@Ultraviolet

Not exactly correct.

****

The situation with Biden and like cases is that what he has been doing publicly is objectively grave matter. A public figure gives scandal first by being in favor of abortion and second by receiving abortion.

That does not mean that Biden is in mortal sin, which, according to the catechism you cite, needs two more components besides grave matter.

I'm not entirely sure where my error is here, @Dr Bobus So I'll break my comment down and hopefully you'll clarify where the error lies.

I said: Catholics are not supposed to receive Communion if they're guilty of a mortal sin which are more than just "some infraction of Church teachings."

The second part of my sentence, which are more than just "some infraction of Church teachings." was a criticism of Brian Kilmeade minimizing Mr. Biden's actions as just "some infraction of Church teachings" as if Mr. Biden's had done nothing more more serious than, say, forgetting to genuflect when passing before the Tabernacle.

To the best of my knowledge the first part, "Catholics are not supposed to receive Communion if they're guilty of a mortal sin" is correct. Guilt implies the knowledge one has done something wrong and the consent in this context, yes?

The publicity of the issue doesn't seem to be a deciding factor for the graveness of the sin. It would be just as grave if Mr. Biden had been privately using his influence to support and expand access to abortion outside the public's view. If Fr. Morey later learned of this in some manner, it seems he'd still be within his rights to deny Communion.

@Ultraviolet

Yes, it's true that those in Mortal Sin should not receive Holy Communion. The problem is that we do not know whether Biden, or anyone else, is in mortal sin. That's why we accuse ourselves in the Confessional--no one is pointing the finger at us.

I said pubicly not publicity. Biden is a very public man. Further, he has had, and perhaps will have, influence on laws of the US. Although we cannot say that he has committed sin, we can say that what he has said involves grave matter. Thus: Even if he is not in mortal sin, he has given scandal.

I might also add that, acc to St Thomas, if a priest is aware that a man is leading a sinful life, he is not to deny him Communion if the man is, for example, going to mass where no one knows about his actions. A priest cannot in any way reveal what is said in Internal Forum. The priest, however, is obligated to inform the man before that it would not be a good idea to receive Communion

"The problem is that we do not know whether Biden, or anyone else, is in mortal sin."

We don't, Dr Bobus? The man supports the legalized murder of children. He supports using taxpayer funds, including those of Catholics, to pay for the murder of children. That makes him an accessory to and facilitator of those crimes. People have been sentenced to crimes against humanity for doing as much. So if we recognize what a person does is a grave sin, and it's clear the person commiting the act does so with both knowledge and consent, then yeah... we can say he's committed a mortal sin.

I'm baffled why you'd suggest otherwise. This is how juries determine guilt or innocence in secular courts every day. Did the defendant commit the crime of which he's accused? Did he do so knowingly? Did he do so willingly (i.e he wasn't under duress)?

That seems to be the basis for Fr. Morey denying Mr. Biden the Eucharist. Fr. Morey weighed Mr. Biden's actions against the standards for mortal sin and didn't like the outcome. I suspect Fr. Morey's denial of Communion was based on him also weighing his own involvement, i.e. the possible issue of profaning the Eucharist by giving it to someone who aids and abets one of the worst crimes facing our culture today.

In what sence are you using the term, Dr Bobus? In the theological sense or as a logical fallacy? Also, the burden of proof for such a potential line of defense is on the person offering it as an excuse for Mr. Biden's actions. ;-)

In my case, I'm giving Mr. Biden the credit he's earned as an educated and extremely astute politician with a career spanning 47 years in national level politics.

1. The two are not mutually exclusive. In so far as it's a fallacy, it refers to logic. In so far as the fallacy possibility indicates antecedent passion, which mitigates culpability, it has moral consequences and is theological.

Underneath Invincible ignorance, however, there can be vincible ignorance

2. I don't consider Biden to be educated because education is based on the liberal arts. He has a law degree, which is a servile art. He also graduated toward the bottom of his law school class

Biden is well known for being a good guy but intellectually challenged. It is equally well known that much of what he says is BS.

That someone is politically astute doesn't indicate he's intelligent. FDR is acknowledged to have been extraordinarily politically astute along with being dull witted. (His distant relative TR, however, was very bright.)

Thank you for the clarification, Dr Bobus . As yet, however, you haven't shown Mr. Biden is utterly ignorant of Catholic teachings regarding abortion or that he is deliberately refusing to acknowledge all such arguments existt (i.e. invincible ignorance in either sense).

If you wish to factually support the theory from either or both perspectives, go right ahead. The former is so far-fetched it beggars credibility and the latter seems far beneath Mr. Biden's demonstrated abilities.

"Underneath Invincible ignorance, however, there can be vincible ignorance"

That's nice. Since you focused on invincible ignorance, don't move the goal posts you set up, 'kay? thx.

" I don't consider Biden to be educated because education is based on the liberal arts. He has a law degree, which is a servile art".

