Whaddaya mean I can't take communion?!? There's a Federal lawsuit in the making here...
Posted on 05/22/2004 1:19:08 AM PDT by Notwithstanding
Do churches have the right to determine who are members in good standing? The answer seems obvious, but now we are being told that there is a category of people to whom that does not apply. They are, of course, politicians. Several bishops have raised the possibility of denying communion to public officials who support abortion. (Those who call themselves "Vatican II Catholics" might recall that that venerable council called abortion "an abominable crime.")
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicexchange.com ...
The objection is that this violates the principle of separation of church and state, in that Church officials are dictating how politicians must vote. But that is not precise. I know of no bishop who has simply instructed someone to vote a particular way. Instead they warn that, if a public official votes a certain way, certain consequences may follow. This is merely a fact of life.
All our actions have consequences, including some we might not want. Politicians are not entitled to a free ride. Those who criticize the bishops themselves violate the separation of church and state by in effect telling the bishops who is a member of the Church in good standing. Should plumbers, bank presidents, and computer programmers, but not politicians, be subject to ecclesiastical discipline? Denying bishops that authority seriously diminishes the freedom of the Church.
Sharon Davis, wife of the former governor of California who was once (only once) denied communion, used the recent pro-abortion rally in Washington to urge Catholic women to refuse to receive communion, as an act of protest. I think she may have it right.
Catholic politicians who support abortion say that their consciences require them to do so. That implies that Catholic teaching on the subject is simply wrong, and those politicians should cease the pious fraud of claiming to be "personally opposed." (The Catholic mayor of San Francisco has rattled off a whole list of Catholic teachings from which he has "liberated" himself.) Such people should admit publicly, "I’m really not a Catholic, and it is hypocritical for me to pretend that I am." But they are more than eager to profess their Catholicism if they think it brings political advantage.
Much of the criticism of bishops is itself hypocritical.
When Pope John Paul II came to St. Louis in 1999, he made a plea for a man on death row, and the governor (who was not a Catholic) commuted the sentence. There was no outcry over separation of church and state. Another dramatic incident has been shoved down the memory hole because to recall it now would be inconvenient. In 1962 the archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated several Catholic politicians for their unyielding defense of racial segregation. The resistance began to crumble and [progressives] praised the archbishop for his courage.
[They] have not, in the meantime, had second thoughts about religion and public life. Rather, the issues have changed. Some [on the left] ask whether the bishops are going to deny communion to those who support the death penalty. They make it clear that they would approve if this were done. In the end their complaint comes down to: "You’re not supporting our agenda."
Catholic politicians who support abortion claim they cannot impose their own views on the public. But this is disingenuous. All polls show the country split down the middle on the issue, with a solid majority in favor of banning partial-birth abortions. Whenever a politician takes a position, he is favoring one part of his constituency over another.
This is an especially acute issue for the Democratic Party, because there has been a substantial leakage of voters over the "social issues," especially abortion, and the party has been willing to let those people go almost without a fight. Although most blacks vote Democratic, polls also show blacks more opposed to abortion than are whites. There are ample grounds for pro-life politicians to say, "I’m just responding to the will of the people."
(Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis University. This article adapted from the Arlington Catholic Herald.)
please ping
They absolutely have the right to dictate and excommunicate and it's about time they did. What good is religion if it is not practiced in the public square? That is where it is most needed!
Exactly.
Church is separate from state. The State should not threaten the church. The church can do whatever it wants to do within the laws.
snip: Catholic politicians who support abortion claim they cannot impose their own views on the public. But this is disingenuous. All polls show the country split down the middle on the issue
This doesn't look split down the middle to me:
Zogby International April 15-17, 2004 N=1,209 +/- 2.8%
Which of the following statements most closely describes your own position on the issue of abortion?
Abortions never legal 18%
Abortions legal only when the life of the mother is in danger 15%
Abortions legal only when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape or incest 23%
Abortions legal for any reason during first 3 months 25%
Abortions legal for any reason during the first 6 months 4%
Abortions legal for any reason at any time during a woman’s pregnancy 13%
DN/refused 2%
And, all of us had better work hard to see that the Church remains separate from the state because there are leftists among us who want full control of all our institutions which, under their control, would lose all meaning and would be used only to secure their power over our citizens.
well said.
