Joe Biden Likes to Go to Church

Eric Medlin

History instructor. Writer. Rising star in the world of affordable housing.

Related Post Roulette

136 Responses

  1. Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    I think this has been tried occasionally and hasn’t worked.

    Theists (believers) are collectively on every side of every issue. They seriously don’t like admitting that so they don’t. They group together everyone who believes in anything and pretend that they all are the same. That doesn’t come close to the reality.

    As much as they like to proclaim “belief in god is important”, what they really mean is “belief in their specific god is important”. Or more exactly, “believing exactly what I believe on all the issues is important”.

    The voters who vote religion are mostly the fundies/anti-abortion crowd. A religiously motivated anti-abortion voter is going to give zero credit to someone else’s faith because that other person is wrong and thus their faith is wrong.Report

  2. Kristin Devine
    Ignored
    says:

    Eric, believe me when I tell you, yet another hollow gesture of performativeness over substance, meant to manipulate voters into thinking someone who is clearly not on their side, is “really just exactly like them deep down inside” will only hurt Democrats. Y’all are not going to con job any conservatives into thinking Biden is suddenly a religious person because they know what the Democrats stand for and I don’t see you guys changing that any time soon. Thus this approach would simply come off disingenuous and manipulative to the religious right and downright traitorous to most leftists, particularly younger voters, who actually delight in being anti-religious.

    You painted yourselves into a corner catering to the weirdest of the weird. Sending Grandpa Joe to church is nothing more than flim-flam and it won’t erase reality.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kristin Devine
      Ignored
      says:

      And this is kicking in right around the time that Pelosi is getting denied communion.

      Biden’s going to church? Hey! This is a great opportunity to discuss non-profit tax breaks!Report

    • InMD in reply to Kristin Devine
      Ignored
      says:

      You are way off base here.

      Liberal/Democratic voting Catholics are very much as they say ‘a thing.’ Unlike the OP I don’t see a lot of electoral upside to making Biden’s religion a point of emphasis. But all evidence is that he has been practicing his whole life and there’s no reason to think it is disingenuous.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        As I say below, it [his Catholicism] isn’t disingenuous, but your key point is that it isn’t any meaningful electoral upside to his sort of Lib/Dem Catholicism.

        It isn’t the sort of Catholicism that animates younger liberal voters and it isn’t the sort of Catholicism that motivates immigrant Catholicism. It’s idiosyncratic US Boomer Catholicism and, while sincere, it is basically dead or dying… it certainly isn’t reproducing.

        So I think Kristen is largely correct… Biden’s Catholicism won’t help the Dems, but a different sort of Catholicism might change the Dems.

        *in moderationReport

        • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m objecting (strenuously) to her characterization of his own religious practice as insincere, not because I think there’s any sort of religious voting bloc that’s going to be awakened to help Democrats win elections.

          It was IMO a pretty nasty remark. Not to mention quite hypocritical for someone willing to throw in with a political party still making hay here and there off the shallowest and most vulgar forms of Protestantism out there in the American ecosystem.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            I see, I was looking more at the ‘performativeness’ of the DNC pivoting to highlight Biden’s Catholicism – which I agree would come across as insincere. But otherwise, my comments on what type of Catholic I think Biden represents are pretty clear.Report

            • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
              Ignored
              says:

              I agree with you on the basics of what he represents, but I don’t think it’s quite as dead as you do. Or at least I don’t think it’s specifically dead so much as part of the ongoing decline of religion in the country more broadly. Anyway there are plenty of children at the 2 churches I go in and out of and don’t get a sense of a strong political undercurrent of any kind at either of them. Not anymore than I did in the boomer version of the Church I grew up in anyway, which for as conservative as my parish could be, still adhered to the truce on partisan politics.

              But to your comment below, while I enjoy reading the Bruenig perspective I think it itself is idiosyncratic and unlikely to become a basis for a meaningful voting bloc. I think the reality is that a political Catholic bloc died with the assimilation of the Irish and Italians and other white ethnics. To the extent a bloc still exists I think the probable end of Roe is going to make it even weaker by eliminating the last big political rallying point. Maybe I’m misinterpreting you but I don’t see a rebirth coming.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, I agree that E.Bruenig’s (un-)reconstructed 70’s socialism is highly idiosyncratic. The whole RadTrad thing is idiosyncratic… but there’s more crossover among RadTrads and Trads than there is with Boomer catholicism.

                And I’m agreeing that Political Catholicism a’la the John Courtney Murray project is the thing that is not reproducing… the ‘cultural’ catholic is a gateway to non-Catholic.

                So in that sense, it’s true, the Culturally Catholic Church in America is trending smaller which goes back to the original post… what is to be gained by appealing to a sort of non-denominational-culturally-American-Catholicism?

                I mean, re-read Cuomo from 1984 — I was at Notre Dame in ’86 and can remember the tension balanced by hope that it ‘just might work.’ For the political philosopher in me, it’s really interesting taking Cuomo at his word (sincerity!) in 1984 only to realize that his project – by his own standards – failed as of 2022. Biden doesn’t even mouth the Cuomo platitudes anymore.Report

              • InMD in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I just read it, and a few quibbles aside, it spoke to me (because of course it would :)) but I’m forced to agree with you on the outcome.

                However I’m also struggling with why I think it has played out that way. Is it that the case he made couldn’t be sustained on its merits or just the forces of American assimilation at work that he also references? I have to think it’s more about the latter, and less about the relationship individuals have with their personal politics whatever part of the doctrine. Maybe the cornerstone was never belief but ethnic solidarity and when that stopped being necessary a lot of people (and not just the laity for that matter) lost the script.

