Reply
Wed 26 May, 2004 11:59 am
Archbishop enters communion debate
Had called voting against church teaching a sin
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- Communion should be withheld only in "extraordinary cases of public scandal," the archbishop of Denver said on Tuesday amid a growing national debate over religion, politics and voting.
Archbishop Charles Chaput, leader of Colorado's largest Roman Catholic diocese, said anyone committing a serious sin such as theft, lying or adultery should not take the sacrament, but "denying anyone communion is a very grave matter."
Chaput's comments, in the diocese's newspaper, came three weeks after a warning to Catholics from Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan. Sheridan said voting for a politician who contradicts church teaching on abortion, gay marriage or other issues was a mortal sin, "like robbing a local store."
Several U.S. bishops have issued warnings to Catholic lawmakers whose public positions contradict the church, but Sheridan was believed to be the first to expand that directive to voters this election year.(Legislators protest communion recommendation)
In April, Chaput wrote a column saying Catholic politicians who ignore church teachings about the sanctity of human life were offering a "dishonest public witness."
Diocese spokesman Sergio Gutierrez said Chaput's recent remarks did not contradict his earlier comments or Sheridan's.
"It's almost an explanation of Catholic theology, not a direct effort to influence voters by threatening them with loss of salvation," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Anna Quindlen in this week's Newsweek points out the selectivity (or partisanship) of the Catholic church on this issue. Her most telling example is the death penalty, which the church also opposes. There has been no call to deny communion to people who vote for legislators who support executions, which includes a lot of Republicans.
It's very simple - anyone and everyone who disagree with this church doctrine should withhold all donations to the church until they come to their senses.
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Chaput's comments, in the diocese's newspaper, came three weeks after a warning to Catholics from Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan. Sheridan said voting for a politician who contradicts church teaching on abortion, gay marriage or other issues was a mortal sin, "like robbing a local store."
Yesterday I had my History exams. There were some questions about "verzuiling" - see the quote below, I am not in the mood to explain it myself -, and this quote above seems to come straight out of this environment... which was 40 years ago, that is.
Quote:Verzuiling" was the name we gave to this social organisation. Dutch society was "pillarised", each group forming a pillar. The groups lived peacefully together, but without real contact. A Catholic could easily have Protestants as neighbours on both sides. Their kids could play together, but went to different schools and marriage between them was impossible. "Twee geloven op een kussen, daar slaapt de duivel tussen" or "Where two beliefs rest on one pillow, the devil sleeps in between", as the Dutch saying goes.
The Catholic would go to the Catholic baker two streets down, while the Protestant would go to the protestant baker one street up. Although geographically mixed, they were socially completely separated.
OK this may be unclear, so what I want to say with my post is that the Catholic Church, or at least this bishop, is using its/his power - it seems - to influence the voting of American Catholics. Newsflash: The US is a secular state...right?
Rick d'Israeli wrote:OK this may be unclear, so what I want to say with my post is that the Catholic Church, or at least this bishop, is using its/his power - it seems - to influence the voting of American Catholics. Newsflash: The US is a secular state...right?
It is no different than labor unions who try to influence their members to vote a certain way. Or any other group for that matter.
Separation of Labor Unions and State - Yeap, I remember that in the Constitution alright!
Like I said, if you are against your church doctrine - give them nothing.....
Catholic Church - against abortion because it reduces their pedophilic population
Oh come on Bill. Are you trying to say that just because one group has values based on a religious belief that they have no right to exert influence on members of their group when it comes to voting? What you want is not seperation of church and state. What you want is elimination of religious-minded people from politics. Sorry, but our government was founded on the basis of giving all a voice, even those who are religious.
Oh, and I agree with you in one respect. If you are against your church doctrine, give them nothing. In fact, why go to a church whose doctrine is offensive to you, unless it is just for show, in which case the church would probably be better off without you.
Federal tax law exempts churches and other charitable organizations from taxation provided they do not engage in certain activities, including any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
BillW hit the nail on the head there.
It's not a Church's right to tell people how they should vote that is being challenged, it is their right to tax-exempt status that is. A church that tells all it's constituents that they must vote Republican (and believe me, the pressure religions are able to assert is tremendous amongst the weak minded) is a Republican organization, simple as that. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a lot of the money donated to these churches comes from... that's right, Republican politicians and businessmen. You connect the dots.
I could care less what one group of nuts tells another group to do. I just don't want my tax dollars subsidizing it.