He also has a batchelors degree with a double major in history and political science both of which do qualify as liberal arts. Further, your own personal opinion on what constitutes being "educated" is at variance with at least the last millenium of Western culture. It's also contradicted by the staggering amount of academic work required to get through law school and even more required to subsequently pass the bar exam.

Frankly, voicing an opinion like that is self-discrediting.

"Biden is well known for being a good guy but intellectually challenged." "FDR is acknowledged to have been... dull witted".

No support given. Citations needed. Again, the political careers of both men contradicts what you claim (absent any proof) they're "well known" and "acknowledged" for being.

1. Nb: I'm not defending Biden, whom I consider to be an ignorant scumbag.

And I'm not walking back what I previously said. My point is that culpabilty can be very complex. You seem to want to oversimplify it to the extent that you are denying what is

2. I don't need to demonstrate his ignorance of teachings. My point is not that he's innocent, but that his culpability is in question. I do, however, think you willfully ignore the confusion in the Church over this matter (cf Cardinals of various opinions), which is obvious.

To say that we must presume his culpability contradicts Christ's own words, which means it contradicts St Thomas' thought on the matter. That is why I pointed out the distinction between those who objectively commit public and those commit private immoral acts.

3. In the contemporary Church presumption is a huge problem. Both negative (presumption of culpability) and positive (anytime two people cough together its, the Holy Spirit at work.

4. In contemporary education the Liberal Arts are considered Humanities and include areas of studies, e.g., Social Sciences, not found in the trivium/quadrivium. And, no, this contemporary approach is not 1000 years old--it changed with the Renaissance.

The amount of work and study required to graduate from Law School is irrelevant. Medical school involves even more work. The distinction is between study that is preparation for a career and study that is not.

5. It is silly to want citations about FDR and Biden--this isn't a doctoral tesi. Their lack of intellectual firepower is no secret to anyone even slightly familiar with them. FDR, however, made superb decision by hiring George Marshall.

Dr Bob writes:
I'm not defending Biden, whom I consider to be an ignorant scumbag.

1) Can you please define "scumbag" referencing either Augustine, Aquinas or Andrew Dice Clay (Andrew Clay Silverstein - A Jew: for those interested in that sort of thing)?

2) And how does Biden’s scumbagness differ from any of the other Democrat candidates on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the biggest scumbag and 1 being the least scumbag? (RIP - Beto)

Lastly...
3) Would you "beat him like a drum" if you had the opportunity and there were no cameras or witnesses present?

"I'm not defending Biden, whom I consider to be an ignorant scumbag."

...and yet Dr Bobus, you raised the issue of "invinible ignorance" as a defense of his receiving Communion.

Let's see if you reduce this discussion to arguing over the definition of "defense" and what does or doesn't constitute such.

"And I'm not walking back what I previously said."

Indeed, you're doing just the oposite. You raised "vincible ignorance" when proving what you originally raised, namely "invincible ignorance," apparently became unfeasible. No, you're not walking back what you originally said. You're doing exactly what I said you are: moving the proverbial goal-posts and that ain't cool.

"You seem to want to oversimplify it to the extent that you are denying what is"

..and by "oversimplify" you apparently mean "holding you to uncomfortably precise standards". ;-)

"I don't need to demonstrate his ignorance of teachings."

So sorry, yeah, you do. If you raise "invincible ignorance" as a possible defense, it isn't my job to support your claim, it's all on you, baby. :D

"I do, however, think you willfully ignore the confusion in the Church over this matter."

Perhaps that's why I suggested using the standards used to determine guilt already established by the secular courts.

"To say that we must presume his culpability contradicts Christ's own words,"

(none supplied)

"which means it contradicts St Thomas' thought on the matter."

(none supplied)

"In the contemporary Church presumption is a huge problem."

However, this is isn't an issue concerning "the contemporary Church" it concerns the public behavior of exactly two parties: Joe Biden and Fr. Morey who denied Mr. Biden Communion .

"In contemporary education the Liberal Arts are considered Humanities and include areas of studies, e.g., Social Sciences, not found in the trivium/quadrivium."

History and Political Science, Joe Biden's double majors, are considred liberal arts.

www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-arts
www.internationalstudent.com/study-liberal-arts/
www.worldwidelearn.com/…/liberal-arts-ma…

"And, no, this contemporary approach is not 1000 years old--it changed with the Renaissance."

I didn't say it (i.e. this contemporary approach) was. Nice try. I said "your own personal opinion on what constitutes being 'educated' is at variance with at least the last millenium of Western culture".

...and, no, that hasn't "changed with the Renaissance", either. Lawyers are historically considered to be educated men since at least the time of the Emperor Hadrian and possibly even further back to Claudius.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer

"The amount of work and study required to graduate from Law School is irrelevant."

As a metric for determining whether a person is "educated" it certainly is and your claiming differently doesn't change that.