                So to the extent I have any sort of counterpoint, and I’m not sure I do, it’s that the case is still persuasive, if in need of some updating, but people have to care to make it. I don’t see how a smaller, purer Church and laity ever reverses the trend. At best it’s a temporary mask on the slow death spiral that maybe lets the next generation or two of conservative bishops die under the false pretense that they haven’t failed in their stewardship just as badly. I know there’s occasional talk of the developing world, but the developing world ain’t going to be developing forever. Sooner or later the same forces in play in the West will come there too.

                Anyway just a long winded lamentation and a hope that someone, somewhere picks up the ball.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                I think this goes back to a lack of a limiting principle. A position without a limiting principle has nothing to keep it from sliding down a slope.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I think it depends on what you think is causing participation to decline. I’m sure there are people out there who have left over the specific matter of the Church’s stance on abortion and other reproductive matters. But I think we can also fairly deduce that there are plenty of people who make peace with it in some way, including by ignoring it.

                It also isn’t like this is unique to Catholicism. Mainline Protestantism is dealing with similar problems despite some sects being more flexible on these particular subjects.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to InMD
            Ignored
            says:

            characterization of his own religious practice as insincere

            You’re not following the logic.

            1) Following Religion brings peace. If everyone were to have faith then all conflicts would be resolved.
            2) Because everyone will agree with me and mine on the big dividing issues.
            3) Joe doesn’t agree with me on the big dividing issues.

            Conclusion: Either he’s insincere or religion doesn’t bring peace (can’t be).Report

        • Pinky in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          I almost forgot to say what an interesting comment this was, one of the most interesting I’ve seen in ages.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        KD thinks anything any Democratic voter or politician does is disingenuous.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Kristin Devine
      Ignored
      says:

      I don’t think Biden is any less sincere than I am when he goes to church. If I were his pastor, bishop, or pope, I’d be having some talks with him aimed at correction, but that’s a different subject.

      The question is whether there’s anything cynical about Biden’s staff playing up his faith, and of course there is, or at least it’s as cynical as anything else that gets done to curry voter favor. It wouldn’t be aimed at conservatives though. It would be for the moderate voter who doesn’t have anything against religion and is willing to be inspired by hearing someone talk about his principles. Where I disagree with Eric is that I see the left playing this card every chance they get. We don’t talk about it much on this site because it’s often targeted at blacks and rural whites. But the left’s willingness to judge people on the basis of religious standards is right up there with the worst of the choir ladies. I mean, so far, the most judgmental comments have come from the thread’s most right and left.Report

    • Chris in reply to Kristin Devine
      Ignored
      says:

      It is amazing that conservatives have convinced themselves that there are two kinds of people, religious people and non-conservatives.

      It is even more amazing given how deeply, and unapologetically cruel and hateful so much of American conservatism is.Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        “It is amazing that conservatives have convinced themselves that there are two kinds of people, religious people and non-conservatives.”

        There are. That’s a true statement.

        Not all conservatives are Republican.Report

        • Chris in reply to DensityDuck
          Ignored
          says:

          Now, I’m an atheist, and not a liberal, so I’m mostly observing from the outside, and I do know some Evangelicals (with a capital E) who are mostly socially conservative (oppose gay marriage and legal abortion, say) but vote Democrat mostly, so I know not all conservatives (and not all conservative Christians) vote Republican. That said, I’ve been to churches, mostly mainline Protestant, where I think anyone who might reasonably called conservative would be as uncomfortable as anyone who isn’t conservative would at many Christian right churches. The people at those, for lack of a better word, liberal churches seem to be as earnestly and faithfully Christian as any of the conservative Christians I’ve known, if not significantly more so.

          Or perhaps you mean “conservative” in a broader sense (you know, being guided by a book that was written a couple millennia ago or so is pretty conservative), in which case, sure, whatever man.Report

          • Chris in reply to Chris
            Ignored
            says:

            By the way, the Protestants of non-mainline sorts (Evangelicals, Southern Baptists and Southern Methodists, Church of Christ, Nazarenes, etc.) who vote Democrat, and are open about it, are not infrequently shunned, and told they’re not Christians, by their co-religionists, often by people with whom they’ve gone to church for years, and may even have considered friends. I saw a lot of this during the 2016 presidential, and it will forever taint my already deeply unfavorable view of the Christian right.

            It’s funny, my mother, a devout Evangelical who votes Democrat (mostly) will swear up and down that this is not the real spirit of her breed of Christianity, calls it sinful behavior, and will often say when her co-religionists get all hateful that “satan is alive and well.”

            Oh, and there’s even a book about this stuff, by a very different Kristin:

            https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07ZTSVLX3/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1Report

          • DensityDuck in reply to Chris
            Ignored
            says:

            You’re conflating “conservative” with “social right-wing”.

            Don’t do that.

            You’re conflating “religious” with “strict adherence to right-wing American interpretation of Christian dogma”.

            Don’t do that.Report

            • Chris in reply to DensityDuck
              Ignored
              says:

              As I mentioned above, if you’re referring to “conservative” in a broader sense, sure, whatever man, you know that’s not what I was talking about, and I’m not interested in silly word games.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                “not interested in silly word games” says the corncob who not three comments about was talking about “Evangelicals (with a capital E)”.Report

              • Chris in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, I’m intentionally distinguishing Evangelicals proper from the broader concept of evangelicals/evangelicalism, the latter of which is not limited to the Christian right. If you’ve ever had these conversations with people who consider themselves to be part of the evangelical Christian tradition (which spans many denominations and some non-denominational churches), but who are not part of the American Evangelical movement (which is something more specific, though people in several denominations, and even some conservative Catholics these days, may consider themselves fellow travelers), then I don’t know what to tell ya. I’m just trying to avoid offending folks who consider themselves evangelical Christians but not Evangelicals. It’s not a word game, it’s trying to be precise. Unlike what you’re doing, which is pretending you didn’t know what I meant by “conservative” and changing the subject.

