Kennedy says RI bishop banned him from Communion

Source: Associated Press - By Ray Henry

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin has banned Rep. Patrick Kennedy from receiving Communion, the central sacrament of the church, in Rhode Island because of the congressman's support for abortion rights, Kennedy said in a newspaper interview published Sunday.

The decision by the outspoken prelate, reported on The Providence Journal's Web site, significantly escalates a bitter dispute between Tobin, an ultra orthodox bishop, and Kennedy, a son of the nation's most famous Roman Catholic family.

"The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion," Kennedy told the paper in an interview conducted Friday.

Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him "that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I've taken as a public official," particularly on abortion.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20091122/D9C4J5580.htm...

---

Pat, we would welcome you to the Episcopal Church.

In 1994, our 71st General Convention expressed "unequivocal opposition to any ... action ... that abridge the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of her pregnancy, or that would limit the access of a woman to a safe means of acting upon her decision."

And we are gender nuetral - our Presiding Bishop is a woman. (The Most Rev.) Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori presides over US Episcopalians & represents us in the worldwide anglican communion.

We also consecrate (bishops) and ordain (priests & deacons) without regard to sexual orientation.

And there is no requirement for personal confession - all the sin with half the guilt!

Prime Rib on Good Friday is OK.

Sorry Baptists, we also drink & dance.

That's one of the best lines I've heard in a very long time!

barrier against religious prejudice and he's doing this. Fucking nitwit.

It's telling a block of catholic voters not to re-elect him next election cycle.

Let's see, which one is "more": depriving Kennedy of voters or condemning him to eternal torture with no parole, no reprieve?

I realize you might not be a believer, but if you look at it from within the logic of the faith, the meaning of "more" reverses.

If the Archbishop actually believes in the Catholic meaning of what he is doing, then HIS morality is questionable.

If I were Kennedy, I'd find a different religion.

Somebody prominent needs to stand up to these creep Bishops, somebody politically powerful who is identified with the church. Nobody stops them from having their anti-choice policies within their church. Nobody makes them marry transgendered couples. When they try to impose it on all society, then it's political, not religious.

Very well put. I would posit, though, that it is BOTH political and religious. If it were only political, no Establishment Clause issue would arise. When the bishop seeks to force Kennedy to impose upon all of America the Catholic Church's interpretation of the bible, we are dangerously close to to all kinds of Establishment Clause issues.

It's about evolving, improving, and seeking the truth... wherever it may lead. That doesn't mean you abandon your identity or your heritage; just the religion part (which is really only a small part of it). When the religion you thought you knew morphs into a right-wing, reactionary, anti-woman, plutocracy-serving, child-abusing, cesspool... and when the organization actually conflicts with your heritage, your world-view, your morality, and your identity, it's really not difficult to leave at all. It's far more difficult to remain than it is to leave. So that's what you do; you leave, you don't look back, you have no regrets, and you read threads like these which confirm your decision to leave. And you carry on very much like you did before, with both your heritage and your identity completely intact.

IrishCatholicDemocrat (one word like Tip O'Neil said). But it can be done - it's just that most of us got to wrestle with that change of identity in private, Patrick Kennedy will have to do it in public.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's a good one!

So he can't do some made up ritual of eating a cracker. It will not make one iota of difference when he's dead. It's a move designed for the LIVING to see and to scare other duped believers into being afraid. Fear & guilt.... fear & guilt!

And as pointed out further down, this is a move about THIS world, not the next. Remember, religion is just ancient government. The heads of these governments used to declare themselves divine all the time. The Pope might as well be the Emperor of Rome.

It's just eating a cracker, unless you believe the shit about it, and if you don't believe the bullshit shit about it-- let's just say for somebody raised in the church who have come to believe in something, it takes a massive amount of re-examination to find out what and why.

For the Catholic church, and for conservative Christians in general, the reason why they try to impose their views on others is that they believe God punishes nations for their sins-- not just individuals. So, for them, a woman's choice is a public issue. If one woman has an illegal abortion, than she is sinning, but if abortion is legal, then the whole country is sinning. They believe they are saving the nation from divine wrath, first and foremost, just like the prophets in the Bible.

The Catholic Church is a special case, though, in a way, because it had such power, and as far as it sees it, God wants it to have the power back.

He just have to talk about it openly and discuss what are his moral grounds to support his believes.

