Sorry. I didn't read carefully. I would hope that whatever priest gave him communion, for the sake of the soul of that priest, didn't have a clue about the controversy. And for the sake of the soul of the pope he didn't authorize it.No, in Rome. The President is in Rome for a big conference.
Ah, St. Patrick's in Rome. The very same church where Nancy Pelosi was going to be lector about two weeks ago and presumably receive communion before an unrelated security issue (a mask protest) caused her evacuation.No, in Rome. The President is in Rome for a big conference.
All one needs to come back is one good confession. Not that it would be easy, but there is no bureaucratic silliness to it at all. One good confession.Then come back home!
If President Biden received the Eucharist in DC, from Archbishop Gregory, we can assume the continued implied approval of the Pope.In Delaware or in Washington DC?
If Washington, the cardinal archbishop there, Wilton Gregory, has already said he would never forbid the president. SOOOO, the president has the cardinal AND the pope in his pocket. All the way to hell.
Easier said than done!Then come back home!
Biden is an unreliable reporter of the ipsissima verba of the pope. One does not know what goes on in his head to make whatever connections that result in words coming out of his mouth.If President Biden received the Eucharist in DC, from Archbishop Gregory, we can assume the continued implied approval of the Pope.
And coincidentally, that could also be the basis that Biden presumes is the case with the implied approval of the Pope.
His reasoning could go something like using the reception of the Eucharist from Gregory would imply the continuing approval of the Pope.
So although it would be a stretch to put such words of approval into the mouth of the Pope Himself, or to imply approval where none had been forthcoming, at best such a blatent statement from Biden of Papal approval without subsequent confirmation from the Pope Himself, should be seen for what it is.