                Anyway, going back to ignoring you. Like on Twitter, I always regret unmuting people I’ve muted. Have a good one.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’m intentionally distinguishing Evangelicals proper from the broader concept of evangelicals/evangelicalism…”

                Remind me; which of us is Playing Silly Word Games, again?

                “Anyway, going back to ignoring you.”

                Awww, ignore me? You clearly get a lot of egoboo from thinking that you’re the smart one in this conversation. Why deny yourself that dopamine?Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        It is amazing that conservatives have convinced themselves that there are two kinds of people, religious people and non-conservatives.

        The two groups are “people interested in forcing their religious ethics/beliefs on others” and everyone else.

        The first group is a major player (but hardly the only player) in the GOP. The second group is either not-religious or doesn’t vote on their religion. Not voting on their religion is the same as not existing from a political point of view.

        Scoring religious points with people who don’t vote on their religion is a waste of time. Similarly announcing that your ethics don’t match those which a group is interested in forcing on society.Report

        • Chris in reply to Dark Matter
          Ignored
          says:

          The second group is either not-religious or doesn’t vote on their religion.

          This is effectively saying the same thing that Kristin is saying: you either vote conservative, or you’re either not Christian or are not voting like one.

          Most of the liberal/progressive Christians I’ve known certainly seem to think they’re voting their religion. They just think their religion says something very different about how they should vote that conservative Christians do. The only way you might believe they’re not voting their religion is if you believe their version of Christianity is invalid, which, of course, most of the Christian right does.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Chris
            Ignored
            says:

            “The only way you might believe they’re not voting their religion is if you believe their version of Christianity is invalid, which, of course, most of the Christian right does.”

            Not really. There are about as many right-wing Christians who think that left-wing Christians aren’t really Christian as vice versa. Most conservative Christians just think that left-wing Christians are dumb.Report

            • Chris in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              “Not really,” followed by saying the same thing I just said, is odd.

              In my experience, the difference between “left-wing Christians” and the Christian right is that the former believe the latter are bad Christians, and the latter believe the former aren’t Christians at all. I’ve been told as much many, many times by folks in the Christian right, for decades now.Report

              • Chris in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                By the way, one of the big differences between the Christian, er, “left,” and the Christian right, in my experience, is the willingness to turn on their own. My parents’ former minister (now retired, at least from regular preachin’) was one of the authors and of course signatories of the famed Nasvhille Statement, which I mention only to make clear that this dude is in no way a liberal, much less a progressive. Yet, he has regularly been critical of recent political trends among Evangelicals (which is to say, Trump and Trumpism), though usually obliquely, and always through scripture. The result has been many on the Christian right, including some of his former church members, turning on him and frequently accusing him of not being a true Christian. It’s been wild to watch.

                I’ve never seen this happen among the “Christian left.” I’ve seen a lot of disputes between various folks on that side of the church aisle, but I’ve never seen them reach the level at which people are accusing each other of not being real Christians.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’ve never seen this happen among the “Christian left.” ”

                what about–

                “oh, him? Well, he wasn’t kicked out, he just decided that he didn’t really fit with our congregation.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Imagining a picket line of radical Unitarians chanting “We Demand You Do What You Want!”Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Again, this is the Pinky Rule in action. What Pinky happens not to know — or what he wishes to claim he does not know — he confidently asserts does not exist.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                One of us misread the other. If you’re playing games with phrasing maybe I didn’t follow it. If I phrased my part badly, that’s on me.
                But I’m saying you’re as likely to find a RW Christian who thinks that LW Christians aren’t really Christian as to find a LW Christian who thinks that RW Christians aren’t really Christian.Report

              • Chris in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                And I’m saying that, in particular, is not true. I’m not saying that no mainline protestant has thought that right-wing Christians aren’t real Christians. I have seen people say that. But more often I’ve seen them say that right-wing Christians are bad Christians, or misguided ones, or whatever, not that they’re not Christian at all, whereas right-wing Christians regularly say that non-conservative Christians aren’t Christians at all. Hell, this subthread began with one doing so:

                Y’all are not going to con job any conservatives into thinking Biden is suddenly a religious person because they know what the Democrats stand for Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Barring sound data, we can only comment on what we’ve seen. Then again, I don’t know what Kristin or Chip profess. So maybe a lot of the LW “not a real Christian” accusations against the RW are coming from LW non-Christians?

                I do hate the “not a real Christian” accusation though. One of our only family fights occurred after someone made a comment like that about Obama.Report

              • KenB in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I think the specific “not a true X” argument is more naturally an accusation from the conservative side — i.e. there was a prior understanding about what qualified one as a member of the class, “conservatives” largely retain that understanding while “liberals” seek to expand it, so the accusation about not meeting the requirements for membership is a poor fit for the latter. Those on the liberal side certainly have plenty of other sorts of accusations to choose from though.Report

              • Chris in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Such discussions ultimately led my parents to leave their church (though it took them a few years, and their fellow churchgoers response to the pandemic, to really push them out).

                It’s funny, because my parents’ church is part of a (global, though mostly U.S. of course) network of church’s that tout themselves as apolitical, gospel-based churches, and openly preach about not letting political disagreements get in between fellow worshipers. What are ya gonna do?

                Neither here nor there, but many years ago, when I was friends with many fundamentalists and fellow travelers of fundamentalists, the two big political issues they cared about were abortion, of course, and creationism, and they were as likely to accuse someone of not being a real Christian for the latter as the former. I feel like things have really changed on the Christian right, and somehow, despite how completely awful I thought their politics were back then, they’ve managed to get worse.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Chris
            Ignored
            says:

            Most of the liberal/progressive Christians I’ve known certainly seem to think they’re voting their religion. They just think their religion says something very different about how they should vote that conservative Christians do.