Henry was wrong when he created his own church.

to get on that fast track to Archbishop and then Cardinal.

This is nothing more than that. He knows the internal kudos he can get by cracking down on someone with the name Kennedy.

Some of this institutional push against the name Kennedy goes back to the JFK days when JFK's campaign completely changed American Catholics' relations with the Vatican. It has not been the same since.

Collectively, I think the hierarchy of the Catholic church is conservative and they play the abortion card because they know it's the most divisive issue to enable them to speak for Republican candidates and against Democratic candidates.

Their most consistent financial base is the far rabid anti-abortion members of the Church (e.g. no abortion with no health or rape exceptions). So if they want to keep the money coming in, they need to support them and often they overlap with anti-gay marriage folks. You do not hear much more than that nowadays from the Bishops.

Social Justice is out of favor as part of today is payback from the 60's-80's with the social justice focus and also most people related to those issues to not have as deep pockets.

and Birth Control? Should catholic legislators be using their office to "promote their faith" legislating the REST of Rome's dogma?

If you hang out on conservative Catholic boards, the only correct answer in the US and worldwide is that if you are Catholic, you need to follow everything Rome pushes down through the Bishop level. Cardinal George at the USCCB meeting this past week talked about anyone not toeing the complete Bishop line to "not be fully Catholic". They see themselves as part of the "perfect society" which they consider the Church to be (teach it in seminary). They bought their own propaganda.

Is he divorced? Has he killed anyone?

There is a huge difference between living as a good Catholic and forcing all Americans to live as good Catholics. The first is protected by our Constitution; the second is forbidden by our Constitution.


Americans need to distinguish between living out their religion and forcing it on everyone else via legislation.

http://www.ewtn.com/vote/Catholic_Politicians/Questions...

8. What does Church law say specifically?

First, most people who have need of the sacrament of confession are not public sinners. Their sins are known to themselves, the persons they may have sinned against, and others who may have found out, such as family and friends. Church law provides that they are responsible for going to Confession or refraining from Communion themselves (c. 916). Such persons cannot be publicly refused Holy Communion if they publicly ask for it, such as by coming forward at Mass.

Canon 912 Any baptized person who is not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to Holy Communion.

Canon 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.

However, the Code of Canon Law also provides,

Canon 915 Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Who are those who must be refused, that is, "are not to be admitted to Holy Communion"? The moral and canonical tradition of the Church explains it as those who are "publicly unworthy" (1917 Code c. 855, 1), that is, who despite having been warned have not repented and repaired the public scandal ("obstinately persist") in some public condition of grave sinfulness ("manifest grave sin"). This certainly applies to anyone, and not just politicians, who publicly and unrepentantly promote and advance grave evils, such as abortion, which the Church has formally identified as such.
Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

Now, keep in mind, this is taking Canon Law to an extreme level, but that is what gets you ahead nowadays. This is from the ultra-conservative EWTN, they like the legalese.

Only a few noisy bishops do this nowadays, but the one who started it, Archbishop Raymond Burke is now in Rome on the panel that picks bishop promotions, so expect to see much more of this in future years.

This is a way of the Bishop to dictate his views (as laity are to be treated like children in neo-retro style dogma).

preemptive wars also refused Communion? Seems like the death penalty and preemptive wars are just as murderous, just as prohibited by the Catholic religion. That has been my impression.

In real life, anything but abortion and gay marriage gets a quiet wave-off by the Bishops and a complicated moral argument is brought up. Yet when you try to get that same complicated moral argument towards abortion and gay marriage you get nowhere and get reprimanded with supposed absolutes.

genesis as preemptive or responsive.

Is there anyone that would argue that a preemptive war that prevented WWII, the Nazis and all their attendant atrocities wouldn't be just? I'd be interested in that discussion.

I asked what sin Patrick Kennedy is supposed to have committed.

As far as I know, failing to vote the Catholic faith into the laws of America is not a sin, even under the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Perhaps abortion is a sin under the doctines of the church, but as best I can tell, Kennedy has not had an abortion. So, what's his sin?

They want to break the rules of the land and act politically, they can pay the penalty.

Tragic that such ignorant people have so much influence.

I mean - you want a large benefactor to the Catholic church, look no further than the Kennedy family.

Why would they want to kill the golden goose?

