Comments on: Catholic Bishop denies communion to pro-choice legislators

By: Tor

Tor — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:29:44 +0000

As a pro-choice voter, this Bishop’s decision has forced every Catholic politician to pass a litmus test – “If you receive a clear mandate from the voters in your district/state/country, while at the same time the Church would deny you communion for voting in favor of that mandate, do you follow your mandate, or save your soul?” How could I support Kerry if his Bishop has the power and authority to compel that he vote anti-choice or act in any other matter where the Church and the State’s goals differ? Denying communion to catholic politicians feeds the ‘anti-catholic bias’ that some say exist. Whether it exists or not, catholic politicians now have to deal with this issue, as opposed to all the other good they could do in the world. While it is legal under Catholic religious law, it is another example of the Catholic church shooting itself in the foot. With all the abuse scandals in the news, the last thing they need is more bad press.

By: KON

KON — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:22:57 +0000

Hmmmm. I can see the where people are coming from when they say that this sort of enforcement is arbitrary, but I believe they are missing an important point. A bishop is speaking out and taking action against a great evil of our time. Some argue that is is a matter of personal choice. Hooey. Was slavery? They argue that abortion is legal- and thats how it should stay. What about slavery? The Church spoke out against slavery despite the fact that it was legal and many choose to own slaves. Should they have kept their mouths shut then and said, “Well, this is not a religious issue, but secular. Its legal, so we will have our opinion but not act on it”? Granted some Catholics owned slaves and supported it (as some promote abortion); this doesn’t mean the Church should not try to correct error when it can. Critics ought to get off this bishop’s back and worry about their own consistancy, or start making the case for slavery.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:27:58 +0000

Raj: theophagy, actually. But the Romans shared your perception, a main reason for the persecution. Catholics (and maybe the Orthodox Churches) perform theophagy alone that I know of among world religions.

By: Jane Galt

Jane Galt — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:02:36 +0000

Pardon me, but while there is a very sharp distinction in Catholic teaching between the death penalty and abortion, with the former open for debate in a way that the latter is not, I don’t believe that that position comes from the doctrine of infallibility. As far as I know, teh pope is only infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra, which he has only done twice: on the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary into heaven. I think the distinction comes from the theological argument that abortion is worse than the death penalty (because the fetus is innocent, and never has the chance to partake of the sacraments), and because it’s the subject of papal encyclical. The authority of the pope as the Vicar of Christ on Earth accrues to teh doctrine on abortion, but I don’t believe his infallibility does.

By: raj

raj — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:22:50 +0000

“getter” should be “better”

By: raj

raj — Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:20:17 +0000

Denies communion? Oh, wow. Crunch on a cracker and drink some whine. Big deal. One can certainly get getter whine at the liquor store. On the other hand…given the symbolically cannabalistic nature of the “communion” ceremony, it’s amazing that anyone would want to take part. That “transubstantiation” stuff should turn people off. It’s amazing that it doesn’t.

By: John Isbell

John Isbell — Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:43:31 +0000

Steve Carr, in that case I just maligned the bishop, for which I apologize, and he has authority for his distinction, whatever I think of it. Since I’ve just come from Mass, I feel compelled to post that. Thanks.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:34:40 +0000

Abortion is not like the death penalty, the war on Iraq, or alleviating poverty because on none of those other issues has the Pope spoken from a position of infallibility (as Catholics see it). On abortion and birth control he has—in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. Therefore, challenging the Church’s position on abortion is fundamentally different for a Catholic than challenging these other positions. And as far as whether the lawmakers are actually sinning, the Vatican’s 1974 Declaration on Abortion is explicit about the fact that they are: “A Christian can never conform to a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the licitness of abortion. Nor can a Christian take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application.” These legislators are doing exactly what the Declaration forbade them from doing. The bishop’s decision is certainly capricious and arbitrary, in the sense that a large number of his congregants undoubtedly support abortion and an even larger number have undoubtedly used birth control, yet they are still being allowed to receive communion. On the other hand, they have not been public in their support for abortion. It seems to me this is rougly analogous to prosecuting high-profile criminals in the expectation that it will send a message to everyone else.

By: Jim Flannery

Jim Flannery — Sun, 11 Jan 2004 06:09:33 +0000

I don’t buy this argument at all. It’s traditional to deny the sacraments to people living—if I remember the phrase correctly—“in an unregenerate state of sin”; that is, to people who are openly cohabitating out of wedlock, etc. This action is not punishing people who are sinning (there’s no implication that the lawmakers in question have themselves had abortions), but people who are defending the freedom of non-believers to follow their own moral codes (which might I suppose have been a sin back in Canaanite-smiting days, or even during the Reformation, but it’s sort of passe, isn’t it?). It’s not about separation of church and state because commentators don’t understand the concept; it’s about separation because these lawmakers are being punished for defending it.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:16:14 +0000

The Catholic Church has done this for years. My Assemblywomen in California was punished in this manner back in the 1980s, and Father Drinan had to leave the House of Representatives on Vatican orders. It is the nature of the Catholic Church. Other religious leaders have to resort to: no real Christian/Jew/Muslim would support your position.

By: cafl

cafl — Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:10:14 +0000

As one who was politically aware and a (then) practicing Catholic living in GWB’s part of the Bible Belt during the Kennedy presidential campaign of 1960, I notice a big difference in the stance taken by the Church then and now. Then, the Church spoke in support of Kennedy’s statements denying that he would “take orders from the Vatican”, as his anti-Catholic opponents alleged. Catholics and especially the hierarchy who might benefit in influence were not sure of their ability to achieve powerful national political offices. Now the Church flexes its muscles because it has far more political power.

By: Stefanie Murray

Stefanie Murray — Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:02:21 +0000

‘Catholic,’ not ‘Ctaholic,’ which is probably the word for a Lovecraft addict….

By: Stefanie Murray

Stefanie Murray — Sun, 11 Jan 2004 01:00:54 +0000

One of the main brickbats thrown at Kennedy’s presidential campaign was that, as a Ctaholic, he would be ‘taking orders from the Pope.’ Now it looks like this Bishop has it in mind to turn bigotry into fact.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:51:07 +0000

I was referring to all religions too, but I was also referring to Catholicism in particular. It may not be monolithic, but it does have a single, authoritative, in fact infallible head. That’s the nature of the Church. Encyclicals are not just papal editorials – they’re binding on Catholics. Aren’t they? So the Bishop’s move is that much less surprising. I think it’s despicable enough, but not at all astonishing.

By: Dedman

Dedman — Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:19:50 +0000

Terry, I wasn’t referring only to the Catholic church in my post above, but all faiths.