I can’t tell how far this story has got out of Wisconsin, but it is pretty amusing. Bishop Burke of La Crosse has issued a statement denying communion to legislators who vote pro-choice. You can imagine that quasi-Catholic legislators are annoyed, and so are their Democratic colleagues. There’s been lots of nonsense on the radio about the threat to separation of church and state, revealing that people really don’t understand the point of separation, which is to protect religious believers from discrimination by the state and other faiths, not to protect them from their own church (we have laws against murder, etc, to do that). The legislators are free to leave the church if they disagree with it, or if they want to take a job which requires them to act against its policies. Burke is simply illuminating the reality of the choice. Good luck to him.
Well said. Churches are not democracies. If the clergy are irked by politicians who purport to be members of a particular faith but who vote against the tenets of the faith, why not refuse them the benefits of the faith? Seems pretty straightforward to me . . .
Yup. It’s not just the separation of church and state that is misunderstood, it’s also religion and religions. The Catholic church is decidedly not a democratic or non-hierarchical or anti-elitist or responsive or bottom-up or consensual or anti-authoritarian or egalitarian institution. It never has been. That may be one bit of fall-out from the current Received Wisdom that religion is always and everywhere benign, helpful, loving, cuddly, warm & fuzzy, touchy-feely, happy-clappy, and that the Pope is just a swell old geezer: people lose the awareness of how very coercive religion can be.
For some reason, I remember getting into a long discussion with someone on this about a year ago; something to do with Tom Daschle and his relationship with the Catholic Church.
When it comes to the death penalty, alleviating poverty, voting against an unjust war, and all the other reasons that a legislator could be at variance with the Church, it boils down to “selective enforcement”.
Exactly. That’s a point Richard Dawkins makes about religion and morality. People like to conflate the two, but the fact is, we pick and choose which bits of religious morality we agree with and which we don’t. We don’t fret much about Leviticus, on the whole. Therefore, the basis of our morality is something external to religion, not internal to it. And yet politicians insist on talking as if the two were inextricable. Extricable is exactly what they are.
“The legislators are free to leave the church if they disagree with it.”
Absolutely. That also goes for any Catholic US legislator who supports the death penalty,which I feel certain this godfearing Bishop will condemn equally in a matter of moments. Life is life, right? And the seamless fabric concept still applies in the Mother Church? Let’s hope not, or else this would be a vile political game that guarantees a downward trip, not an upward one, for that Bishop as far as I can tell, when the day comes. Perhaps he should rethink.
I find this rather despicable, actually. There are numerous political policies on either side of the aisle which are in direct opposition to church stances (see the Church’s take on the death penalty, the war in Iraq, etc.). It’s not that the Bishop doesn’t have the right to deny communion, but that he’s really making a political statement here, not a religious one. There is no reason that you cannot see abortion as despicable, but still believe that making it illegal would, in the long run, cause more anguish than it would prevent.
One of the reasons that I’ve always admired the Catholic Church is that, despite it’s dictatorial appearance, it’s always been made up of people who disagree about all but the most fundamental aspects of faith and have spent 2000 years arguing about what the Bible really means.
Consider, for example, the different holy orders. If the church was truly monolithic, there wouldn’t be more than one order of priests or nuns. However, the numerous holy orders are basically made up of those who believe that they are following the correct path of service. If you don’t believe me, you should meet my former priest who loves nothing more than to trash on the ancient Aidan-inspired Irish Catholics and those “pinheaded” Jesuits.
Dedman,
I should also point out that being “pro-life” is not, exactly, a tenet of the faith, but rather a policy stance. The tenets, the things I have to believe in order to be a Catholic (and I am), are included in the Nicene Creed. The Catechism, on the other hand, is a document which is changing and is about how the Church views the faith now.
Would it have been right, therefore, for the Pope to have denied communion to those who refused to blame Jews for the death of Christ before Vatican II softened the Church’s stance on the subject?
Terry, I wasn’t referring only to the Catholic church in my post above, but all faiths.
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.
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.
‘Catholic,’ not ‘Ctaholic,’ which is probably the word for a Lovecraft addict….
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“getter” should be “better”
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.
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.
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.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review