THAT I don't get

should lose their tax exempt status.

or Repug on the abortion issue, it's not partisan in the context of prohibiting someone from engaging in partisan politics. To cross that line, there has to be an election for one offices, with one or more candidates running with a partisan party lable.

For example, with federal employees, it's the Office of Special Counsel or OSC, that oversees our partisan neutrality. In 1998, someone was wearing (at a work meeting) a button advocating the impeachment of Bill Clinton. My Office Chief was concerned about it and sent me to hunt up the policy. Going through our ethics attorney and , I reached who explained that impeachment wasn't a partisan issue even though the House and Senate pretty much voted straight party lines. In 1998, Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate for any office so the normal restrictions on employees didn't apply. Impeachment, said OSC, is a constitutional issue, not a partisan one, so the employee was within his/her rights to wear the button.

Abortion is similar in that the pro and con advocates normally are easily identified with partisan ; however, abortion also has who "cross party lines" and vote the way their constituents want. OSC would say that abortion is a legal and constitutional issue, not a partisan one.

Impeachment is very much a political issue. That is the only kind of issue it is.

When no one is talking about impeaching anyone in particular, it may not be a partisan issue, but it is always a political issue.


"Impeach Bill Clinton" however, is both political and partisan.

Please also see TiredTexan's posts, especially Reply 95, which is beautifully reasoned.


The ONLY reason the Catholic Church will not lose it's tax exemption over this is that neither the IRS nor any President is going to take on the Catholic Church. Good on Patrick Kennedy for doing so, though.

has the power of "absolution" from sin --

First, if they truly believe that "Christ died for their sins" -- then they are forgiven...

Second, no one need ask any other person for forgiveness -- they are simply forgiven.

Third -- even playing the Catholic Confession/Absolution game, no priest could deny Kennedy

absolution -- it's inherent.

Fourth -- the power of the sacrament of communion itself is understood to be beneficial not

only to those in a state of grace, but those who are not!

nt

That ought to be his retort.

from this superstitious and ridiculous ceremony. Big deal. It is not like he can't attend one of those "Eyes wide shut" assemblies that would mean anything.

it doesn't have meaning for others.

You are free to believe or not believe anything you want. Don't you think others should have that same freedom?

I was speaking from Kennedy's point of view. He is now free to find a church that is in agreement with his personal beliefs and choices. Or none at all--it's his call.

Unfortunately for the male-dominated church, most Catholics are ignoring them --

Kennedy is not an exception -- he's the rule --

And, this is not only a political attack on Kennedy -- it's an attempt to try to

publicly shame any who support Roe vs Wade.

Basically, not a chance in hell of that because most Catholics use birth control and

Catholic women have as many abortions as any other women!

In other words, the church is getting rough because they are losing.

That's why the "pro-life" murders --

They may still be a bit short on re-militarizing the church, but Bush did a fair job

of getting rid of Muslims for them!

PLUS giving them taxpayer money to subsidize their "faith-based" organizations . . .

or to pay off their pedophile lawsuits, which comes first, I guess!!!

Otherwise, there's a multitude of other options out there, and fortunately we live in a country where one is free to choose.

it seems harder for them to totally break away from the one-all-male-god than it does

to move into another pew . . .

obviously that is all the rage. So no. I just draw the line humoring total stupidity.

abortions and don't use birth control? I will bet you that only the most fanatical Catholics would vote against a Kennedy based on this issue.

Kennedy is on thin enough ice already with his drug and behavior problems. The right opponent could certainly take advantage of this. He is my rep and I would love for him to be gone (to a Democrat of course). He is personally responsible for taking a lot of the luster off of the Kennedy name around here. He is both an idiot and a carpet bagger - for many moderate Catholics here this is simply the final straw.

A bishop abuses his authority in the church, essentially extorts an elected official, and moderate catholics in RI would say that Kennedy is to blame?

Rhode Island is not a liberal or progressive state - it is blue collar, highly Catholic, poorly educated and socially conservative.

and using it -- !!!

And, about abortion and the fact that just as many Catholic women as any other women

have abortions -- !!!

Catholics need a speak out project -- for truth telling!!!

Kennedy isn't the exception, he's the rule!!

And that's the underlying fear/knowledge of the hierarchy -- they are on very thin ice and

they know it!!

Can he simply use a different diocese under a different bishop?

I take note, btw, that this insult to the Kennedy is an insult to women. Is he banning women from his church?

