Catholic "Obamacon" denied communion

[Slacker]

Doesn’t the Catholic church believe abortion is immoral in all cases? What’s the difference between someone who’s pro-choice and someone who’s kinda pro-life, except in a few cases so he can get elected (rape, incest)? Aren’t they all murderers?

[3waygeek]

This story was reported on NPR’s All Things Considered Monday afternoon. In the NPR story, there was a statement from Cardinal Mahony of the LA Archdiocese (to which the priest in question belongs) specifically stating that the priest had exceeded his authority in this matter. No mention was made of possible punishments or sanctions, IIRC.

[Slacker]

@3waygeek

This story was reported on NPR’s All Things Considered Monday afternoon. In the NPR story, there was a statement from Cardinal Mahony of the LA Archdiocese (to which the priest in question belongs) specifically stating that the priest had exceeded his authority in this matter. No mention was made of possible punishments or sanctions, IIRC.

Obviously he’ll receive one of the stiffest punishments the Catholic church hands out. He may have to sit in a corner for up to 15 minutes.

[ArizonaTeach]

@Slacker

Obviously he’ll receive one of the stiffest punishments the Catholic church hands out. He may have to sit in a corner for up to 15 minutes.

Sounds like someone’s never encountered a nun with a ruler…

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@ArizonaTeach

Sounds like someone’s never encountered a nun with a ruler…

I thought that was strictly reserved for children, not adults.

Did/do nuns physically strike errant adult catholics?

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

@Slacker

Doesn’t the Catholic church believe abortion is immoral in all cases? What’s the difference between someone who’s pro-choice and someone who’s kinda pro-life, except in a few cases so he can get elected (rape, incest)? Aren’t they all murderers?

Why are any of them necessarily murders? Even a person that support murder is not a murder unless he actually participates in a murder. I support putting out fires, am I a fire fighter?

[Sarahfeena]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

I thought that was strictly reserved for children, not adults.

Did/do nuns physically strike errant adult catholics?

Haven’t you ever seen The Blues Brothers?

[Shayna]

Kmiec’s endorsement of Obama can be read in full here. The relevant portion to this story:

. . . As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them. . .

Barack Obama on religion and choice:

http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

. . . I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

. . .

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

. . .

So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

“Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you.”

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be “totalizing.” His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor went on to write:

“I sense that you have a strong sense of justice…and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason…Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded…You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others…I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor’s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

Is it any wonder that a man like Kmiec could find himself supporting a man like Barack Obama in spite of opposing political viewpoints?

[Mr.Moto]

@Shayna

Is it any wonder that a man like Kmiec could find himself supporting a man like Barack Obama in spite of opposing political viewpoints?

You know, what Merijeek said about you was right. You really do think moonbeams shine out of Obama’s ass.

Frankly, I think Obama’s a pretty nice guy, but I’m not supporting him because I oppose his political viewpoints. And what’s more, I think this is perfectly appropriate - it is the way most people vote.

[Shayna]

@Mr. Moto

You know, what Merijeek said about you was right. You really do think moonbeams shine out of Obama’s ass.

Because I quoted the relevant portions of Obama’s written statements that support Kmiec’s endorsement, you conclude I think moonbeams shoot out of his ass? You really are a partisan retard, aren’t you?

@Mr. Moto

Frankly, I think Obama’s a pretty nice guy, but I’m not supporting him because I oppose his political viewpoints. And what’s more, I think this is perfectly appropriate - it is the way most people vote.

Why does what you think matter one fucking whit with regard to who Kmiec endorsed and why? What makes you the arbiter of all things appropriate for choosing a candidate in a presidential race? You really think waaaay too highly of yourself.

[Otto]

@Slacker

Obviously he’ll receive one of the stiffest punishments the Catholic church hands out.

Naw, the only ones who get stiff punishments in the Catholic Church are the altar boys.

[Little_Nemo]

Or is it that the media only reports on it then?

I can accept that in some cases. In Douglas Kmiec’s case, for example, the announcement that he was ineligible for communion followed his decision to endorse Obama. So if you accept that endorsing a pro-choice politician is a problem then the consequence followed the action.

But the Kathleen Sebelius case is different. Sebelius has been Governor since 2003. Why would Archbishop Naumann have waited until this May to announce she was ineligible for communion unless he was timing his announcment for its impact on the 2008 election? It’s the same suspicous timing that occurred with John Kerry; nobody said Kerry was ineligible for communion in the nineteen years he had been a Senator but it became an issue once he was running for President.

[Taber]

@Mr. Moto

I’m sure you would agree that, so long as the Church does not advocate voting for or against individual candidates or parties, it is perfectly legitimate for the Church to take stands on moral and even political questions, right?

I think sanctioning someone for being an Obama supporter would fall closer to advocating against a candidate than a moral or political question.

The Sebelius thing seems to be based on her support for abortion, which puts it on the correct side of the line.

[Evil_Captor]

@smiling bandit

Said priest just comitted a big no-no. In fact, he’s likely to get punished for it… or at least as far as the church goes to severely. It might take some time and it probably will be quiet.

Yeah, we’ve all seen how tough the Catholic Church can be on errant clergy. Look at the way they came down on those pedophile preists!

[smiling_bandit]

@Little Nemo

But the Kathleen Sebelius case is different. Sebelius has been Governor since 2003. Why would Archbishop Naumann have waited until this May to announce she was ineligible for communion unless he was timing his announcment for its impact on the 2008 election? It’s the same suspicous timing that occurred with John Kerry; nobody said Kerry was ineligible for communion in the nineteen years he had been a Senator but it became an issue once he was running for President.

It’s not suspicious. It’s blatantly obvious. Somebody wanted to get his name in the papers. You clearly suppose Catholic clergy are smarter than they actually are.

[Mr.Moto]

@Shayna

Because I quoted the relevant portions of Obama’s written statements that support Kmiec’s endorsement, you conclude I think moonbeams shoot out of his ass? You really are a partisan retard, aren’t you?

“Is it any wonder…” As if there could really be no other choice.

And frankly, you really have no business criticizing others for partisanship.

[Shayna]

@Mr. Moto

“Is it any wonder…”

"that a man like Kmiec. . . ", after having posted his take on the issue. You jerked your damn knee so high it apparently hit you in the eye and you could no longer read the words that actually appeared on the screen.

@Mr. Moto

And frankly, you really have no business criticizing others for partisanship.

Again, you omitted the relevant word; retard. Clearly, you are not a man like Kmiec.

[Mr.Moto]

@Shayna

Clearly, you are not a man like Kmiec.

Well, that’s certain. For one thing, I didn’t give my kids names that all began with the same initial.

[Shayna]

Well at least you have that going for you!

[Autolycus]

If priests automatically denied communion to those living in a state of sin, the Liturgy of the Eucharist at Boston College masses would have been mighty lonely. You can count me in the offending party too