC doesn't give a damn about the unborn except in terms of filling pews, and that barely. This from the commie bishops and satanic pope Frankie????

If they actually start denying communion to pro-feticide pols en masse it must be window dressing in response to pressure over the institution's child abuse industry. Pardon my cynicism....

_____________________________________________________________

USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2021-06-18   16:55:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Pinguinite (#3)

There is an anti-feticide activist here in South Carolina who is convinced that if a state would ever legally define an unborn child a "person", then the US Supreme Court would HAVE TO overturn Roe v. Wade and thus allow that state to prohibit abortion within its borders. This notion stems from the decision's text in section IX, in which the court rejects the view that a fetus is a person and thus subject to the right- to-life protection guaranteed by the US Constitution's 14th Amendment:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

He's dreaming, of course. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, and even if it were, there are few if any states that would prohibit abortion.

StraitGate  posted on  2021-06-18   22:24:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: StraitGate (#5)

He's dreaming, of course. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, and even if it were, there are few if any states that would prohibit abortion.

Interesting. In the Dred Scott case, the USSC, in a 7-2 decision simply ruled that in the original meaning of the Constitution, black people were did not have the status of freeman. That is, the framers who wrote it did not intend for the meaning of free people to include black slaves. And it seems clear on it's face that that is correct. The framers DIDN'T intend for black slaves to have free status. There's no way anyone in their right mind could argue otherwise.

So if there is a way to do it, defining the unborn as "persons" would be the way. Or by Constiutional Amendment which would bind the hands of the USSC and dictate to them that the unborn are entitled to all the protections of the 14th Amendment (without the requirement to actually be "born", of course).

Pinguinite  posted on  2021-06-19   2:23:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest