The Bishop and the Kennedy: Michael David
Patrick Kennedy revealed last week that Bishop Thomas Tobin has asked him to not receive communion, back in 2007, due to his support for abortion rights. Kennedy felt the need to make this public because the Catholic Bishops have recently taken a stance against health care reform based on the fear that federal dollars will pay for abortions. To me this is a typical grandstand move by a politician and comes as no great shock. If Kennedy’s beliefs do not line up with the RC Church then he should leave the church, it is a pretty simple decision. If you are pro-choice you cannot pretend that your faith and politics do not collide, they do. If this was a private request, Kennedy could have easily kept it so while still questioning the political stand being taken by the hypocrites that are the Catholic Bishops. Kennedy’s denial of communion is completely irrelevant to the health care debate and seems like a way to garner some media attention. Yes it does show willy nilly stances that the Catholic Church takes, but that is no surprise to anyone. As far as this bishop is concerned, I wonder if he will be denying communion to any involved in aiding and abetting child rapists or those who committed the horrific acts, any supporting aggressive wars, and any supporters of the death penalty. I doubt he will. As far as the Catholic Bishops making a political stance against health care, I find it sickening that a group of people who spit on the laws of this country at every turn feel they have the right to push their politics through religion. Pay all the taxes the rest of us do, then you can participate politically, until then spread your faith not your politics, that goes for all churches left and right.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I agree with almost all of this post, especially the end of it. One thing I would add though; isn’t it possible for Kennedy to be personally pro-life, consistent with his religious beliefs and the teachings of the church, but politically be pro-choice, since he doesn’t think it is appropriate for government to be involved in such a decision?
The selectivity of the bishops as when communion is served to people who have contrary views is rather inconsistent and appears to be a slippery slope. Isn’t the logical extreme that if a politician does not push for the teachings of the church as law of the United States, he or she could be denied communion, regardless of their personal beliefs?
This is a poor choice by the bishop.
I find all this very hard. I am catholic but also very liberal. I enjoy most aspects of my faith. I however according to the catholic church shoud not recieve Communion for a bunch of reasons. One being here in St. Louis the old arch bishop said if you vote democrate you should not recieve communion.
I have stopped going to church for that reason and other ones. I feel the church has no business in mass telling me what I should believe outside of my faith. In mass mind you. I have sat through sermons that has had nothing to do with the gospel story but with politics!
It’s frustrating and makes me sad that my church tells me I should not take Communion. I wish they could keep it more seperate.
@James I’m not sure how one can be pro-life in private, which essentially is the belief that abortion is murder, and then not feel compellled to make it illegal.
1) Your knowledge of Catholic doctrine is shallow. The future pope, in 2004, explained why abortion (and euthanasia) cannot be compared to the death penalty and war, which the Church actually does not reject. See https://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
2) IRS guidelines simply prohibit 501 c 3 nonprofits (houses of worship, etc.) from actively or opposing candidates. Criticizing or saying nice things about them is something else. 501 c 3’s can lobby for or against legislation, but it cannot be a “substantial” part of their activities. It’s up to you to prove that the Church crossed the “substantial” line. Also, bishops may speak or lobby as private citizens. Gay Anglican Bishop Eugene Robinson endorsed Obama in 2007. Do you want his tax exempt status taken away, or is he an exception because he’s on your side? You’re also forgetting the other parts of the First Amendment–the free exercise of religion, the right to petition government for a redress of grievances, freedom of speech, and freedom of press. These give the bishops or any citizens the right to comment on legislation.
3) You also forget there are pro-abortion religions, many of whom also lobbied.
4)Do your homework.
@Anon I’m glad the future pope settled your mind about which murders are acceptable.
Also try and read the ENTIRE post next time, especially the last line.
Any religous org that supports a candidate should have their exemption pulled. Is that clear enough?
I generally try and be civil and respectful in my comments but people who obviously haven’t read the post, completely and just have some thoughtless agenda to push annoy me.
Also I didn’t realize I was Anglican.
On the health care issues the bishops commented as a group not as individuals about there individual beliefs.
Have a wonderful day, Anonymous.
1) I didn’t say you were Anglican. Bishop Robinson shares your liberal beliefs. Again, take away his tax exempt status because he endorsed Obama? (I say no because he did so as a private citizen.)
2) Individual Catholic bishops went to Capitol Hill to lobby. They did so as private citizens. Yes, the USCCB lobbied, but it’s not against the law.
3) You distorted Catholic doctrine (perhaps not deliberately). I simply corrected you. I don’t know if you’re religious or not (if you’re not, why are concerned over the denial of what is for you a cookie to a politician?), and you’re under no obligation to agree with what the Church teaches unless you were Catholic and wished to remain so in good standing.
4) If the death penalty (with due process) is murder, then taxation must be extortion and theft, and law enforcement arresting people would be kidnapping. The state has rights that the private citizen does not and can never have.
4) In your response, you failed to address my point about what IRS guidelines actually say about 501 c 3 nonprofits. The IRS distinguishes between electioneering (officially supporting or opposing candidates) and lobbying. It also recognizes that the heads of these nonprofits can support candidates or lobby as private citizens.
5) Since 1990, the IRS has revoked the tax exempt status of exactly one church. So the probability that the Church’s tax exemptions (you do know every diocese has one?) will be revoked is ZERO.
6) Enjoy your evening.
I know that no one will ever have there tax exemption pulled unless they are from a fringe religous group or so blatant that it can’t be ignored.
You fail to address the point that these same Catholic Bishops did not seem to want to be held accountable to the laws of this country when it came to their institution condoning of rape but they have no problem using the freedoms provided for by these same laws to protest a health care bill. As far as exemptions, I do not believe any religous institution should be exempt from any tax no matter their political actions.
As far as a men judging another man and having the outcome be absolute, that is fantasy. You can justify support for the death penalty all you wish but it does nit change the fact that there is almost no way to be 100% sure that the system will lead to the correct outcome.
Please don’t hurt my feelings by calling me liberal, Anonymous.
For the record I have voted for more than eighteen years and have not voted for a candidate from either party, ever. (except local elections where the choices are limited). I guess I could just stay anonymous and never back up what I believe but I actually enjoy discussion even with people who can’t get beyond labels.
Leave your response!
Categories
Popular Posts
Recent Comments
Archives