Remind me again how many female Catholic bishops there are? How about Cardinals? How many female popes?

this is obviously a rabid, right wing Bishop -- Kennedy can probably find a friendlier one.

Kennedy can still attend church, but supposedly not receive communion at this one.

Different from ex-communication --

though you could still anonymously attend any church, to be ex-communicated is essentially

about being publicly embarrassed.

The right wing still embraces shame and embarrassment as a weapon to keep people in line!!

Gee...it surely must be one hell of a head trip to be able to mediate God's grace the way the bishops do.

And make no mistake...excommunication **is** the next step in the Church's drive to cleanse itself of pro-choice politicians. Watch for it.

(And here I was hoping to have them sexually aroused by my Eyes Wide Shut reference. They got me talking to myself again. The only sane person I can reliably go to in times like this.)

I was NOT talking to myself. And come on, anyone that believes in a religions definitely has a screw loose - by definition. They look functioning but do I want to spend time with them? No.

My own mother was an agnostic, probably an atheist, yet she left room in her worldview (not to mention her heart) to have respect for believers of all faiths. You could try expanding your own heart and mind and see how that works.

Hekate

I can not have one for those that choose to believe in total nonsense. Just because you believe, it does not mean you are beyond approach. You do not get this protective shield around you.

... don't need to be on the attack at all times. Based on what I've said here, I hope that one could deduce that I believe in the Golden Rule, which is fairly universal.

Hekate

Hmmm...I'll get a group together and some coffee and we'll discuss this.

ELCA Lutheran Church. We are liberal and open minded. Now all you others step in with all these other churches - what's a girl to do?

I'm an ELCA Member too...VERY liberal arm of the Lutheran Church.

Any "religion" that counts Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. has to be.

for those who have been accustomed to the liturgy of the RCC, the Episcopal Church is a very easy choice - though I'd be the last to say UUs aren't great, too!

a huge crop of small kids, too - lots and lots of families, lots of singles... all are welcome, and we've attracted people because of it.

a bunch of Dominionists working from within to undermine the Episcopal church's unity, and our approach to social justice issues. This started in 1995, long before Gene Robinson became a bishop, but piggy-backing on extreme conservatives' reaction to ordaining women as priests.

There've been similar movements to undermine the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and other mainstream Protestant churches.

However, though the four dioceses splitting off has been more dramatic, the real decline in membership is, I think, more due to the "Bowling Alone" effect. Hard-pressed busy families don't have the time or energy for voluntary activities like church-going (or other face-to-face groups' meetings) Apparently those groups that threaten hellfire can overcome this, but we haven't found the carrot yet that has the same impact as that "stick." In fact it's the longstanding Christian insistence that "outside the church is no salvation" that's turned off a lot of baby-boomeers and generation X-ers. I don't know what the answer is! (But there've been some good discussions in the "Liberals/Progressive People of Faith" DU group.)

There are some who would view it this way: Leaving Catholicism to join the Episcopalian church is leaving one false religion to join a kinder/gentler false religion... making a slight improvement while completely ignoring the underlying problem.

Overdue, IMHO

The Catholic Church worked in 2004 to help beat a good man in John Kerry ( A Catholic himself )
and I am willing to bet that Karl Rove made a deal to immunize the Church against many
lawsuits from priests fucking little boys.

I am all for pulling their tax exempt status.

especially by Fr. Porter. According to him it was a kick to be a kid's first sexual experience. He was an equal opportunity molester.

as well as boys - many pedophiles are equal opporunity molesters because they're only interested in children who haven't reached puberty. This was in the LA diocese which thought his molesting of girls was just "natural curiostity" and had they known he was also molesting boys it would have been taken "more serously". No kidding, that's what they said.

It's a good documentary, though hard to watch at times.

but this is not a violation. look, kennedy is pro-choice. he also happens to be a democrat. it doesn't make this a partisan political stance. also consider that this is specifically directed towards a person who promotes choice. there are people of other political parties who promote choice, and there are even dems who don't. it's not a political thang. it's a position thang. sorry, but the catholic church has every right to determine who does and who doesn't get to participate in their "sacred": rituals, just like any other religion

If the refusal of communion were solely based upon to Kennedy's position on abortion, the Bishop would similarly refuse communion to Catholics who backed the Iraq war, birth control, and the death penalty. In labor law, courts call excuses to fire a person "pretextual" if the reasons for termination are not applied to employees equally. Discrimination occurs even if the employee engaged in prohibited conduct, and other employees have not been fired for engaging in the same conduct, so long as there is an obvious prejudicial reason for the termination.

