The U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops and the Politicians

Recently, there was a little blip in the news feed that raised some eyebrows. Word was that the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops were considering withholding the Eucharist from unrepentant pro-abortion politicians. It was a very little blip because last weekend President Biden was pictured leaving Mass having partaken of the Holy Sacrament.

We need to take a deeper dive into what really went on with the Roman Catholic bishops, and what does the future hold for those who, because of their notorious and unrepentant sins, present themselves for Holy Communion.

This piece at Crisis Magazine is quite revealing, and it should reassure the Joe Bidens and Nancy Pelosis of the world that nothing is going to happen in their life times.

"We are at a time of grave crisis for the Catholic Church in America—steep declines in attendance, lost moral authority, and significant public scandal regarding pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, just to name a few issues. So in the midst of this mess, what were our shepherds, the successors to the Apostles, doing when they (virtually) gathered together last week? Well, debating for almost an hour how long they should be allowed to debate, for one. Perhaps nothing sums up better the incoherence and irrelevance that is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)."

Only an hour debating how long to debate? Anglicans Indabad for a week.

"From June 16-18, the USCCB held its semi-annual meeting to discuss various topics, including a potential draft of a document on 'Eucharistic coherence'"...

"Eucharistic coherence" sounds like something that belongs in the Revised Revisionist Dictionary. When the Episcopal organization's bishops came up with something like that, I called it, "Episcobabble". I guess we have to call this Cathobabble.

"...This recently-invented buzzword refers to the debate over whether pro-abortion 'Catholic' politicians should be allowed to receive the Eucharist. In the words of Bishop Thomas Olmstead, 'Eucharistic coherence means that our ‘Amen’ at Holy Communion includes not only the recognition of the Real Presence but also a communion bound together by embracing and living Christ’s entire teaching handed down to us through the Church.' In other words, is it consistent—and therefore coherent—for someone who publicly and obstinately rejects Church teaching on some matter to receive the Sacrament par excellence of that same Church?"

Wouldn't it be easier to use the term "orthodox understanding" of the Eucharist? I guess bishops have to invent new terms.

Since they are not very frank, don't expect any action from these bishops,

"...Even though the proposal for a 'Eucharistic coherence' draft document passed overwhelmingly, it’s hard not to see the whole debate as full of sound and fury; signifying nothing. After all, Archbishop Cordileone, whom many consider the strongest proponent for withholding the Eucharist from pro-abortion politicians, admitted to me in a recent Crisis Point podcast that he was still in the “dialogue” stage with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi about her reception of the Eucharist (Pelosi is a member of Cordileone’s archdiocese). 

If after nine years at the helm in San Francisco—and decades of enthusiastic pro-abortion advocacy by Pelosi—Archbishop Cordileone is still allowing Pelosi to receive the Eucharist, then what really will another document produced by the USCCB bureaucracy do? It’s easy to see why most Catholics tune out this ecclesial body."

Bingo!

Men without spines.