I'm disappointed that the Kerry campaign couldn't or wouldn't engineer his being denied Communion. It's such an obvious ploy, and there's got to be some priest out here somewhere who'd love the attention such a denial would bring.

Has his campaign done anything that wasn't safe and controversy free (at least on the surface) and was deliberately designed to stir things up ? Then again, he does seem to be coasting to 45% and is within reach of winning it all if the polls are to be believed, so maybe it's not a bad strategy.

"The point is, according to the Archbishop of Chicago, that those who would exploit the Eucharist by turning it into a political protest are manifestly not rightly disposed to receive the Body of Christ."

How about those Bishops who would exploit the Eucharist by denying it to politicians, turning it into a political protest? Are they rightly disposed to serve the Body of Christ?

I am a practicing Catholic who attends mass regularily and intends to vote for Bush. But I can't begin to tell you all how disgusted I am with the heirachy's transparent, disingenuous attempts to influence this election. Of course they don't come out and say plainly that a vote for Kerry is a sin, they just (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) tell you how to vote in "good conscience". At least that's what we hear from the tiny minority of hard right bishops like Chaput. The vast majority of bishops agree with Gumbleton who says its perfectly OK to vote for Kerry.

Forget about that pedophile plank in their own eyes, all the right wing bishops can see is the mote in the voters eyes. And of course they aren't really endorsing Bush or any other candidate, that would violate the separation of church and state and cause them to lose their tax exempt status - heaven forbid! Yeah right.

I may vote for Kerry just to spite the bastards.

"I may vote for Kerry just to spite the bastards"

I think you should Daniel.

Daniel--

As I understand it, the Catholic Church's teachings are very firm on abortion, and especially on advocacy of it. Communion is not to be served to those who advocate mortal sins unrepentantly. Is a priest supposed to ignore someone who flaunts his rejection of Catholicism so blatantly?

And of course they aren't really endorsing Bush or any other candidate, that would violate the separation of church and state and cause them to lose their tax exempt status - heaven forbid! Yeah right.

Ahem. "Any other candidate?" Last I saw, black churches are perfectly able to campaign for and endorse Democratic candidates without the IRS doing anything. It's only when it's Republicans being supported that anyone complains.

Gumbleton? Gumbleton? He's a friggin Sandanista. Half the American Catholic hierarchy is Sandanista limp-wrists. If we had a healthy Pope who gave two sh*ts about America, they'd all be invited to Rome and beheaded.

Mr. Thacker: At the risk of defending Kerry, at no time has he ever "advocated" abortion. Though the church has always considered abortion to be a grevious sin, it has not always considered it to be homicide (do a Google on the concept of "ensoulment").

Mr. Gooding: So you would like to have liberal bishops beheaded? I guess burning people alive is so 15th century. BTW does this mean that you follow only those bishops whose views coincide with yours? That's not very consistent of you now is it.

Remember, Chaput, et al, are only a tiny minority of American bishops. Right wing bishops and their cannon lawyer just got bitch slapped by the Vatican over their false claim that Kerry is automatically excommunicated. The shrillness and bitterness of Rad Trad prounouncements are in direct proportion to their lack of numbers and influence.

Two things you Rad Trads fail to understand is that we live in the "United States of America", not the "Catholic States of America", and we live in a democracy not a theocracy. Newsflash: while murder is universally considered to be a crime, not every religion believes abortion to be murder. Kerry is right, we have no right to impose our views on this issue by legistlation.

If you want to end abortion, rely on prayer. You do believe in the power of prayer to change men's hearts don't you?

While murder is universally considered to be a crime, not every religion believes abortion to be murder. Kerry is right, we have no right to impose our views on this issue by legistlation.

Not everyone who believes abortion to be murder or a crime is religious, either. Nat Hentoff certainly isn't.

Are you suggesting that if someone starts a religion where murder isn't considered a crime, then it could no longer be banned?

Kerry explicitly stated that his support for anti-proverty initiatives and environmental legislation stems from his belief in Catholic teachings. While this is questionable, does this then mean that he should avoid impose those religiously-inspired beliefs of his on everyone else?

It's indisputable that the slavery movement was religiously inspired, as was the civil rights movement. Yet, not every religion condemns slavery. Clearly, then, it was wrong for the abolitionists to impose their religiously-inspired beliefs on everyone else, then, by your logic.

What a moral cretin.

That's "anti-slavery movement," of course.

It requires not at all Catholic or even religious faith to oppose abortion, and believe that it is murder. Yes, many people's opposition flows from that, but equally so did opposition to slavery and discrimination.