In this case, the Bishop's ruling is clearly pretextual or it would be applied to all Catholics who took a stance in contravention to the Church's position on matters involving life and death. Thus, if the Bishop were simply trying to enforce Church doctrine, he would enforce it equally against all Catholics, including prominent Republicans or Democrats who support the Iraq war, the death penalty or birth control. His failure to do so would convict him in any court of law of discrimination against Kennedy.

for a Democrat who supports Roe vs Wade/Choice would have to be barred from communion.

you clearly don't understand what the conditions are for a church to be stripped of their tax status. again, the ignorance of the law is astounding. the church is not held to employment law standards for its determination of who can and can't be members.

I don't think anyone actually knows because it never freaking happens no matter what they do.
The only group I can think of were the Scientologists in the 70s. So it requires being non-Christians and spying on the freaking government, apparently.

Edited to add: I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't think they can be stripped of tax exemption for this either.
Especially when a lot of Baptist and Southern Baptist churches didn't lose theirs when they openly campaigned for Republicans.
Lots of which were reported and hastily ignored.

that caused some action -- didn't it?

At least a review?

by the "logic" used by many people in this thread, what king and those churches did was illegal and violative of their tax exempt status. certainly, organizing CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE in OPPOSITION to established law is a much greater political act than excluding an individual member who happens to be in congress.

MLK , the SCLC et al did not violate their tax exempt status and neither is the catholic church

if you were trying to respond to mine . . .

it was not about tax status --

it was about whether the decision to bar Kennedy from communion was "political" --

Again, if they are not trying to make a political statement then they would have to

bar any member who voted for Kennedy -- or who continues to support Roe vs Wade.

Catholics have chosen to ignore Papal "infallibility" on birth control -- and Catholic

women also have as many abortions as any other women.

Therefore, at some point, the pavement is coming up to smack the male-dominated church

in the forehead!

churches can make and retain their tax exempt status

look at MLK and the SCLC. they used black churches to organize civil disobedience, including violating the law (at the time).

that was definitely a POLITICAL statement, as well as a moral statement.

did MLK and those black churches violate their tax exempt status?

no

and neither is the catholic church

That's OK with you?

Ending Segregation was, of course, a noble cause -- long overdue --

Protecting pedophile priests and trying to control the sex lives of members -- and much

of society -- by preventing access to sexual education and limiting research on birth control --

and preventing women from getting abortions; many because their lives and health are at risk ....

not such good ideas.

The RCC is incapable any longer of a "moral statement" -- it's over.

Where did MLK, Jr. by the way try to influence who the nation voted for?

MLK spoke against segregation -- against war --

It's time to tax this church and its real estate holdings -- its stock portfolios!

we are talking about the LAW. iow, what violates tax exempt status or not

whether or not the cause is a "good" cause (clearly, we think voting rights are a good cause, and "fetal" rights aren't), is not relevant.

MLK spoke against war and segregation. he ALSO spoke against politicians, such as bull connor.

there cannot be a double standard. i suggest you actually READ the IRS manual regarding what is and isn't a violation. i would assume you haven't. it's actually quite enlightening

but as far as legal analysis goes, it does not matter whether you or i (or anybody) thinks the cause(s) the church is advocating for are good or bad. i would hope you can understand this

how does anyone sanction that?

Don't take it personally -- just look around you and ask that question --

There are two different issues here --

the action against Kerry is political and intended to embarrass him publickly --

and to work as a threat against any other Catholic politicians supporting "Choice."

Certainly a Pope telling Catholics NOT to vote for Kerry should cause them to

lose their tax exempt status --

Certainly any male-supremacist religion/church financing campaigns against Equal

Rights Amendments, homosexual rights should cause them to lose their tax exempt status --

Certainly, Pat Robertson's "voter guides" caused problems -- rightly so!

