Bolstered by bad eucharistic theology, the 'wafer wars' are back

Bolstered by bad eucharistic theology, the 'wafer wars' are back
I have been busy in this topic. From yesterday:
This entire controversy comes from a memo out of CDF on giving Communion to legislators who vote for abortion laws. Abortion in the U.S. is a matter of constitutional law, not legislation. 

The Ratzinger memo does not apply. Of course, Biden has an obligation to explain the logic of Roe to the hierarchy. He has ducked it for decades. 

The pluralistic explanation of Cuomo is in line with freedom of conscience promulgated in Dignitatis Humanae. The Ratzinger memo ignored this doctrine. It is not enough to separate the USCCB office of Pro-Life Activities from the a Republican Party. Explaining Roe publicly will shore up the Blue Wall permanentlty.  This will move the movement from using criminal law to fiscal redistribution to oppose abortion, which is in line with the real Magisterium. 

From yesterday in America:
The failure of education is not the Church's failure, it is the failure of Catholic politicians to educate the Church. One's position on abortion as a voter or legislator has no impact on the legality of abortion. There is no law permitting abortion, nor can there be one prohibiting it  (except the Unborn Victims of Violence Act).

Using police power to investigate list or aborted pregnancy is simply not allowed in the first trimester. Speaking the truth cannot be a sin. It is the duty of Catholic politicians to do so and the duty of USCCB staff to inform the bishops of their error rather than participating in Republican coalition politics.

Homicide is a term of law not applicable without federal legislation. Do you eat fast food? If so, you pay more for abortions that way than in paying your taxes if Hyde is repealed. Indeed, almost all abortions paid for with cash are subsidized through the health insurance excision to corporate income taxation. The question is not whether to subsidize abortion, but whether to do so for all but the poor.

To justify revoking Roe you must reject equal protection in investigating pregnancy loss (protection against selective enforcement). No. Give law enforcement the power to investigate all pregnancy loss (privacy). Heck no. Give state government final authority to investigateitself regarding 14th Amendment issues for women, Freemen, Latinos, undocumented children, consensual sodomy in all its combinations, including going down on the wife, and gay marriage - This bringing back Plessy v. Ferguson). HELL NO! These are all constitutional issues.

Doing an abortion is a mortal sin. Saying abortion rights should not or cannot be changed is more complicated and not mortally sinful. Bad doctrine is not sinful or Pius X would be toasting in Hell.

From what I wrote when the incident was first reported:
Joe needs to explain both Roe and Dignitatis Humanae to the local bishop. Letting it hang in pluralism does not move the needle. Explain how Roe relates to all civil rights law and how overturning it restores Plessy.

It is the public stance which the priest is reacting to. The priest is confused about the difference between acknowledging the constitutionality of Roe and advocating abortion.

Not being executed is a basic right. Not being murdered is a social contract right if the government choses to. The unborn have no claim to the power of the state to investigate their mothers, but it does against those who hurt it's mother. The same law also recognizes the right to abortion.