            This would be me. Definitely me.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter
          Ignored
          says:

          The first group is a major player (but hardly the only player) in the GOP. The second group is either not-religious or doesn’t vote on their religion. Not voting on their religion is the same as not existing from a political point of view.

          That’s not true.

          The second group, which I remind people _I_ am in, take our religion and attempt to create and vote using some sort of ethical framework that is not reliant on citing a bunch of things out-of-context, or even just making up things, from a book that actually has almost nothing to say about them.

          The problem is certain religious groups have made deals with the devil and have given up any sort of ethos for political power, and then have been VERY LOUD about how they are religious and ‘their religion’ requires them to, I dunno, build a wall and keep out Mexicans.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Kristin Devine
      Ignored
      says:

      Eric, believe me when I tell you, yet another hollow gesture of performativeness over substance, meant to manipulate voters into thinking someone who is clearly not on their side, is “really just exactly like them deep down inside” will only hurt Democrats.

      Please explain what you find performative about Joe Biden’s practice of his faith.

      Y’all are not going to con job any conservatives into thinking Biden is suddenly a religious person because they know what the Democrats stand for and I don’t see you guys changing that any time soon.

      Please explain why you see Democratic policies as opposed to Christ’s teachings in the 4 Gospels.Report

  3. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    I recognize Biden as a co-religionist… in a sense we’re all bad Catholics. But the reasons Biden isn’t getting any sort of religious or catholic cred has a lot of vectors.

    First, as you note, it isn’t simply that the Dems are increasingly irreligious at the leadership level, it’s that they already positioned Biden’s ‘Staunch Catholicism’ as the reason he held various bad positions in his political career – whether they were related to his Catholicism or not. Which is to say they had to ‘launder’ him into a proper NextGen Liberal by talking about his Catholic biases as something he overcame.

    Second, he’s a real-life example of how the ‘personally opposed’ position to Abortion that Mario Cuomo laid out in his 1984 speech at Notre Dame was unable able to hold as an ethical position within the Democratic party nor did it provide a foundation for a ‘different’ approach to abortion that this faction thought they could pioneer: to attack the root causes and make abortion ‘go away’. Rare to the point of in extremis This latter aspect eventually migrated to the core pro-life (catholic) position which has per force become non-Blue.

    Third, like Cuomo, he and Pelosi (and Pope Francis, for what it’s worth) represent a sort of dead cat bounce to a boomer Catholicism that hasn’t reproduced itself. Young Catholics who are also liberal tend to be much more radical on life issues as well as economic issues. OT Alum Elizabeth Bruenig is a better sign-post of where younger RadTrads, LeftCaths, and Catholics who are practicing their faith are… Biden isn’t there (even if their economics and cultural interests put them on team blue). Which is to say, Biden is something they tolerate, like your uncle at Thanksgiving… not someone you follow or expect to lead – precisely because he’s aged out/phased out of his Cuomo positions in pursuit of Dem leadership acceptance.

    A twitter commenter had a good observation on what the high-water mark of ‘former’ Biden or what Catholic ‘Cuomo’ Biden might look like, it would look like Bill Clinton

    As Kristen says above, it’s not possible to un-launder Biden through a religious lens unless he also abandons the Dem Leadership positions he sold his former self for to access the highest office. Or put another way, Biden *can’t* baptize the Dem Leadership positions — he doesn’t have the charisma, energy, credibility or right policies for it.

    Best you could possibly hope for would be a elderly boomer trying to sell a stale ‘safe, legal, and rare’ policy that was abandoned in the aughts.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      Every now and again, “political realism” makes a comeback for about 20 minutes. This weird acknowledgment that, hey, sometimes you have to make compromises to keep the machine oiled. Not merely “we don’t have to win every single battle today” but also “maybe we don’t have to win every single battle eventually so long as we win the war”.

      And it tends to die out again when enough people ask “why shouldn’t we win every single battle? Are you opposed to us winning battles?” and the like.

      But, after enough losses, realism tends to show up again and says stuff like “maybe we don’t have to win every single battle ASAP?”Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        The interesting thing is that the Murray position was a sort of Catholic realist position. The topic of dissertations is whether he got Liberalism right or not, because his assumptions about a shared epistemic reality haven’t aged will since 1960.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          “Safe, Legal, and Rare”, as compromises go, strikes me as a pretty good one.

          “Hey, we agree that this has enough moral content to be ‘problematic’, as the kids say, but it should be safe and legal!”

          But, of course, that makes nobody who really, really cares about it happy. Moral content? HOW DARE YOU? That’s an obvious set-up for making it illegal! It’s like removing a skin tag!

          And the other side yelling “Safe? SAFE FOR WHOM? I ASSURE YOU THAT IT IS NOT SAFE FOR THE GESTATING HUMAN! And, let’s face it, it ain’t gonna be ‘rare’. It’s going to be ‘common’. So of course we should have the police shoot dogs over this issue.”

          And all of the people who make up the whole “it should be legal in the first trimester but I’ve got some serious problems with the third trimester” find themselves having to pick which epistemic corner they find less shrill (even as they want something in what used to be in a place where there was *SOME* overlap, even if it was just a little).Report

          • InMD in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            There was a Ross Douthat NYT opinion I came across a few months ago about the legalization of gambling across the country. One of the points he raised was the loss of our ability as a society to manage some moral inconsistency that can seem kind of unprincipled on its face but nevertheless operates in support of a greater social good. I’m not sure anyone is particularly exercised about legalized gambling like he apparently is (I’m certainly not) but I think there are some echoes of the sentiment.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      Yeah Biden and Pelosi (and the Pope in Rome, heir to Saint Peter, Vicar of Christ), they aren’t Real Catholics, not really real, not like this woman who writes articles that I happen to agree with.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        Pretty clear I didn’t say that. But your willful misunderstanding of all these things is why you misunderstand these things.Report

      • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
        Ignored
        says:

        He isn’t saying Biden isn’t a real Catholic (which is what I interpreted Kristin as saying). He’s saying Biden represents an outmoded version of the Catholic Democrat Politician, and that changes in the party and society prevent him from living up to that obsolete version in public life or using it for political gain. It has nothing (or at least very little) to do with Biden’s personal beliefs or practice of his religion.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          You get why that’s worse, right?

