May 20, 2004
DEMOCRATS VS. RELIGION:
Democrats Criticize Denial of Communion by Bishops (LAURIE GOODSTEIN, 5/20/04, NY Times)
Forty-eight Roman Catholic members of Congress who are Democrats have signed a letter to the cardinal archbishop of Washington, D.C., saying the threats by some bishops to deny communion to politicians who support abortion rights were "deeply hurtful," counterproductive and "miring the Church in partisan politics."The letter is the first organized counter-punch by Democratic legislators since a handful of Catholic bishops set off an uproar in the church by declaring that they would withhold communion from politicians who favor abortion rights.
The Democrats haven't figured out yet that Sister Boom-Boom isn't actually a theologian. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 20, 2004 8:15 AM
It's not partisan. Republicans who play this game should be so sanctioned as well.
Posted by: Chris at May 20, 2004 10:12 AMIf the church acutally held back communion in
all cases traditionally required. Probably
less than 5% of parishioners would be receiving.
The real test of this 'battle' will be if there are more voters who don't like hypocrites than voters who don't like religion (in general). The Democrats are betting on the latter.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 20, 2004 11:58 AMI say "more power" to the Catholic church on this matter. The Church has every right to expect certain conduct from its members, and to deny sacraments to non-compliers. That is what Freedom of Religion means. The politicians are free to belong to the Church or to leave the Church, and to vote on legislation in accordance with their political interest. That is also what Freedom of Religion means. What they can't do is complain that the Church is punishing them for their votes. Freedom means that there are choices to be made, and consequences for choices.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 20, 2004 2:15 PMI wonder what bizarre reasoning an activist judge will use to decide that the Church should be required to extend the sacraments to everyone, whether the recipients' beliefs and actions conform to Church doctrine or not. Public accommodation?
Posted by: Charlie at May 20, 2004 3:46 PMAny judge who would be so inclined would have to know that such a ruling would ensure a 55% vote for Bush, along with at least 6 to 8 new Republican Senators.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 21, 2004 12:07 PMJ.H.: The number of "traditionally required" crimes are relatively few. If we include -- as I would -- the old tradition of denying the sacraments to those who procure or perform abortions, pretty much the only ones I can remember otherwise are open heretics or schismatics, blasphemers, mass murderers (of a certain scope and disposition), priests who break their vows and don't repent, and, this one is debatable (or more accurately, I can't remember), divorce's (and divorce'es) who remarry. I think we can safely assume that while 25-50% of American Catholics do the first, I find it unlikely that the remaining 45-70% do the others.
Posted by: Chris at May 22, 2004 10:23 PM