Definition of "homophobe":

Anyone who didn't drop his pants, bend over, and grease his bunghole for MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Are you suggesting that if someone starts a religion where murder isn't considered a crime, then it could no longer be banned?

No, the issue here is what is defined as "murder" not murder itself since murder is universally recognized as a crime. And if abortion is clasified as "murder" it logically follows that miscarriage is "manslaughter" or "negligent homicide" - at least until a police investigation clears the mother of wrongful behavior. Do you want every miscarraige to be investigated by the police for possible wrong doing?

Kerry explicitly stated that his support for anti-proverty initiatives and environmental legislation stems from his belief in Catholic teachings. While this is questionable, does this then mean that he should avoid impose those religiously-inspired beliefs of his on everyone else?

Has he advocated getting an abortion in the same manner as he has advogated anti-poverty and environmental legislation? If not,then I guess there is no grounds for excommunication.

It's indisputable that the slavery movement was religiously inspired, as was the civil rights movement. Yet, not every religion condemns slavery. Clearly, then, it was wrong for the abolitionists to impose their religiously-inspired beliefs on everyone else, then, by your logic.

Actually they didn't. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued to keep European powers like Britain out of the war.

As for the Church, it doesn't have a history of noble opposition to slavery. Years after Lincoln freed the slaves, and Tsar Alexander freed the serfs, the Church still saw nothing wrong with slavery.

In 1866 the Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law...The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a "particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions," and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.

The reference to being "put up for sale" clearly shows that the statement approved of traditional chattel slavery, not just involuntary servitude for crimes.

Dan: I want bishops with the stones to be Catholic, not preening emasculated lickspittles to the socialist Left. Christ, half the American bishops are basically Unitarians.

Well Mr. Gooding, your obvious gay bashing comments make you a fine example of right-wing Catholicism, right up there with Fr. Caughlin and Fr. Feeney. Pity you can't act like a loving, compassionate Christian. But then the two are not compatible since Rad Trads prefer to act like Pharisees instead of following Christ's example.

Besides, if you want to get rid of limp wrists and emasculated lickspittles there is a simple solution. Get rid of mandatory celibacy. Granted, celibacy doesn't cause pedophilia (or more accurately ephibophilia). However, gays tend to gravitate towards all-male institutions such as English boarding schools or the Catholic Church.

Dan: no problem here with homosexuals in the hierarchy; don't think they're a good fit at the parish level given the stats of the recent scandals toward abusing boys over, say, girls.

But the culture of militant gayness marches in lockstep with the secularists and their refusal to take a moral stand on anything. Limp wrists are signalling their open-mindedness and willingness to do or say anything to fit in with the culture that accepts their open and active sexual preferences rather than the culture of the Church they ostensibly serve.

Mr. Duffy: The bishops aren't speaking about what one must do to vote in "good conscience", they're talking about what one must do to take Communion in such a state. Do you think that the Church hierarchy is not allowed to teach what the faithful should be doing to follow the faith?

Heck, if you want to be cynical about it, vote for Kerry, and then go to confession.

"Kerry is right, we have no right to impose our views on this issue by legistlation." Sigh. You really believe that no voter or legislator is permitted to vote based on his or her religious beliefs (including atheism, of course)? So what exactly is an acceptable basis for holding political opinions?

Mr. Gooding: How are gay priest going to make it into the heirarchy if they don't work their way through the ranks as parish priests? If we must "judge a tree by the fruit it bears" then we must rank celibacy as a great self inflicted evil, doing more damage to the church over the centuries than any persecution.

Brian: Let me repeat the heirarchy is not telling us how to vote (or as you put it, take communion). It's a handful, a tiny minority of right wing bishops - who do not speak for the Church, who are doing this. For the majority view see:

http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/egumb20_20041020.htm

and

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004d/102204/102204s.htm

Dan: the problem of advancement in the Church for celibate homosexuals is simply not a "problem" in my book. I just do not give a tinker's damn. That being said, there are routes through the Vatican bureaucracy, etc. that might get them interesting and influential positions, as well as the infrastructure of the Church in the world, such as cannon lawyering, even PR spokeman.

Unfortunately, you are correct that most bishops would never tell their congregants to vote for Life. Here in Michigan, our Catholic governor holds Kerry's exact position on abortion and her parish priest sent around a letter justifying her position; he received no public rebuke from his bishop. The Catholic Church in America is more than willing to overlook the murder of 40 million kids if their tax-status is threatened.

her parish priest sent around a letter justifying her position; he received no public rebuke from his bishop.

So you're a faithful and obedient son of the Church - except when you disagree with it? If anyone is a "cafeteria Cathoic" these days it's the Rad Trads.