          That the type of religious practice of (namechecking Cuomo, Biden, Pelosi and the Pope) which sees the role of the public servant to uphold the Constitution regardless of one’s private views, one that sees the Church approaching the modern world with a spirit of love and acceptance is “outmoded”.

          That the future of American Catholics is represented by people(like Breunig) who would happily inflict their personal minority views on the majority without any regard for the horrors that would result.

          Again and again, when discussing socialism, we have been reminded that no matter how happy and utopian it promises to be, when you inflict a minority view on the majority, you end up with horrors because the first order of business is to Make The Rabble Obey Our Command.

          In order to bring about the vision of the Bruenigs it will require that sort of horror, as we are witnessing now in Republican states.

          I would have more respect if these people just said “I am more Catholic than the Pope”.Report

          • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            I think what you’re describing is how Catholics should approach the modern world, and I think in practice that’s how most in the US do no matter how they vote. Even the conservatives are making compromises whether they like to admit it. We’re assimilated now and that’s what you do.

            The question is whether you can still successfully make the kind of pitch Cuomo did in the current realities of Democratic coalition politics and the ongoing decline of religion in the larger polity. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised but I’m not sure you can, which to be clear, I think is a bad thing for our politics but also for Catholicism.Report

          • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m going to give Chip the benefit of the doubt that he is confusing Liz Bruenig with one of my crazy integralist friends because if I wanted to write a leftist parody response to prove my point it would have gone like this:

            “something something something, and that’s why Liz Bruenig can’t be a Democrat.

            QED”Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine
              Ignored
              says:

              You’ve heard that theory of why both Communist Romania and Communist China had diametrically opposite policies regarding abortion?

              Because in the hands of people without regard for individual liberty, a person’s body becomes the property of the state, and the womb is a tool for what Justice Alito refers to as the “domestic supply of babies”, where the production is either dialed up or down depending on the need.

              Yes I know perfectly well who Liz Breunig is, and I know she writes with soft honey words, but ultimately she is perfectly fine with overriding the bodily autonomy of millions of women.

              It used to be that a person could treat abortion like a idle parlor game, a dorm room bull session and spin all sorts of bizarre “centrist” positions and try to have it both ways.

              But the Republicans have forced the issue and are doing exactly what they have always said they would do, and now every woman who has a miscarriage and every doctor who treats her are living in fear of being arrested or sued.

              This is a monstrous state of affairs, a violation of human dignity that any person of good will should loudly condemn. Soft sweet words about how much she likes being a mommy isn’t going to drown out the shrieks of other women’s suffering.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                …and that’s why Liz Bruenig can’t be a Democrat.

                QEDReport

              • Chris in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I believe Liz Bruenig would be the first to tell you that she’s not a Democrat. Same with her husband. This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with her (their?) position on abortion.

                By the way, you all know she used to write on this very site, right?

                Also worth noting that while she finds abortion immoral, she’s gone out of her way to say that she does not believe it should be illegal, or even heavily restricted (I imagine she’d be in the “at viability” camp, though I can’t remember what she’s said on that specifically).Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                I know there are a lot of people who have uneasiness with second or even first trimester abortion, hut are also squeamish about making it illegal.

                But as I keep saying, the Republicans have blown away any of the ambiguity or nuance surrounding the issue.

                Yes, they are going to arrest and charge with murder a woman or doctor who performs any abortion at any stage.
                Yes, any woman with a miscarriage may find herself in front of a tribunal of mullahs who will determine her fate.
                And yes, desperate women will self induce and suffer horrible deaths of hemorrhage or infection.

                The question for the Bruenigs of the world is which of the two “pro-life” positions they are going to ride.

                Because, ultimately after all the handwriting and hemming and hawing it is very much a binary choice- does your vote go to party A or party B?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait, I just found a Party C.

                Yeah, I’m going to vote for them.Report

              • Chris in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree that Bruenig’s position is wrong, and would mean in a world where abortion is illegal, or is under threat (which is our world; I live in Texas, where it is de facto illegal, and all Americans live in a world where it is threatened), she is not an ally, and that’s bad. I just find misrepresenting her and her position distasteful, even as someone who doesn’t like her very much. Maybe I just have a soft spot for former OTers who’ve made it big. I mean, except Freddie.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Liberal democracy in America is hanging by a thread.

                A single election in Pennsylvania may very well mean the end of free and meaningful elections in our lifetime. In a handful of swing states Republicans are replacing independents with loyal apparatchiks who can be counted on to manipulate the votes the proper way.

                So I really don’t have any soft spots left.

                I don’t have any tolerance for the quislings who can’t be relied upon to defend democracy or human rights, or the collaborationists who will eagerly salute the new overlords and turn a deaf ear to the cries of the underclass.

                I just don’t have any tolerance for the old conventional politics of Tip & Ronnie. We don’t live in that world anymore.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure, she’s a Berniecrat.

                But what’s relevant here is that it isn’t her weird 70s socialism that’s got Chip mad. It’s her sane Catholic stuff.

                Which, going back to the OP and my original post addresses why no one writes about how Biden is so religious.

