Wednesday, November 25, 2009
It's a Church and State thing, you wouldn't understand.
Last week it was reported that, in 2007, Rhode Island's Bishop Thomas Tobin requested of Rep. Patrick Kennedy that he refrain from receiving Communion in light of Kennedy's position on abortion (he's for it). Some people felt the Bishop violated the separation of Church and State. Do you think it was, and, if so, why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I think if Bishop Thomas Tobin were to publicly announce all the names of the politicians he allows and does not allow to participate in communion then it could be seen as endorsing some while not endorsing others.
Maybe at every Catholic mass they should have people swear that they are opposed to abortion and every other thing the Catholic church is opposed to before they can partake of the body and blood of Christ. Can you say mass exodus?
I come from a protestant tradition so the idea of any man, regardless of cloth, telling me how I can and cannot interact with my maker is abhorrent to me.
It was Kennedy who made this public, not the Bishop. And my guess is that the Bishop denounces all pro-abortion politicians—and accountants and window washers, etc. What I'd like to know how this incident approaches a legitimate Church and State issue.
The one who dictates how we interact with our Maker is our Maker, not us.
I don't think it does violate church and state separation, but it's well within site of the line. If he were to endorse a candidate he would be crossing the line, so condemning one cojld be seen in a similar light, no?
In this case, Bishop Tobin reiterated to Kennedy a clear and long-standing position of the church in a private correspondence. Kennedy chose to make it public three years after the fact for what seems to be political purposes. Bishop Tobin did not take to the pulpit to demand that his congregation vote for or against Kennedy. The bishop acted as a bishop in regards to matters of the church.
That Kennedy is a politician doesn't make this incident a church/state violation (CSV) issue. Kennedy made his position on abortion very public. The bishop would (or should) have taken the same action against any member of his parish regardless of their profession if he became aware of their pro-abortion activism. Do you think clergy should face special restrictions in their duties when the member is a legislator rather than, say, a plumber? Would such restrictions be a CSV?
What do you think the separation of church and state entails? What is off-limits for the church? What is off-limits for the state? What is off-limits for a person of faith as a citizen or as a government official? Is it possible that Rep. Kennedy, rather than Bishop Tobin, has come closer to committing a CSV.
The more I think about it the more I think the Bishop was violating the separation. He tried to influence a public official directly by taking action against him for a political position. If someone tried to manipulate me in such a manner I would consider going public with it as well.
I am not a constitutional expert, I also do not practice law, nor play either role on T.V. That said, I will attempt to answer your questions.
"What do you think the separation of church and state entails?"
At it's most basic the first amendment, when it speaks of religion, seems to be protecting the people from a government controlled religion.
"What is off-limits for the church?"
Directly influencing political entities.
"What is off-limits for the state?"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
To me, this means that as long as a church isn't breaking any laws, the state shouldn't do anything for or against them.
"What is off-limits for a person of faith as a citizen or as a government official?"
Nothing.
I'm no more a Constitutional expert than you, but I don't see how the First Amendment restricts members of the clergy (and not members of any other profession) from attempting to influence a politician on political matters. Further, I don't see how the First Amendment forces a member of the clergy to administer a sacrament to a politician who is in open defiance of the church's criteria for receiving that sacrament. Further still, I don't see how a member of the clergy attempting to influence a particular politician on abortion qualifies as the establishment of a religion. Many religions oppose abortion. Even some non-religious people oppose it on non-religious grounds. By being pro-life what religion am I attempting to establish? Finally, I don't see how abortion can be neatly labeled as a political position. You must admit that abortion has serious moral implications. Must the church remain silent on moral issues if the state decides to take a position?
Do you think Rev. King violated the separation of church and state in his attempt to influence political entities regarding civil liberties for black Americans?
If the separation of church and state means the church can't attempt to influence the state, and if that is a good that should be implemented everywhere and at all times, then I guess you would not have been among those who condemned the Pope Pius XXI and the Catholic Church for being silent during the Holocaust.
To me, this means that as long as a church isn't breaking any laws, the state shouldn't do anything for or against them.
But the church is at the mercy of the state as far as laws go. What if the state decides to make a law that says that Holy Communion must be administered to anyone regardless of how opposed they are to the principles of church? What if the state decides that until a child is old enough to care for itself the mother is within her rights put it to death? Would the church not be rightly condemned for sitting quietly by while that moral outrage was written into law? The church has to be able to defend itself against the encroachment of the state into matters in which the church has a stake. How can it do that if they are denied a voice in the political process?
"Do you think Rev. King violated the separation of church and state in his attempt to influence political entities regarding civil liberties for black Americans?"
Rev. King, as far as I know, did not withhold holy sacraments from parishioners to influence them politically. Preaching on an issue is a tad different wouldn't you agree?
"But the church is at the mercy of the state as far as laws go. What if the state decides to make a law that says that Holy Communion must be administered to anyone regardless of how opposed they are to the principles of church?"
We are all at the mercy of the state as far as laws go. We would have to eliminate the First Amendment to enact such a law. That particular red herring is brought up all the time regarding gay rights. "But churches will be forced to perform weddings for homosexuals!" No they won't, read the First Amendment.