The action is "right"; the motive is wrong. How can any catholic in good conscience support the murder of innocent children, and feel justified to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord ... UNLESS ... they don't actually believe in the Real Presence. Perhaps, what we are really witnessing, is the blossoming of the 'unbeliever'. Perhaps the question to those catholics who support abortion as a 'right', should be "Do you believe in the Real Presence"?
It is unimaginable that a 'believing' catholic could stare Our Lord in the face and say - "I support the murder of innocent children". And judging from the way I have seen some catholics receive communion, that sacred host might just as well be an oreo cookie.
If "the church" continues to be defined as an organization, and no one fights against that, then you will be brought under control and ultimately dominated by "the state".
The only "separation" between church and state is in the first amendment. That amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohiiting the free exercise thereof."
There is no law restricting the power of the church to excommunicate whomever it chooses. The only power to restict this is wielded by politicians threatening the church with unwanted negative publicity.
This whole issue is simply about bad publicity, and the power of people like Gigolo John Kerry to intimidate others with the threat of it. If the church allows itself to be intimidated here, it's because it has lost its moral compass. It's that simple.
Whaddaya mean I can't take communion?!? There's a Federal lawsuit in the making here...
Back in the good old days, religion was something between a person and his God. Now it is paracticed in the public square and also by suicide bombers.
My objection to the politicians actions is that it violates their conscience, a much higher standard that church/state issues.
Is abortion so precious? Is death so sweet? As for these politicians, give them abortion or give them death?
All citizens have the right to associate with whomesoever they choose, and to exclude those they choose not to associate with.
This is a right much trampled on, and in need of restoration.
Zogby International April 15-17, 2004 N=1,209 +/- 2.8%
Which of the following statements most closely describes your own position on the issue of abortion?
Abortions never legal 18%
Abortions legal only when the life of the mother is in danger 15%
They have to be kidding, 15% of the people who responded want women to die from a bad pregnancy??
How many irrational/criminal minds and their enablers have infiltrated/infested/devalued/destroyed life itself? Hundreds of millions.
It is unimaginable that a 'believing' catholic could stare Our Lord in the face and say - "I support the murder of innocent children". >>>
Not at all unimaginable. I'm sure it happens all the time. To which the Lord God of Justice has a habit of replying, "Well, you can go to hell...."
And HE doesn't intend it as a mere figure of speech....
Would you let Bill Clinton walk into YOUR house?
They have to be kidding, 15% of the people who responded want women to die from a bad pregnancy??>>>
There is *no such thing* as a bad pregnancy--only evil doctors.
Uninvited at 2Am, sure I would...
Yet when the church becomes inconvenient for them, they are the first to tell the church how they should or should not speak the word of God.
In my view, these 48 House Democrats have crossed a line. They have attempted to tell God's shepherds how to preach the Word of God to the world. That is not the job of the government. These politicians are in danger of God's judgment here.
There's an old joke that goes something like this: At a church leadership convention, a Baptist minister, a Methodist minister and an Episcopal priest are talking about an annoying problem they each have had to deal with: bats in the belfry. The Baptist minister said he tried to use a shotgun, but all he accomplished was to put a lot of little holes in the belfry. The Methodist minister said he live-trapped them all, drove way out into the country and released them, but they all flew back faster than a bat out of you-know-where. The Episcopal priest said he solve the problem: he baptized the bats, had them confirmed, and he hasn't seen them since.
It is a matter of man thinking he can dictate to God. If you believe one way and vote another you are a liar and a hypocrite.
The problem with all of our politicians is that they think they are above the law both God and mans and for most part they are.The sad part about all of this is the number of Americans that are too stupid to see through these "smoking mirrors".
If you can't tell the difference between a Catholic priest trying to protect human life and a suicide bomber trying to take it, then I don't know what to say.
That's exactly right! Very astute observation!
Back in the good old days, religion was something between a person and his God. Now it is paracticed in the public square and also by suicide bombers.
Zack: If you can't tell the difference between a Catholic priest trying to protect human life and a suicide bomber trying to take it, then I don't know what to say.>>>
Well I do, it's two words long and the second word is "you."
It seems pretty simple to me...
If you refuse to follow the dicates of an organization that you "belong to," yet publicly claim to be a member (in good standing) of that organization, but publicly proclaim that you don't agree with, and refuse to follow those dicates, then that organization has the right to publicly denounce you.