                It’s a loser on every team.Report

              • Chris in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree with the last part. People have been telling the Dems that there should play up their religiosity for as long as I can remember, and while it can be individually successful (a lot of Democrats ruining for office in the South, at least, highlight their religiosity in their ads), it’s never been clear to be how it would work for the party generally. “We’re the party of a Christianity modeled on Jesus’ love,” aside from being gross to non -Christians, won’t sway people like Kristin who want their Christianity built on hate.Report

              • KenB in reply to Marchmaine
                Ignored
                says:

                She’s got herself a new blurb for the next book jacket:

                “[Liz Bruenig] writes with soft honey words.”
                – Chip Daniels, Ordinary Times commenterReport

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I go back and forth on LB. She is great on some things then will either appear to be just trolling with some stuff then also say she just really wants a nice soft monarchy guided by god. She can’t easily be pinned down since she is an eccentric collection of insight and shallow ideas.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s common.
                People who have gauzy watercolor daydreams of a world of pre-modern hierarchy of church and crown without the nightmares required to make them happen.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Well yeah, that is the shallow part of her thinking. Royalist/socialist is an actual combo on the menu in Europe though not here. There is a bit of trolling though with that. Most people are a mix of views often contradictory or difficult to rationalize. She more then most pundit types seems comfortable with that.

                It is pundits and pols who glom onto the silliness of having every one of their views be rigidly aligned with a particular ideology.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                “We need a Good Tsar!” is an oldie but a goodie.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I want a new czar, one that won’t make me sick
                One that won’t make me crash my car
                Or make me feel three-feet thick
                I want a new drug, one that won’t hurt my head
                One that won’t make my mouth too dry
                Or make my eyes too red

                Editied to add: thanks brain for keeping this utterly generic dumb song in my brain when i could have used that space for star trek factoids.Report

              • Chris in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                I believe her “Philosopher King” tweet was a joking reference to Plato. Skepticism of democracy, especially of the bourgeois sort, is pretty common on the left (hell, I quoted Lenin on it in a comment here last week), and if you ask what system a socialist (at least one with Marxist leanings) prefers, there’s not a Twitter-friendly answer, because any answer would require explaining the difference between, say, democratizing work places and bourgeois democracy.

                Coincidentally, I was reading this paper this morning”

                https://www.academia.edu/6127635/KARL_MARX_ON_DEMOCRACY_PARTICIPATION_VOTING_AND_EQUALITY_Political_Theory_1984_537_56?email_work_card=titleReport

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                With the R’s pretty much embracing minority rule at various levels the old Left skepticism of democracy seems less fun to me.

                Not a twitter friendly answer?! Sir there are like hundreds of emoji’s out there. Don’t tell me complex questions can’t be explained in a single tweet.Report

              • Chris in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                Explain the left’s position on democracy in Twitter terms, sir!

                OK! Facxtory emoji, worker emojis, holding hands emojis, “Eat the Rich!”

                And left skepticism of democracy is, in part, because of the sorts of things conservatives are doing these days, though that’s of course not the entirety of it.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                I want an eat the rich emoji. No idea what that would look like but i want it.Report

              • Chris in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                While typing that, I looked for one, and was disappointed not to find anything.Report

              • Greg In Ak in reply to Chris
                Ignored
                says:

                You would think since Big Tech is so left wing there would be 20 eat the rich emojis somehow even with vegan options.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak
                Ignored
                says:

                You just have to get creative

                Dollar Sign emoji
                Hamburger emoji
                Yawning Man emojiReport

              • InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Monopoly man made of chocolate is what I would go with.Report

  4. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The dog that isn’t barking here is who ELSE is ignoring his faith.

    The Republicans already know Biden is a faithful and devout Christian.
    Yet, strangely, as Kristin acknowledges, they don’t see him as “on their side”.

    A philandering crook and cruel bully? Oh, he’s on their side alright.
    A guy who drives his girlfriend to the abortion clinic? Yep, he’s on their side too.
    But a man who is a faithful husband, loving father, generous and kind soul? Nah.

    Its like I’ve been saying, that Conventional Political analysis doesn’t work with our current political moment. Conventional analysis assumes that the citizenry has a shaed outcome they all want, like peace and prosperity and simply disagrees over how to get it.

    Our current moment has one conventional faction, the center-liberals, and the other faction holding its gathering in Hungary, praising its dictatorship and fervently promising to end democracy in America.

    The politics of grievance and resentment doesn’t have peace and prosperity as its highest goal; It wants vengeance and punishment delivered to the outgroup.

    A kindly grandpa who goes to church and takes the kids out for ice cream just doesn’t cut it.Report

  5. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Jesus of Nazareth represents a type of faith that is a weak and dying.

    All his talk about “turning the other cheek” doesn’t have the power to galvanize people to rise up against the Roman Occupation and deliver the smashing victory they want.

    Even if he makes some perfunctory statements about raising the Temple, people see it as insincere and performative.
    He ignores all the traditional cultural norms we cherish and has admitted to consorting with corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes, deeply offending the actual devout traditionalists.

    The younger religious are more militant, and demand someone who will fight and take back our country from the cultural elite who have taken over all our institutions.

    Barabbas for example, stands as a shining exemplar of what people really want. A proven leader, tested in battle and committed to the cause.Report

  6. Andrew Donaldson
    Ignored
    says:

    There is a very old joke of someone dying and going to heaven, and they are getting a tour and there are all the happy, smiling people congregated, then the setup is there is a room where a bunch of grumpy people are all enclosed and sealed off from the rest. The punchline of the joke is to insert whatever faith/denomination you are looking to zing and go “Those are the (insert faith group here), they think they are the only ones here.”

    Faith may be the evidence of things unseen, but the politics of faith is too often a demand for sameness in the optics and buzzwords regardless of what your attendance says, and the problem with optical faith is everyone has a varied opinion on it.Report

  7. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    The problem in American politics is that conservatives have convinced themselves that the only way to be religious is to be politically conservative to reactionary. The media sometimes or often gives them a free pass on this by referring to the Christian right-wing as “value voters” at face value from PR copy.

