Communion ban on lawmakers who back abortion starts furor

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | January 11, 2004 | Juliet Williams (A.P.)

[Holly_P]

MILWAUKEE -- A Roman Catholic bishop who waded into politics with a decree that lawmakers who support abortion rights can no longer receive holy communion has ignited a debate over the separation of church and state.

Bishop Raymond Burke of La Crosse cited Vatican doctrine, canon law and teachings by the U.S. bishops in an announcement telling diocesan priests to withhold communion from such lawmakers until they ''publicly renounce'' their support of abortion rights.

''This is about as stark a decree to come down against Catholic politicians as we've seen in recent history,'' said Barry Lynn, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

''The problem with it is that elected officials have to represent people of all faiths and none, and not adhere to one religious demand like the bishop's,'' he said.

Pope John Paul II appointed Burke, 55, archbishop of St. Louis in December. Burke signed the decree in November, when he still had the authority to do so, but it was not made public until Thursday.

Burke is to be installed in St. Louis on Jan. 26 -- raising concerns among opponents that he may issue the same decree there.

The Vatican and U.S. bishops have urged Catholic legislators to consider their faith when they vote, and a task force is weighing whether to recommend sanctions for Catholic politicians who support policies contrary to church teachings.

In November, Burke wrote letters to at least three Catholic lawmakers, telling them they risked being forbidden from taking the sacrament by continuing to vote for measures he termed anti-life, including abortion and euthanasia.

Democratic U.S. Rep. David Obey, who received a letter from Burke, said Friday that he respects the sacred oath he took to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Obey said Burke can instruct him on faith and morals in his private life, but should use ''persuasion, not dictation'' to affect his political votes.

He said Burke had ''crossed the line.''

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

"The problem with it is that elected officials have to represent people of all faiths and none..."

And those who publicly advocate against the doctrines of their own faith have none.

[muir_redwoods]

If you don't like the rules, don't join the "club" Any faith has the right to make it's own rules. Some churches might vote other have an authority the speaks ex cathedra. If you don't like it, do what Dr. Dean did and join another church.

[Holly_P]

Thank you for the information contained in the first paragraph of your reply.`

I am looking for articles about Protestant leaders condemning the stance of pro abortion politicians.

"Protestant" is a big umbrella and covers many different denominations and as such, leaders don't have a way to tell Protestant politicains to align themselves with Church teachings.

If you have any links to articles where Protestant leaders are condemning pro abortionist politicians. I would appreciate them. Thanks, Holly

[GirlShortstop]

MILWAUKEE -- A Roman Catholic bishop who waded into politics with...

Very difficult to proceed through the article when the first line is as spurious as this.  The good bishop is performing his appointed duty; that's not politics!

[Dan Evans]

Apparently, you can't have your cake and eat it too anymore.

Hey, good one.

[onedoug]

God didn't say, "I put before you this day, Life, Death and politics."

"Therefore," He did say, "Choose Life."

[Freeper john]

I'm Henry The Eighth, I Am
Herman's Hermits

(Murray/Weston)
- written in 1911
- popularized in England by Harry Champion

I'm Henry the eighth I am
Henry the eighth I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the eighth I am

Second verse same as the first

[nightdriver]

"Any faith has the right to make it's own rules."

We might think so, however, there are many churches which might not believe that after being forced to hire homosexuals on their staffs. Then there is that church in Kansas who kicked out a member for a morals charge and were successfully sued by same when the court decided that it had authority over who the church could have as members.

It looks like "separation of church and state" only goes one way.

[e5man_r_u?]

Exactly!

If you cannot or will not accept the ex cathedra teaching of the Catholic Church you have no right to call yourself a Catholic for political gain.

They can call themselves lapsed Catholics as some do. They can find a congregationalist church somewhere that believes as they do.

[agite rem mente]

And Mr. Harkin and Mr. Durbin and Ms Landrieu and the lady from Wash. state

[OpusatFR]

" Obey said Burke can instruct him on faith and morals in his private life, but should use ''persuasion, not dictation'' to affect his political votes."

