"Archbishop Charles Chaput, leader of Colorado's largest Roman Catholic diocese, said anyone committing a serious sin such as theft, lying or adultery should not take the sacrament, but 'denying anyone communion is a very grave matter.'"
From what I gather, this is an accurate statement. And while there are those who are advocating for denying communion for not only politicians with non-churchlike voting record but also people who VOTE for politicians with a non-churchlike voting record, I think overall that isn't a popular position.
But for those other folks who think it's a great idea, let's look at this from a more generalized perspective using the current presidential candidates as examples. John Kerry supports choice in his political agenda, but not in his personal agenda. Unchurchlike. But, George Bush started a war that the Pope declared unjustified. Unchurchlike. George Bush supports capital punishment and has executed more than his fair share of people as the Governor of Texas including mentally ill individuals. Unchurchlike. John Kerry is against capital punishment except in cases of international or domestic terrorism. Less unchurchlike...
So who can catholics vote for without running the risk of being denied communion? Is the catholic church going to have to weigh the candidates and decide who is less unchurchlike and tell catholics who they can vote for? Or are they going to be told they must abstain from voting because neither of the candidates follows the cannons of the church to the letter. If that is the case then catholics either need to remove themselves from the political process or declare themselves a political party subject to the same governmental rules and restrictions as the other parties and run their own candidate. Because at that point they cease to be a religious institution.
If you follow the history of the catholic church, especially the roman catholics their position through out history has been as both secular and non-secular power. At the end of the Roman Empire, the Pope was the most powerful individual in the world. He gave power to the emperor or took it away as he saw fit. The Anglican church was created so Henry VIII could divorce his wives and not get excommunicated. Vatican City was created so the seat of the church would exist in no single secular state but that it could maintain it's sovreignity over all the churches in those states.
I have no problem with catholics voting their conscience. If you want to vote against John Kerry because he's pro-choice, more power to you. If you choose to vote a certain way because the leaders of your church tell you to, great. I think it's nuts, but it's a free country. But when the catholic church starts using it's power over it's congregations to enforce it's agenda on secular politics through religious extortion, that's wrong. It's not about an individual's choice anymore. It's not about free will, it's about using a person's fear of damnation to force them to advance an institutional policy on people who don't believe in it. I think it should be a crime to polute the air and water. I belive that any corporation that does so should be fined into insolvency and it's buildings turned into low-income housing. But not everyone agrees with that position. And there are ways to compromise so that everyone gets a little something out of it. And I'm not willing to ram my agenda down everyone else's throat because I'm right and the rest of you are damned. We all have to live together here. A good compromise comes when either NONE of the parties are happy or ALL of the parties are happy.
I'm sure I'm slipping into the Joel WishyWashy zone here but realistically speaking we can't ALL be right at the same time. It defies the laws of physics. ;oD
at 2:24 PM :: ~#~
, at
11:13 PM