    I tend towards apathetic agnosticism/close to atheism but there are tens of millions of Democrats and liberals who are religious and it is their faith that influences them to left-leaning politics. The Jewish person who takes the line about how we “were strangers in the house of Egypt” into a pro-immigrant view. And then there are Jews like Stephen Miller and Ben Shapiro who should be ashamed of themselves and treated like idiots for failing to realize that they will be put on the train eventually too.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      The problem in American politics is that conservatives have convinced themselves that the only way to be religious is to be politically conservative to reactionary.

      Something, something, performative politics is bad, something, something.Report

  8. Ken S
    Ignored
    says:

    Why won’t anyone write the truth in so many words? Kristin’s comments are disgusting. This, for example: “Sending Grandpa Joe to church is nothing more than flim-flam and it won’t erase reality.” No one need to “send” Joe to church. He goes there on his own, and has for many, many years. That’s reality. He doesn’t make a public display of it precisely because his beliefs are sincere, not trumped up for public display. (Pun intended.)Report

  9. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Americans are facing a choice.
    One side features people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.

    The other side…
    Trump shares CPAC Hungary platform with notorious racist and antisemite
    Hungarian talk show host who has called Jews ‘stinking excrement’ and Roma ‘animals’ addresses rightwing conference

    A notorious Hungarian racist who has called Jews “stinking excrement”, referred to Roma as “animals” and used racial epithets to describe Black people, was a featured speaker at a major gathering of US Republicans in Budapest.

    Zsolt Bayer took the stage at the second day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Hungary, a convention that also featured speeches from Donald Trump, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, and Trump’s former White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

    The last featured speaker of the conference was Jack Posobiec, a far-right US blogger who has used antisemitic symbols and promoted the fabricated “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory smearing prominent Democrats as pedophiles.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/21/trump-shares-cpac-hungary-platform-racist-antisemite?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1653129188

    Our conventional media using its conventional wisdom has no idea how to deal with this. They’re like a rabbit hypnotized by the cobra.

    Keep in mind, this isn’t a situation of “If only the Republican base knew!”

    They know. They read this same paper, they see the videos, they know exactly who Orban is and why he is so beloved by conservatives, and what these people have planned for when they take power.Report

  10. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    “Gamers” have/had this thing going on there for a while.

    Is someone who plays Candy Crush on their phone a “gamer”? Is only someone who has beaten Elden Ring a “gamer”?

    There are the people who play games on their Playstations or XBoxes or PC (something something) who resent the idea that someone who is still playing Farmville on Facebook is in the same category as them.

    Most fandoms do, now that I think about it.

    “Oh, I’m a fan of European Cinema… I really enjoyed Bridget Jones’s Diary!”

    “I’m a big music buff. This guy is called ‘The Weekend’ but he spells it wrong. This song sounds a lot like an obscure band from the 80’s called A-Ha.”

    “I like Crystal Palace.”

    And people who are familiar with the deep lore (they were there when it was written, even) find themselves resentful of these people who don’t seem to know that there’s a lot more going on with the subject than casuals are going to pick up.

    While I don’t know that someone who plays phone games whilst in line at the bank is wrong if they call themselves a “gamer”, I do understand that there are people who build their identity around video games who resent such a thing for that reason and, heck, I understand where they’re coming from.

    But, at the end of the day, isn’t it all just a matter of taste?

    Canadians aren’t *WRONG* to not like unseasoned food. Southern and Southwestern Americans aren’t *CORRECT* to like it.

    Anybody can claim to be anything. We can do whatever we want.

    And as a Feminist, I think that that’s great.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      What is “this thing”?

      Christians and Catholics who vote R being allowed to tell Biden he isn’t REALLY a Catholic because they vote R and he’s a D?

      Because that is a really gross and gnarly thing. And doesn’t seem remotely close to anything involving video games.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        It depends on whether you see “Catholicism” as “Real”.

        If you see it as merely a social construct, it suddenly looks a lot like video games.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Even then. What is their reason to doubting his Catholic bona fides? Anything actually related to the faith and its practice? Or just because they don’t like the guy?

          This isn’t saying, “Candy Crushers aren’t real gamers.” This is saying, “Only Red Sox fans are real gamers… not Yankee fans.”Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            Yankees fans aren’t real baseball fans.

            Now Brewers fans! Those are real baseball fans!

            Yeah, that works pretty easily.

            As for their reasons? Eh. I’m sure that you can come up with a handful of reasons that people who wear Yankees caps don’t have the moral stature of those who support the Blue Jays (Blue Jays fans certainly have).

            Anything actually related to the faith and its practice?

            Some of them, sure.

            Or just because they don’t like the guy?

            Some of them, sure.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              You missed the point.

              The criticism isn’t “Biden isn’t a real Catholic for reasons X, Y, and Z related to Catholicism.”

              The criticism is “Biden isn’t a real Catholic because real Catholic drive Fords and vote R and smoke Marlboros (e.g., things having nothing to do with Catholicism).”

              It’s not judging a baseball fan’s baseball status based on their chosen team. It’s judging a gamer’s gaming status based on his favorite baseball team.

              Your analogy, quite simply, doesn’t apply.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Eh, arguing over what does or doesn’t have to do with Catholicism strikes me as similar to arguing over astrology. Even if you have someone who is an expert (even an authority!), you’re arguing over some things that are pretty far down the road after having made a wrong turn.

                It’s like arguing over whether Han shot first. The people who argue that he did have some good points. The people who argue that he did not also have some good points. The people who argue that the shots were fired simultaneously can point to the footage.