If one publicly disagrees with one's church, then that church has the right to disagree with, censure, or denounce that person.
More importantly, nobody's holding a gun to his head to stay Catholic. If he doesn't believe in the teaching of Catholicism (sp?), then convert to some other religion. Of course, that might be bad, politically.
It reminds me of a line from a movie...
(son) But Dad! You don't even believe in G-d!
(dad) Well, that doesn't stop me from being a good Catholic.
Mark
Do churches have the right to determine who are members in good standing?
Hey, no need to get nasty. Did I misunderstand what you were trying to say? It sounded like you were comparing Christianity having an influence in the public square with Islamic extremist suicide bombers. Was that not the case?
I've always wondered about this... More importantly, given EEOC requirements, what about if a satan worshiper wanted to get a job at a Catholic church? If that person began to do things that offended the other workers, could that person be fired?
Something like this actually happened to a synagogue that I used to belong to. One of the office workers was Wiccan, and she was continually using the Internet for her own purposes, against Temple policy (no personal use). Eventually, she was fired for breaking policies (not just that one), and she did threaten a law suit, but she never did.
Even better, what about if a klan memeber wanted a job at the NAACP?
Mark
HE doesn't worry about law suits either - I don't think.
God will take care of them in His own good time. As long as they're here, the good of the country is for Ceasar to take care of, and seeing as how this is supposed to be a self-governing nation, I believe that's us.
God wants all people to repent. Therefore he has a lot of patience. In any case, its not for us to decide when God does what he does. But based on my reading of the Bible, God is not pleased with those who presume to tell the church how to preach.
The people I speak of see themselves in a mirror while smoking pot. Either case they are deceiving themselves and the public see it as looking through smoke at a mirror.
Either case it is an hallucination.
Defenders of the Faith Info Bing!!
Non-Catholic, keep your membership rolls current and practice church discipline, let the politicians eat dirt and give them over to the world unless they too repent bump!
Hey, Zack, I was agreeing with YOU, not with HIM. He is not me and ye are not me and me are not he.
Goo goo goo joob! :0)
If the church really believes what it teaches, it would excommunicate those who don't fall in line. Churches that don't enforce their beliefs are hypocrites.
Someone forgot to tell this to John the Baptist.
Exactly! Where is the media outcry... you have 48 politicians who are using their public office to try to influence church teachings... and that's okay??? They are using taxpayer funds to debate issues of Catholicism, and no one even comments (of course, that is only because they are on the liberal side... let's see them use taxpayer funds to support a Church issue and watch the media pounce). I think a terse reply from the bishops noting the separation of church and state, and alerting these politicians that their views are not entitled to special weight in the Church because they are expressed on House of Representatives letterhead, might be in order.
Bingo! Go HERE to read my last article on the subject of the the Church's right to defend her doctrine.
Well pardon me! I misunderstood your post, I think.
Nsturally, this is much too logical. Of course, the obvious solution would be for the recalcitrant politician/member to simply head for a denomination that allowed the mindset they demand; or even to start up their own if they don't find any of the existing denominations to their liking (what's not to like about Unitarian Uninversalism?). But since they are not interested in this, and determined only to BEND THE CHURCH TO THEIR WILL, it will never happen.
Many politicians of whatever religious stripe have such exaggerated and exalted opinions of their power and influence, that, not having any personal relationship with their Creator for most of their lives, tend to think that He can be manipulated by threats.
But the Creator in question keeps very short accounts, and there is not going to be much opportunity for backpedaling or excuse-making when the politician's day of judgment arrives.
I've wondered, myself, but I think, in an honest court, that the right of the Church to defend herself would more or less supercede the individual's right to defy the rules of that Church.
1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Proverbs 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.
Personally, I don't see how on earth it violates separation of church and state by addressing the actions of a parishioner. These politicians are members of a church that holds specific beliefs, they aren't just random folks out there getting offended at the views of some religious entity. They just happen to be politicians - that should NOT be cover for their actions. Do they get to violate every church tenet and claim separation of church and state? Hardly. In the eyes of their respective churches, and in the eyes of God for that matter, they aren't politicians at all, but people simply violating the law of God. Their profession means nothing to that end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.