Before President Joe Biden delivered the 2024 State of the Union address, the question on the minds of most was, Will the president have the get-up-and-go to complete the speech without a disastrous stumble? His delivery made clear that he indeed had the energy, but another question arose: Can Biden be determined and strong without being angry?

This year’s address was not the familiar annual report of a statesman to the people who elected him to serve the nation. Instead, it was an aggressively delivered campaign speech from a candidate who is trailing in the polls and desperate to win reelection.

Well-prepared and obviously long rehearsed, the speech was framed in terms of protecting democracy, which, according to the president, is threatened internationally and nationally, abroad and at home, in Ukraine and in the United States. “It’s not hyperbole to suggest history is watching,” Biden intoned.

Turning to a perceived domestic threat to democracy—and turning up the volume—the president then warned that “History is watching another assault on freedom,” and launched into a diatribe regarding abortion: “Like most Americans, I believe Roe v. Wade got it right. I thank Vice President Harris for being an incredible leader, defending reproductive freedom and so much more. My predecessor came to office determined to see Roe v. Wade overturned. He’s the reason it was overturned. And he brags about it. Look at the chaos that has resulted.”

After telling the stories of two women who believed they had been negatively impacted by life-affirming government policies, the president went on: “There are state laws banning the freedom to choose, criminalizing doctors, forcing survivors of rape and incest to leave their states to get the treatment they need. Many of you in this chamber and my predecessor are promising to pass a national ban on reproductive freedom. My God, what freedom else would you take away?” (sic)

“Look,” Biden continued. “In the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court majority wrote the following, and with all due respect, justices, ‘Women are not without electoral . . . or political power.’ You are about to realize just how much you got right about that.”

He then shouted: “Clearly, clearly, those bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade have no clue about the power of women. But they found out when reproductive freedom was on the ballot. We won in 2022 and 2023, and we will win again in 2024. If you, the American people, send me a Congress that supports the right to choose, I promise you, I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again.”

The president’s diatribe on abortion was objectionable in many ways: Taking the Lord’s name in vain. Avoiding the use of the word abortion (as much as he avoided using the name Trump, referring to him only as “my predecessor”). Politicizing and disrespecting the work of the United States Supreme Court. Using the word ban, instead of the more accurate restrict, to make pro-life legislation sound extremist. Wrongly suggesting that all American women favor an absolute right to abortion. Inferring that Americans are for abortion rights much more than they actually are. Arguing that Roe v. Wade was a truly democratic policy on abortion, when what it represented was a “judicial usurpation of politics” (see “The End of Democracy,” First Things, November 1996).

As a Protestant clergyman, my overriding concern with the president’s tongue-lashing is how it conflicts with his church’s teaching on abortion, which can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life” (Second Edition, 1997; 2270, p. 547).

Also: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (2271, p. 548).

Finally: “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: . . . ‘The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights’” (2273, pp. 548-9).

President Biden is regularly photographed and filmed attending Catholic Mass on Sundays. The media routinely refer to him as a “devout Catholic.” And he himself makes numerous references to being a practicing Catholic.

With that in mind, it seems that Roman Catholic officials (bishops and/or priests) would have compelling reason to offer some kind of disciplinary response (e.g., fraternal correction, public challenge, or whatever they deem most faithful to church teaching and the Gospel) to the president because of his caustic promotion of abortion on the largest stage of his long political career.

As a Protestant clergyman, I of course have no official standing to encourage Catholic officials to act. What prompts this Protestant to make this suggestion, or rather to offer this plea, is recognition of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the whole Church—Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. Furthermore, I have observed time and again that when the Roman Catholic Church teaches truly and disciplines faithfully, she calls all other churches to be, to teach, and to discipline in the ways that most honor Christ.

In his State of the Union speech, President Biden pledged his allegiance, and the allegiance of his political party, to a near-absolute abortion right. If federally reestablished, such a right would result in increasing numbers of abortions throughout a land already awash in the blood of the unborn. For nearly 2,000 years the Roman Catholic Church has stood for life and against abortion. It would simply make sense for Catholic officials to remind the president of his present, flagrant opposition to his own church’s teaching. In so doing, they would empower and energize leaders in other churches to stand stronger for life in their sanctuaries and in the public square.