                That said, taking a whole bunch of assumptions as given, I’m pretty sure that some people might be able to argue about abortion being relevant to Catholicism.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            I want to be careful wading into this, in part because I don’t like the way Jaybird’s comment was a response to some subthreads rather than to the original article. I’ve stated that I hate the “not a Christian” accusation. But being a Catholic is something specific, and it could be argued that Biden, while still being a Catholic, should be an excommunicated Catholic. That’s not the same as calling him a non-Catholic, a non-Christian, or a person going to Hell.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              I wanted to target a particular argument (not a particular person).Report

            • InMD in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              Personally I think even the ‘is he a Catholic’ argument is a pretty ugly one to have. There are people qualified to have that discussion but I’m not sure many of those who would most like to are them. Not in the context we’re talking about here anyway.Report

              • Pinky in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                If we’re talking percentages, I’m sure there are more people who think that Biden being Catholic means he isn’t a Christian. I was trying to answer Kazzy’s question about why people may doubt Biden’s Catholicism, not make the argument that his Catholicism should be doubted. As I said in what I think was my first comment on this thread, “If I were his pastor, bishop, or pope, I’d be having some talks with him aimed at correction, but that’s a different subject.”Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                “Y’all are not going to con job any conservatives into thinking Biden is suddenly a religious person because they know what the Democrats stand for and I don’t see you guys changing that any time soon.”

                This.

                This is not about how Biden practices his faith. This is about whether ANY Democrat can be considered to actually be a religious person.

                That isn’t about faith. It’s about politics. And it is 10000% wrong.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                I said I wanted to answer this question carefully, and that I didn’t like Jaybird’s comment being out of thread context. I said that, remember? I then went on to try to answer your question, “What is their reason to doubting his Catholic bona fides?” That’s not a question about whether any Democrat can be considered to be actually a religious person; it is a question specifically about Biden and the Catholic faith. You asked, I answered, and I’m not going to address a separate question until we agree on what the issues are that we’re discussing.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Pinky, I recognize what YOUR perspective may be on Biden’s faith.

                But:
                “I was trying to answer Kazzy’s question about why people may doubt Biden’s Catholicism,”
                You offered AN answer. But Kristen offered a very different answer. And that is what I wanted to push back upon.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                You asked about Biden’s Catholicism, which isn’t something Kristin addressed. And if you wanted to ask Kristin about it, you could have done what I did and post under her comment rather than Jaybird’s.Report

              • InMD in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Fair enough, I didn’t catch that nuance.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              Why should he be excommunicated? Because in his secular role he supports the right to choose? If that’s gonna be a thing – and some conservative US bishops seem to think it is (though the Pope seems to disagree) then a whole lot of conservative Catholic politicians need to be excommunicated for their stands on capitol punishment, or how the want to treat refugees and migrants. At some point you have to recognize that folly for what it is.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                First – that statement is almost 20 years old. Surly there’s something more current you can point to?

                Second, that’s about communion. Catholics can still attend mass and not be excommunicated especially if they don’t take communion.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                IANACL (that would be Canon Law), so I can’t speak to it exactly. There are different types of excommunication, but as a general rule, if you’re forbidden to receive Communion, it’s not a good sign. I mainly posted this as support for the idea that abortion is in a different category than, say, capital punishment. As for the document’s age, I can say that it’s never been revised.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s also written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, i.e. Pope Benedict XVI.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                The debate about denying Communion to politicians who support abortion must be handled in a pastoral way, not by public condemnations that seek to “excommunicate” Catholics who are not in line with church teaching, Pope Francis said.

                The pope told journalists that when defending a principle, some bishops act in a way “that is not pastoral” and “enter the political sphere.”

                “And what should a shepherd do? Be a shepherd. Not going around condemning,” the pope added. “They must be a shepherd, in God’s style, which is closeness, compassion and tenderness.”

                “A shepherd that doesn’t know how to act in God’s style slips and enters into many things that are not of a shepherd.”

                https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2021/09/15/pope-francis-joe-biden-bishops-communion-241424Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                This isn’t an easy discussion for a non-Catholic to follow. If you read the whole article, you get a hint of it.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I read the whole article. I’m on my second marriage to a lapsed Catholic – though my MIL is a lay Carmelite, so I get deeper into this then others. I was raised in French Catholic country in the only state where the unit of civil government is the Parish. The Bishop of Baton Rouge preached in our Presbyterian Church twice a year for over a decade. So no, I’m not Catholic – but I’m not part of the great unwashed masses either.

                Pope Francis makes it clear in that article that he believes the flock should be cared for pastorally, and even the mortal sin of abortion isn’t a reason to deny Communion – because he also reminds the flock that Communion isn’t a prize to be won but a necessary connection to the Body and Blood.

                That America’s Bishops have taken a harder, more closed, more antagonistic stance is their choice, but their boss is gently telling them to knock it off.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Any mortal sin is a reason to not receive Communion, and any knowledge by a priest of an unconfessed mortal sin is reason to deny Communion. You’re missing a lot of subtlety on this issue.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                well then we need to determine if the President receives Communion. If he doesn’t, I’d say problem solved.

                Which still doesn’t get at the Pope saying approach this as pastors and shepherds and the US Conference of Bishops working really hard to ignore him.Report

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Has anyone ever defined any religion thusly?Report

        • InMD in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          In fairness if we’re going to use this metaphor I think it would be hard to call Biden a ‘casual’ given how often he seems to attend mass. This might work for the Easter/Christmas crowd but Biden is well beyond that. Based on publicly available information I’d say it’s more like he plays, and is competent enough at, blockbuster FPS. Maybe he also has dabbled in the big time RTS too. But don’t bring up whatever RPG is big right now in nerd kingdom and if you dare ask him about some crap like Portal 2 he’ll ask if you’ve ever had a girlfriend. Come on, man!Report

  11. Dark Matter
    Ignored
    says:

    Maybe relevant.

    https://onlysky.media/alee/the-nonreligious-are-overwhelmingly-pro-choice/

    Note this means the anti-choice are more religious than average.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.