"It was obviously prearranged," Mr. Skehan said, "maybe out of regard for his girth and lack of mobility. I turned immediately to both my sons and said, 'Oh my gosh, look at that.' Everyone in my section, which was filled with people from Lancaster, said, 'That is outrageous. How could they do that?'"
They were aware that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — had told American bishops in 2004 that pro-choice Catholic politicians should first be privately admonished to cease their activism on the abortion issue and then — if there was no change — to refuse the sacrament.According to the same article, the Church denied that this could have happened. Then Senator Kennedy's office issued a one line acknowledgment that he had, indeed, received communion. There have been no religious consequence for those who support abortion rights but nevertheless received and continue to receive communion.
If the Roman Catholic Church is to forbid the taking of communion by public advocates of abortion rights, and those advocates nevertheless continue to receive communion without consequence, one must wonder whether the Roman Catholic Church is serious about its position, and whether the politicians involved are serious about either their stated views on abortion or their comfort level with their church of preference.
Perhaps the same comments could be made concerning Senator Obama's views on racial and other issues, which he now says are directly opposed to those of the recently retired pastor of his church. True, Senator Obama's church does not deny communion or other benefits of membership to those who disagree with some of its teachings (or those expressed by the pastor employed by the church), and Senator Obama has publicly stated that the most repellent of those teachings are grossly inconsistent with his own views.
Still, there is a possible analogy to be made. If we are to question the sincerity of Senator Kennedy's adherence to Roman Catholic doctrine and/or the sincerity of his articulated (and politically advantageous) views on abortion rights, as we should, perhaps we should question in similar fashion the sincerity of Senator Obama's currently articulated views on race and other issues which are grossly inconsistent with the teachings of his church and his former pastor, and/or the sincerity with which he remained a member of his church. Perhaps Senator Obama is now sincere, or perhaps he was sincere when he participated for many years in the life of his church without rejecting the views of the Reverend Mr. Wright. It is difficult to understand how both could be the case. This works both ways, of course. If we are to question the sincerity of Senator Obama in his recent rejection of the Reverend Mr. Wright's stated views on racial and other issues, perhaps we should turn a similar spotlight on the pro-abortion rights stances of Roman Catholic politicians, such as Senator Kennedy, who persist in receiving communion. From a rational perspective, it is difficult to treat them differently.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Irene Wagner
Dan Miller, you ask "why so little comment on the views of Catholic abortion rights advocates?" It might have to do with the would-be critics' wise consideration of such things as glass houses, stones, and the contraband contents of their OWN nightstands. Then again, even speaking as a non-Catholic, I can appreciate that a Roman Catholic who follows the full counsel of Pope Paul's Humanae Vitae (which also forbids the use of artificial birth control) might be wrestling with God over the Pope's words vis a vis Catholic politicians. Such a Catholic may share the Pope's conclusions on the sanctity of human life, but he might NOT share the Pope's conclusions on how that reverence should be communicated and transferred to the political world. Through law...or through grace? Most Catholics regard the Pope as their spiritual leader and pay VERY close attention to what he says, but quite a few of these know how to listen to God and read the Bible, and the Constitution, on their own as well.
***
While we're on the subject of consistency in criticism of political candidates and all: I sure am glad Ron Paul isn't cynically using his Christianity to lure Catholic or Protestant voters, nor is he courting the favor of any Religious Right spokesman. His views on abortion are informed by his other career as an obstetrician--he has never in 4000 deliveries seen any medical reason to perform an abortion. Still, as do the Catholics I mentioned above, he knows that changing people's minds about abortion doesn't happen by ramming it down their throats via the Federal Courts. It starts from people talking rationally and philosophically, dare I even say, KINDLY, to one another about the matter way down at the local level.
About those newsletters, you know the ones I'm talking about. If Senators Clinton and Obama knew one percent as much about sound economic practice as Ron Paul does, they too might have been the founders of economic newsletters in which some associates (closer to Ron Paul now than Reverend Wright is or was to Senator Obama?) made some remarks that were, arguably (and I'd argue for: not), as racist as the comments Reverend Wright made.
There IS someone else running in the Republican primaries against Ron Paul. John McCain is his name. I know, I know, John WHO? Yawn. Obama, Clinton, and Ron Paul. That's where all the interesting political news is. Someone please write a blogcritics article all about John McCain. I need something to help me fall asleep.
2 - Cindy D
All this makes me wonder when John McCain will reject Rod Parsley's views. It also makes me wonder why he doesn't seem to have to.