The church is not permitted to interfere in STATE affairs -- that's the basis of

Separation of Church & State --

A "moral" message. . . if this church can still summon one -- speaking against war, of course --

however, I see no message from the Vatican condemning Bush or Obama for these wars?
Did I miss it?


but as far as legal analysis goes, it does not matter whether you or i (or anybody) thinks the cause(s) the church is advocating for are good or bad. i would hope you can understand this

First, it does matter what the cause is --
In the case of MLK, Jr. he was moving the government to rightful action, forcing them to positions
they were trying not to deal with in the case of Segregation, Inc. -- and the Vietnam War.

I never heard MLK say "Don't vote for LBJ" ... Did you?

MLK prodded the conscience of America and its politicians --

A male-supremacist church trying to hold on to control over human sexuality -- while it ignores
its own sexual scandals -- would be simply pitiful if it wasn't so dangerous for women's health
and well-being. In fact, for the health and well-being of families and their children.

and ...

(clearly, we think voting rights are a good cause, and "fetal" rights aren't),

Can you outline what you think "fetal" rights are?

For instance, do you think a young girl who has been raped by her father should consider those
"fetal" rights?

Late term abortions have to be approved -- it is a woman's right to self-defense, though the
assailant is a fetus within her own body.

i never said what the catholic church is doing is good or morally justified. i said it did not violate tax exempt status.

you are correct that MLK never said "don't vote for LBJ". and nobody has produced any evidence that the person in this case said "don't vote for kennedy"

it's an exact parallel and the catholic church is acting within the bound of federal law for tax exempt churches.

just as MLK and the SCLC was

hth

They are DIFFERENT --

No one is asking that the church be taxed for Kennedy -- though it is obviously a POLITICAL

ploy to try to stop dissent. They won't be able to, of course. This is going to create an

even bigger mess for them --

-------------- WATCH IT . . . COMPLETE CONCEPT FOLLOWS . . .


The BASIS of the discussion re TAXING the church is IN GENERAL --

Try to get that point --

If they did nothing about Kennedy or anyone else, we still think that Churches should be TAXED!!!

And correct, MLK, Jr. did NOT advocate that anyone vote for or against any politician.

However, the POPE told Catholics that voting for John Kerry would be a sin!!!

And that message was delivered to American Catholics.



MLK was NOT a church, not a POPE --

We have a whole pack of US Catholic Bishops and Rome involved in the Stupak Amendment

. . . there is no comparison to MLK, Jr.

MLK, Jr. NEVER wrote any legislation for the Congress --

And, again, there is a huge difference between EXPANDING HUMAN RIGHTS as MLK, Jr. did --

and the Vatican which has long been involved in trying to LIMIT HUMAN RIGHTS for women,

homosexuals, etal.

Especially in running stealth campaigns with tax-exempt dollars in order to do so.


Try to get over Kennedy . . . that's NOT the point --

LOOK at the rest of what I'm saying to you about the need to tax churches in general!!

I never said that employment standards applied to the Bishop's refusal of communion. I said that the context of "pretextual" applies. If I did not make this clear, my apologies.

My point is that if the conduct is not consistent across the board, applied in a fair and uniform manner, then you look to see if it is pretextual. The only way to measure that is to determine whether the Bishop has refused communion to others, and on what grounds. If abortion is about the death of a person (the Catholic Church's position, not mine), then in order to be consistent, the Bishop would need to refuse communion to Catholics - including both Democrats and Republicans - who voted for the Iraq war resolution, supported the death penalty, and support abortion. That he did not do so makes clear his actions are pretextual, and are directed at Kennedy for reasons other than those stated. Given that no Republican politicians have been denied communion, his reasons are obviously pretextual, and are almost certainly based upon Kennedy's political party affiliation.

And, while I agree the Catholic Church clearly has the right to do what it did, the power of someone to do something is never a valid reason for doing it. Bush clearly had the right as president to attack Iraq. Whether that was a reasonable decision is another matter altogether. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

was not something i addressed. i simply said that by making this decision, they are not violating their tax exempt status. i stand by that statement. god knows MLK and the SCLC did a lot of political stuff. this wasn't nearly as political as marching and committing civil disobedience. people here fail to understand what exactly churches can and can't do and keep their tax status.

look at MLK and move on from there imo

in Stupak amendment --

their involvement in using tax-exempt $ to fight the ERA amendment --

their involvement in Prop 8 -- and now in Maine . . .

THOSE are the reasons for ending tax-exempt status --

Also including the Pope telling Catholics to vote for Kerry -- !!!

MLK is not a parallel in any way to this situation --