If he thinks the Bishop's instructions conflict with his beliefs in public, like a good pharisee, he should find another religion.

[arasina]

This isn't the first time a Catholic bishop has "waded into politics" ---

Tom Daschle's Duty to Be Morally Coherent
A Weekly Standard Exclusive: The Senate minority leader is ordered to stop calling himself a Catholic.
by J. Bottum
04/17/2003 12:00:00 PM

TOM DASCHLE may no longer call himself a Catholic. The Senate minority leader and the highest ranking Democrat in Washington has been sent a letter by his home diocese of Sioux Falls, sources in South Dakota have told The Weekly Standard, directing him to remove from his congressional biography and campaign documents all references to his standing as a member of the Catholic Church.

This isn't exactly excommunication--which is unnecessary, in any case, since Daschle made himself ineligible for communion almost 20 years ago with his divorce and remarriage to a Washington lobbyist. The directive from Sioux Falls' Bishop Robert Carlson is rather something less than excommunication--and, at the same time, something more: a declaration that Tom Daschle's religious identification constitutes, in technical Catholic vocabulary, a grave public scandal. He was brought up as a Catholic, and he may still be in some sort of genuine mental and spiritual relation to the Church. Who besides his confessor could say? But Daschle's consistent political opposition to Catholic teachings on moral issues--abortion, in particular--has made him such a problem for ordinary churchgoers that the Church must deny him the use of the word "Catholic." <--snip-->

Tom Daschle's Duty to Be Morally Coherent

If there is any "separation of church and state" to be done here, it is on the part of the politicians who use their so-called Catholicism to garner votes.

[Grut]

They can find a congregationalist church somewhere that believes as they do.

Episcopalian, actually. Otherwise known as "Red Door Catholics."

[Blue Collar Christian]

"...a new church..."

Henry the 8th did it for his convenience, this is nothing new. He couldn't get permission from The Churh to divorce, so he formed THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, if I remember correctly.

[e5man_r_u?]

Which is why I converted to the Catholic Chuch.

[NonValueAdded]

[he] did it for his convenience ... exactly, so what is to make us think his crop of politicians won't seek a similar convenience from their church? I realize we won't see a new religion start up soon. Or will we? Look at what is happening with the Episcopalians. It is convenient to exempt ones views from God's law.

[Montfort]

I loved this story, but then realized that that this principle could be applied to other issues, as well. The Pope was pretty clearly against US action in Iraq, and the Catholic Church has been firmly and unquivocally opposed to the death penalty for some time now (so it is not merely a difference of opinion having to do with one Pope). What if an elected official is exluded from communion for voting for miltary action in Iraq or for voting for a federal death penalty statute, or for voting against abolishing the death penalty? I am not saying that the Church cannot do this, but simply that this principle is a two-edged sword.

[BlessedBeGod]

The Pope was pretty clearly against US action in Iraq, and the Catholic Church has been firmly and unquivocally opposed to the death penalty for some time now (so it is not merely a difference of opinion having to do with one Pope). What if an elected official is exluded from communion for voting for miltary action in Iraq or for voting for a federal death penalty statute, or for voting against abolishing the death penalty?

Can't happen. None of those things are doctrine. Abortion is, so the bishop had a perfect right to do what he did.

[Barnacle]

If only the German Bishops had been this courageous 70 years ago.

The tragic truth is that there are little Auschwitzes spread across this great nation. And, they have killed more people than all the Nazi concentration camps combined.

We call it “women’s rights”. But, since when is it moral to bestow the right to a woman or a man to kill another human?

[edwin hubble]

"What does this have to do with separation of church and state? The government isn't telling the pols they can't be Catholic and be pro-abortion -- the Catholic Church is."

It is about the 1st amendment right to free association. The private group can define its membership. The Catholic Church is a private group that opposes abortion. Those who don't oppose abortion are not members.
This kind of mistake is made by the media all the time.

They don't have a church-state problem with positions they approve of....they forget that the civil rights movement was led by churches.