I think your article is fine Dan, as far as it goes. But, you left out the McCain/Parsley team, which almost seems like it would have to be included.
3 - Cindy D
Yeah, I know, it's not the same thing. It is however, an interesting thing in that McCain should call this nut case a "great leader", "moral compass", and "spiritual guide" and that seems to be fine.
4 - Dan Miller
Cindy,
I agree. I probably should have included at least a reference the McCain/Parsley team, and didn't. There are lots of other examples which could have also have been used to illustrate the point I was trying to make.
That would have made for a very, very long article, however, since the numbers of fruitcakes who appear during the political season makes it seem almost like Christmas.
Dan
5 - Clavos
the numbers of fruitcakes who appear during the political season makes it seem almost like Christmas.
Well put...
6 - Cindy D
That is hilarious! LOL
7 - davidpeace
An idea long overdue, from John Lennon: Imagine no religion.
8 - Dan Miller
Davidpeace,
There is another bumper sticker type slogan which I like: Imagine Whirled Peas.
I'm no fan of religion, and were I to become God, I would have a difficult time deciding which to eliminate first, religion or cancer. Still, both affect us all, whether we have neither, either or both. So one reasonable test of the sincerity of the campaign promises of a candidate who claims to adhere to a specified religion is whether he accepts the major teachings of that religion related to those promises, particularly if his religion threatens draconian consequences for (public) non adherence.
Dan
9 - Lee Richards
I think it's very hard for most people who want to think for themselves and ask questions to follow a church's strict doctrine or a religious leader's absolute authority. A politician of faith needs to find a way to balance that with independence of thought and action.
The role of religion in people's lives has changed greatly over the past 50 years, as preachers and churches have grown more political and more partisan. That's been a huge mistake, IMO, toxic to both church and state, as some churches seek more to coerce and control than to inspire and serve.
The idea that the Catholic church could and would threaten American politicians who didn't vote the church line would have doomed the JFK candidacy. Politicians should be closely questioned on their church-state position, as JFK was. A Huckabee was a truly dangerous possibility, a bigot-friendly McCain is a red-flag.
There is no religious test in the U.S. for public office. Any church--or churchman--left or right, who seeks to impose any kind of doctrinal litmus test for our leaders is acting against our history, rights, freedoms, and best interests.
10 - Andy Marsh
Back in the day, as they say, when I was a young man and attended catholic mass on a regular basis it seemed to me that the rule was you could screw up all week as long as you went to confession and did your penance afterwards. But if you have any sin on your soul, that's sin that hasn't been absolved through confession and penance, you had better not receive communion.
There's a long history in this country, especially in the northeast of career criminals, organized crime bosses like Vito Genovese leaving buttloads of money to the church so they could be buried in hallowed catholic ground.
There's more truth to those scenes in the Godfather with Michael Corleone meeting with leaders of the church than you would think...
And as far as someone leaving the church...all I can tell you is what my mother said as she was signing the papers that put me in the navy...I had filled everything out earlier and had put no preference under religion...mom looked at me...that evil italian stare that some women can give and said through clenched teeth...and I'm quoting here....
you were born a fucking catholic, you were raised a fucking catholic and you'll die a fucking catholic...
The last ass whooping I ever got from mom was when I looked at the recruiter and said....
Can you change that to fucking catholic? I remember pain...and the next thing I knew I was in boot camp!!!
just a thought...
11 - Dan Miller
Lee,
Thanks for your comments, with which I agree.
The related problem, which I tried to point out, is that if a candidate says (perhaps in a region which grows apples commercially) that apple pie is his very favorite desert, which he eats at every opportunity, while also proclaiming devout membership in a church which absolutely prohibits the ingestion of apples in any form, he has a sincerity problem. That problem is legitimately subject to discussion during his campaign for office.
Dan
12 - Dan Miller
Andy,
Bless you, my son. Go thou and sin no more.
And while you are at it, if you are looking for a great church, here it is.
Bishop Dan
13 - Clavos
Shameless huckstering...
:>)
14 - Clavos
Oh, wait.
That's what churchmen do...
15 - Dan Miller
Clav,
I confess. Will I be given absolution if I promise not to do it again until the next time?
Dan
16 - Dr Dreadful
Catholicism is nothing if not pragmatic...
17 - Clavos
Of course, my son.
Just say three Hail Marys and an Our Father and drop a C-note in the collection box on your way out.
And don't let the door hit...Oops, Bless you, my son.18 - Zedd
Dan,
I think we are discussing two different types of churches.
