Will there be a movement to deny Ryan communion?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, because he does, indeed, follow the Catholic Church's backwards-ass social morality.

Have you heard the Paul Ryan Personal Dictionary definition of the phrase 'preferential option for the poor'?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or at least one organ thereof, condemned his budget. The Catholic Church does not, by and large, institutionally adhere to Randian economic rhetoric or Austrian/Chicago economic theory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or at least one organ thereof, condemned his budget. The Catholic Church does not, by and large, institutionally adhere to Randian economic rhetoric or Austrian/Chicago economic theory.

The Church is unsound on economics I agree (no, they go way beyond turning the cold shoulder on Rand and some of the Austrian kooks, but it is sad to see you add "Chicago" to that noxious mix, when I went there, and actually knew many of the illustrious U of C "perps"), but you must know, as this WASP near atheist knows, that that is not the kind of thing for which one is denied communion. To go there, you need to have sinned on matters closer to the heart. Heck did they ever ex-communicate Hitler, or deny communion to any of the Fascist thugs?  Unfair sure, but I don't think being a sociopath in the public square or otherwise is a basis for denying communion. TJ is needed here of course.

I'm aware of the policy on this and I doubt that there will be any serious talk of denying Ryan communion, but I simply had to correct Townsend's statement to the effect that Ryan's public life is entirely compatible with what the Church teaches should be advocated or ought to be able to be advocated under ideal circumstances, ne? I'm sorry for implying a greater link between the Chicago and Austrian schools than in fact exists; obviously one is a good deal more reasonable, rigorous, and real than the other, although from where I'm standing there isn't a huge amount of ideological difference between them (nor indeed is there between me and the Church, on this particular complex of issues).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Phil and realisticidealist, I'm kind of curious what you think of communion denial under any circumstances. My church is fine with communion to anyone who's a professing Christian. I really don't like the idea of cutting anyone off for some action as being "unworthy" or whatnot. I'm aware this rarely happens in the Catholic Church today but there are plenty that make a fuss about it, and then you have incidents like that priest in DC who denied it to a woman at her lesbian lover's funeral.

I'm sure your church doesn't believe in transubstantiation. A good Catholic receiving the Eucharist believes they are receiving what is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Its what the whole Catholic mass is based around, and to take it flippantly and just give it out, especially to those who think its just some symbol or those defying the Lord by being in mortal sin would be to defile Jesus himself.

I understand that that's the rationale, but my church believes in Real Presence and my tendency is to think that that procedure effects much more change on the sinner than it ever could on Jesus.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Catholic views on transubstantiation aren't in the Bible either and are basically just contrived by the church, especially it's excuse as to why other churches can't do it (something not claimed by other churches with some type of Real Presence theology), which is the biggest issue with it and why I can't accept it and why I would not take communion in any Catholic church regardless of it was "allowed". I'd have no problem taking communion in any church with open communion or open to all Christians.

Whether or not transubstantiation is in the Bible depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.