"The church has to be able to defend itself against the encroachment of the state into matters in which the church has a stake. How can it do that if they are denied a voice in the political process? "
Every single citizen of adult age can vote, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, atheist, priest, layman, it doesn't matter. Again, a church can preach on any issue it wants to, but denying a holy sacrament is coercion, which of course is a practice not unfamiliar to some religious institutions, and when done corporately is fine, but personally, to a law maker, is crossing the line.
but denying a holy sacrament is coercion, which of course is a practice not unfamiliar to some religious institutions, and when done corporately is fine, but personally, to a law maker, is crossing the line.
What do you mean by "done corporately"? In what way can communion be denied corporately (and be "fine").
I meant corporate in the sense of the whole congregation, Ie. corporate worship.
I apologize, I didn't mean to say withholding communion from the whole congregation was fine, but that telling them all the rules was fine.
Sorry for the confusion.
Telling them all the rules? Do you mean that it's ok to preach a sermon that murder is wrong? But then, after the sermon when communion is served, it would be wrong to refuse participation to unrepentant murderers and others who openly condone murder because... well, because why exactly?
How about because there is nothing that I am aware of in scripture about refusing people communion for starters?
Are you Catholic?
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, and after he had given thanks he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup. For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
It is the responsibility of those who administer Holy Communion that they inform those who wish to participate of the consequences of being "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"—which doesn't sound like a good thing to be.
The following is by Fr. Peter R. Scott from a document on the criteria for refusing communion:
A priest does not have the right to refuse Holy Communion arbitrarily. He must follow the requirements of Canon Law, which prescribes to whom he must refuse Holy Communion, and to whom he must administer it. This law is to be found in Canon 855, §1:
Catholics who are publicly known to be unworthy (for example, those who have been excommunicated or interdicted or who are manifestly of ill repute) must be refused Holy Communion until their repentance and amendment have been established, and satisfaction has been made for the public scandal which they have given. The essential part of this law is that a Catholic must be a public sinner, or publicly unworthy, to be refused the sacrament of Holy Communion.
This is the case, for example, of a person who has publicly performed abortions, or voted for legislation in favour of abortion; or of a father who would have had his children baptized and raised in an heretical sect; or giving membership to the Communist party, or public concubinage (fornication); or of persons divorced and remarried outside the Church; or convicted of civil crimes such as paedophilia.
Marriage is also a sacrament. If the church is not allowed (by order of the state, no less) to withhold sacraments under any circumstances, then can you see why people are afraid that church will be forced to perform same-sex marriages against its will? Would it be illegal for the church to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage only if the couple includes a politician?
If the state can determine that the church cannot deny participation in one type of sacrament, why not others? And how is this not a violation of the separation of church and state in either instance?
"A person should examine himself first,"
I couldn't care less what the Catholic church's rules are any more than I care what NAMBLA's rules are. Clearly they are ignoring the part of the scripture that I quoted above.
"or convicted of civil crimes such as paedophilia." Wait, maybe I do care now, since we are talking about an organization that has protected pedophiles for generations, and in one instance that I know of is actually fighting to keep retirement benefits for convicted pedophile priests.
"If the church is not allowed (by order of the state, no less) to withhold sacraments under any circumstances, then can you see why people are afraid that church will be forced to perform same-sex marriages against its will?"
Who is advocating forcing the church to perform sacraments under all circumstances?
Again, that would go against the first amendment.
I don't think Tobin should be forced to serve communion to Kennedy. I also have no idea why anyone would be part of an organization that puts it's self firmly between them and God.
If Tobin hadn't singled Kennedy out with his letter, if he had made a general public announcement that "that Catholics who 'knowingly and obstinately' repudiate the church's 'definite teachings on moral issues' -- such as abortion -- should not take communion.", I'd have no problem with his actions.
Of course he didn't do it publicly, because he knew how it would be perceived.
Why should Tobin issue the statement "that Catholics who 'knowingly and obstinately' repudiate the church's 'definite teachings on moral issues' -- such as abortion -- should not take communion," when that position is already widely, if not universally, known and already a matter of public record and has been for generations. Do you think Kennedy was simply unaware of this? If one of his parishioners acts in public defiance of that statement does it make sense to restate it for the whole world again instead of addressing the offending person privately (which is what Tobin did)? And what if such a person sits in the pew and stands to participate in communion, does the church have no recourse? What is the point of having rules if no enforcement is permitted?
As for 1 Corinthians, if a person will not examine himself, as is clear in the Kennedy case, the church must take matters into their own hands, at least as far as it concerns participation in the community of the faithful. See 1 Timothy 5, for example.
P.S. Kennedy thought he knew how it would be perceived as well, but he was wrong since public opinion, last time I checked, seems to be firmly on Tobin's side.
But obviously not everyone is in the majority :-). You are a special case :-) :-). Thanks for sharing your point of view, that's just what I wanted.
"if a person will not examine himself, as is clear in the Kennedy case, the church must take matters into their own hands,"
Kennedy should have taken the same route I took, I never joined any church or denomination. I really don't know why liberal Catholics remain Catholics. I guess they love the tradition.
Why could Kennedy have not examined himself and found that he was voting according to his conscience? Is a Catholic allowed to disagree with the Catholic Church?
Of course on abortion, no. I think if Satan exists his greatest feat is getting people to focus solely on abortion, something that is barely whispered in the bible.
Post a Comment