It's like discussing football rules then applying them to a basketball player. Can't work.
Each Church or denomination has it's own discipline or rules of the game. In Obama's church one can go against the teaching of the Pastor. Were he to go against the apostle Peter, then it would be an issue.
19 - Dr Dreadful
I dunno, Zedd. St Paul went against Peter, and look where it got him!
20 - Dan Miller
Zedd,
Yep. I agree. Here, under your analogy, Senator Kennedy is the football player, and Senator Obama is the basketball player. Yet Senator Kennedy seems able to go against the most important moral teaching of his church with impunity, while Senator Obama has difficulty when he claims (currently) to differ from some of the major teachings of his long term pastor.
I think both of them are legitimately questioned on the bases of these disagreements; Senator Obama has been, and his answers have been, at least to some extent, acceptable. Senator Kennedy seems to have got a pass or free goal or own goal or whatever it is called in football.
Dan
21 - Baritone
I think Lee touched on this above, but religion does put politicians in somewhat of a quandry in this day and age. Religion, especially here in the U.S. has become so politicized in recent years, in part owing to the likes of Jerry Falwell and his "moral majority," Pat Robertson and other evangeliists, and more recently the work of Karl Rove during both of the Bush campaigns.
Some of the issues Dan discussed above do tend to make various candidates seem duplicitous. It's kind of the old "rock and a hard place" situation.
No candidate for any significant office in this country - local, state or national - could hope to prevail without professing their religious beliefs. A professed atheist or agnostic should just forget about holding political office, beyond perhaps second assistant, junior vice dog catcher.
Obviously, some politicians are more religious than others. But to appease the voters, he or she must wear their faith on their sleeve, kinda like Obama is expected to wear a fucking flag pin on his lapel. When any particular religious organizations or thier leaders espouse certain credos, it then falls to the politicians to either embrace or disavow those credos.
My wife has suggested that all politicians should join the Unitarian Church since they believe in everything and nothing at the same time. That might work.
B-tone
22 - bliffle
We can easily see why religion will disappear from political life. In the past access to 'media' was so limited that inconsistencies and such couldn't be well explored, but now they can.
It's only a matter of time before US politicians stop trying to use religion as a virtue for election, and voters stop getting themselves involved in these weird ecclesiastical ponderings that they can never solve. Perhaps citizens will move away from religion, as has happened in many other countries where public life has been successfully separated from private life.
Can you think of what religion Sarkozy or Berlesconi are? I'm not even aware that they have any religion. I only recall that Tony Blair is vaguely christian because it came up in connection with Bush somehow.
By contrast, everybody in the world knows that Bush is some kind of weird evangelical christian and that he makes a point of it, although it doesn't seem to affect his relationship with the Pope ("Ben baby, you better recognize Jaysus Cheeerist as your personal savior or burn in H*ll!!!").
23 - Dan Miller
Baritone,
Good points.
I once, long ago, flirted with the Unitarian Church, but found it too political -- very oriented toward the left, even almost half a century ago. Still, their idealism was remarkable. I still remember the Unitarian version of the Doxology:
Not bad thoughts, just a tad unrealistic; and I'm not so sure about the "faith" part. Still, it continues to produce a rather "tingly" feeling.
Dan
24 - Dr Dreadful
Can you think of what religion Sarkozy or Berlesconi are? I'm not even aware that they have any religion. I only recall that Tony Blair is vaguely christian because it came up in connection with Bush somehow.
Well, Sarkozy has said that Pope John Paul II was one of his role models - not that that tells us much. Berlusconi is presumably a Roman Catholic, like most of his countrymen. As you say, religion doesn't manifest itself in their public lives at all.
Tony Blair, on the other hand, is a practicing Roman Catholic. He was always known to be a devout Christian, but held off being inducted into the Catholic faith until after his resignation as Prime Minister because of the conflict of interest it would have caused with his ministerial responsibilities in connection with the official Protestant Church of England. (That was the official explanation given, anyway.)
25 - Ruvy
Dan, I'm glad you titled this "Churches and other Voluntary Societies" - you have to volunteer to be an atheist, and - well - I'll let Christians talk about Christianity.... They know more about it than I do.
I was born a Jew. I was confirmed as one with a "brit milá", a circumcision. I had no choice over either event. Unless I renounce my identity in public - as in "I am not a Jew, etc., I am a ...." - I remain one, no matter how many bacon double cheeseburgers I consume or Christmas parties I go to.
Just mentioning that to point out the big blind spot in how you (and most Americans) view religion.