"The distinction is between study that is preparation for a career and study that is not."

Wrong. An independently wealthy person can be highly educated, even make a hobby out of accumulating degrees, and still never need to use any of their education to work a day in their life.

"It is silly to want citations about FDR and Biden--this isn't a doctoral tesi."

No, it's an increasingly academically oriented debate wherein it's standard practice to support a point when challenged.

Being unwilling to do so speaks volumes about the claim and its maker.

"Their lack of intellectual firepower is no secret to anyone even slightly familiar with them."

www.logicallyfallacious.com/…/Alleged-Certain…

Also, in this case, argumentum ad nauseam, since you're offering a repetition of the claim in lieu of supporting it as I asked.

I'm not sure what your point is with this constant and increasingly bad faith hair-splitting.

You're at the point of denying history and political science are "liberal arts" and seriously arguing that a man isn't really "educated" even after he graduates from a university with a double major, successfully completes law school and passes the bar.

When you claim a senator who can maintain an influential 47 year career in national politics has a "lack of intellectual firepower" then you need to back that up with some well-nigh incontrovertible sources. Especially when someone calls you on the claim.

If you're trying to impress yourself with your own pendantry, I suppose that's an easy thing to do.

It's quite revealing for me, however, how readily you shy away from an opportunity to display such prowess. Supporting your claims about Biden and FDR was a chance to shine, Dr. Bobus. ;-) Evasiveness and deflections are the hallmarks of an academic charlatan.

So if you're trying to impress me, you really are going to have to do better and I don't give A's for effort.

It is contrary to the doctrine of the Church that culpability is presumed for actions. That doesn't mitigate the gravity of such actions.

Biden worked for years in DC, where from 2001 to 2018 the archdiocese was run by Wuerl and before him the even more loathsome McCarrick. Both would give Communion to anyone. That indicates enough nonsense to confuse the average Catholic.

There is also confusion that has come from Rome. JPII formally promulgated a document saying Tthere would be no altar girls. Then a few years later he permitted them. Changes like that do little but confuse the average Catholic into thinking everything can change. And there are bishops and priests who think (and tell people) that the reservation of Holy Orders in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis only referred to the present era . . . not the future.

Further, you misquoted St Paul in order to support your false argument. The well known text of I Cor 11:27 doesn't just say receiving Communion but receiving Communion in an unworthy manner (indigne in Latin).

"It is contrary to the doctrine of the Church that culpability is presumed for actions."

In Mr. Biden's case, however, his vocal and repeated efforts to foster mortal sin and encourage others to sin is both an admission and, in this context, a self-indictment of his culpability. Fr. Morrey apparently was familiar with Mr. Biden's behavior and did not, again I suspect, wish to knowingly profane The Host.

"That indicates enough nonsense to confuse the average Catholic."

Do you have a survey from an accredited polling company showing "the average Catholic" in that archdioce was "confused" by the clerics' actions? As opposed to simply not caring? How about a survey showing that "the average Catholic" in DC doesn't know the Church's teachings on abortion (i.e. killing an unborn child is both wrong and a mortal sin)? No? Then your unsupported claims on what may or may not "confuse the average Catholic" just ain't gonna cut it, not in this kind of discussion.

...the same is true for your yet (and probably eternally) unproven claims about the intellect of Mr. Biden and FDR.

"Changes like that do little but confuse the average Catholic into thinking everything can change."

Changes like that show "the averge Catholic" that everything can change. It isn't "confusion" so much as a tacit understanding that as long as the local pastor and the bishop are "okay with it" (whatever insanity "it" is) then anything goes.

The reverse is also true and, I'm happy to say, a long-overdue shock for the people who need it most. Such has been the case at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Portland, Oregon when Archbishop Alexander Sample appointed Father George Kuforiji to lead the parish.

Leftists and modernists invariably claim "confusion" and cry ignorance when they're reminded they're breaking the rules.

"Further, you misquoted St Paul in order to support your false argument. The well known text of I Cor 11:27 doesn't just say receiving Communion but receiving Communion in an unworthy manner (indigne in Latin)."

Wrong. I did not "misquote St. Paul" and in point of fact, you're misquoting me. ;-) I didn't quote I Cor 11:27, I quoted 1 Corinthians 11:29 straight outta the Douay-Rheims Bible.
www.biblestudytools.com/rhe/passage/

Interestingly, you're misquoting St. Paul yourself in "the well known text of I Cor 11:27" as you referred to it. Paul never once used the word "Communion" in the passage, nor did he use the Latin "indigne" because he wrote 1 Corinthians in Greek.

Hey, you wanna take it this level, Dr Bobus, bring it! :D Personally, I felt Holy Cannoli asked you far more interesting questions yet, sadly, you haven't favored them with a reply.

@mattsixteen24.

You must be off your game--you forgot to accuse them of being dirty Jews.