Cycloptichorn
But the problem here is not quite what you make it out. The church in this case is not campaigning for a specific candidate nor against a specific candidate. The Catholic church is telling their members not to vote for people whose values fall outside of the values of the church. Now I am not Catholic. But I truly do not see a problem here. They are not endorsing any specific candidate, nor are they saying vote republican or vote democratic. In effect, they are saying to vote for candidates who will fight for what you (and the church) believe in. So explain how that is violating the federal tax law concerning non-profits.
Cycloptichorn wrote: A church that tells all it's constituents that they must vote Republican (and believe me, the pressure religions are able to assert is tremendous amongst the weak minded) is a Republican organization, simple as that. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a lot of the money donated to these churches comes from... that's right, Republican politicians and businessmen.
Cycloptichorn
When did the Catholic Church tell anyone they were to vote "republican"? I missed that completely. Oh, and I bet a lot of money donated to churches comes from democratic politicians and businessmen also. So I don't understand the point of that part of your statement. But please, feel free to clear up that point if you wish.
Imagine if you will:
Religious leader: General statement about morality with respect to abortion, war, taxation, whatever.
Flock: yeah, we're cool with that.
Religious leader: Explanation of importance of morality in upcoming elections
Flock: yeah, we're cool with that too.
Religious leader: Stern reminder that those who forget their morality at the polls are going to hell
Flock: um. hmm. Well, we don't want that
Church and state seperation was set up exactly to stop this sort of low coercion. And don't try to tell me it doesn't go on, I've seen it with my own eye dozens, if not hundreds of times, in my parent's church.
Does it happen always? No. Will it happen sometime? Yes. Is it worth defending against? Yes.
Cycloptichorn
When did the Catholic Church tell anyone they were to vote "republican"? I missed that completely.
Anti-abortion stance. Simple as that. Guilt em into it, the Catholic way.
But, I really was thinking more of a general concept, not the Catholic church in general. Any of em could do it really. Though you should watch some televangelists sometime if you think churches don't tell people to vote republican, I've seen them come right out and say it...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Imagine if you will:
Religious leader: General statement about morality with respect to abortion, war, taxation, whatever.
Flock: yeah, we're cool with that.
Religious leader: Explanation of importance of morality in upcoming elections
Flock: yeah, we're cool with that too.
Religious leader: Stern reminder that those who forget their morality at the polls are going to hell
Flock: um. hmm. Well, we don't want that
Church and state seperation was set up exactly to stop this sort of low coercion. And don't try to tell me it doesn't go on, I've seen it with my own eye dozens, if not hundreds of times, in my parent's church.
Does it happen always? No. Will it happen sometime? Yes. Is it worth defending against? Yes.
Cycloptichorn
So, where have you been as democrats waltz into black churches to speak to members about voting the proper way? Or I guess that is alright because after all, the weak-minded flock somehow understands that just because a person in speaking from the pulpit with the blessing of the pastor does not constitute and endorsment of that candidate, right?
I have attended church regularly most of my life, and quite frankly, I have never had any situation as you describe occur. I would love to have a recording of a pastor telling people they will go to hell if they do not vote according to their morals. If one did, then he/she is sadly unknowledgable where it comes to salvation.
You seem to be stuck on a Republican/Democrat thing there CR. I'll stick to the facts - you look for advantages.........
BillW wrote:You seem to be stuck on a Republican/Democrat thing there CR. I'll stick to the facts - you look for advantages.........
I did not bring up the republican/democrat thing Bill. That was Cycloptichorn who decided to bring republicans into this fray. My point has been non-partisan except in the example of my last post. As long as a church/charitable organization is not campaigning for or against a specific candidate (or a specific party if you will) then I see nothing in the laws that say they cannot urge their members to vote for candidates whose values match their own. I happily leave out references to political parties here, just as the Catholic church did not to my knowledge specify a party or candidate to vote for (or against).
I don't think it's right if Republicans OR democrats do it. I think it's a serious problem in our society.
If your church didn't do that, great. I'm sure most of them don't. I'm sure most churches didn't try to control people's politics back in the days of our Consitituion. But the founders considered the seperation to be so important, they made it one of our basic rules. It must be guarded against, religion is simply much too powerful a tool for the control of the weak minded. You must consider the possiblity for abuses.
Cycloptichorn
Sorry, wasn't trying to lay blame CR. Agree that I do normally do that and was close here. I was really being simple and saying I was just presenting the facts and not trying to make a squeeze play on either party.
I have problems with the labor union issues also. BTW, when the radical elements of the right were the radical elements of the left back before the move in the 50's, 60's and 70's - the church was for the Dems that would change that faction to Rep!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace