WI bishop bans pro-choice politicians from taking communion

[xray s]

Check this article out. Garvey hits it out of the park.

http://www.fightingbob.com/

Garveyblog
by Ed Garvey

January 9, 2004

La Crosse Bishop Raymond Burke was recently promoted to head the St. Louis diocese. Before leaving he wrote to Congressman Dave Obey, state Senator Julie Lassa and others to inform them they must stop taking the sacraments if they vote for a woman's choice. We all breathed a sigh of relief with the news that he would be going down the Mississippi to St. Louis but, as they say, don't count your chickens.

Before leaving he has issued a document banning Catholic legislators from taking communion unless they follow church doctrine on right-to-life issues. Whoa Nelly! Bishop Burke is apparently trying to prove that non-Catholics should vote against Catholic candidates because they will be subject to church discipline if they follow their conscience.

I have a few questions for the Bishop. How about gay rights? May Catholic legislators stand with them or would a vote for gay rights fall in the same unacceptable category? What about the death penalty? The Vatican says it is wrong. Will Catholics who support state killing be deprived of communion? And, since birth control is banned by the church, should all those Catholics who practice birth control stop taking communion? (Polls suggest that about 80 percent of Catholics disagree with the Vatican on this issue.) How about stem cell research? Would Catholics be banned from the communion rail if they vote for funds to help those with Parkinsons disease?

I would also add that anyone who supports Bush's war should be banned as well, since the Pope has condemned that as well...

[punpirate]

1. Short memories in the Catholic Church....

When Fr. Robert Drinan of Massachusetts was elected to the House of Representatives, and began demanding an end to the Viet Nam war, the Pope told him ix-nay, be a priest or a Representative, but not both.

Seems that church/state separation is a moveable feast, as far as the Church is concerned.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Not quite the same thing...

When Drinan+ was forced to relinquish his political career, the reason was because the Vatican decided that clergy could not be politicians themselves, not that they could not take political positions.

Besides, this will probably be ignored by the incoming bishop. There is a "tradition" of conservative Roman bishops, particularly from small dioceses in the midwest, of trying to "enforce church discipline" through draconian and quite idiotic means. For example, about ten years ago, there was a bishop in Nebraska who decided to "defend the sanctity of marriage" by forbidding his clergy from marrying any couple that was already living together. Now, if you think about it, that makes a lot of sense: tell a couple who has decided that they now want to make a permanent lifetime commitment to each other before God that they are not allowed to, and must either choose between "living in sin" for the rest of their lives, or leaving each other to find new partners they will be allowed to marry. :crazy:

However, in each of these cases, this is just one diocesan bishop going off half-cocked. The problem is when an edict comes direct from Rome -- and there have been no shortage of idiotic decrees coming from there, either.

[punpirate]

4. Quite true...

It's a fine distinction you make, but probably accurate. Still, the contrast illustrates just how little consensus there is from the Vatican about the political interests of representatives of the church.

I think Drinan pushed a lot of limits, and yet, he remained in office for five terms (I was mistaken that his anti-Viet Nam war views precipitated the decision by the Vatican; maybe they did, but it took another four terms to convince him, then, or perhaps his views on the war were recalled by John Paul II when he became Pope).

Might have been that Drinan was simply too liberal for the Vatican, in general, or that his departure from the House coincided with Reagan's assumption of the presidency. Drinan hasn't specifically addressed the orders he received from Rome, but they came at a time when both Reagan and John Paul II had new jobs....

But, as a law professor at Georgetown, he hasn't exactly kept his mouth shut, even to the extent of defending Clinton's veto of the late-term abortion ban on the basis of the bill not having any provisions for health and safety of the mother.

Cheers.

[LTR]

2. Appalling!

I made mention of this a couple days ago in an unrelated thread, as I have been following this for the past month.

And I saw mention of this in this morning's paper:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan04/198645.asp

As a Catholic, I am appalled by Bishop Burke's behavior. I expect this out of Pat Robertson.

What I am wondering is, what will Bishop Burke do about child sex abuse in the church? And why can't he at least be a positive influence in the church like Archbishop Timothy Dolan in Milwaukee (who at least has helped the church with it's serious image problem)?

NOTE: By "image problem", I am not belittling the victims of bad priests. But at least this is a step forward in a long healing process between the victims and the church.