Priest denies Communion for Obama supporters

[CrystalTears]

http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/11/14/Priest_denies_communion_for_Obama_supporters

A Roman Catholic priest has told parishioners they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the US president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil".

Father Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed last Sunday to parishioners at St Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville, South Carolina, that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil," he said.

"Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

Obama defeated Republican John McCain in the November 4 election to become America's first black president. South Carolina, in the conservative South, was won by McCain.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back.

A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights.

-------------------------

My coworker said he heard about this so I went to look up the story. I couldn't believe it. People are so fucking stupid.

[Gan]

Those silly Catholics.

[nub]

The federal government should go in there and regulate that church! (though I guess the church didn't separate it themselves)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

So fucking dumb.

[Jorddyn]

Revoke their non-profit status.

[Drew]

"Your immortal soul is at risk by not voting for a candidate who would deny people the freedom to choose to sin! It's the government's job to stop people from committing a sin according to our religion! By voting that sinning is a personal choice that shouldn't be regulated by the government, you're personally responsible for any and all sins people choose to make! "

I love church logic.



I know this is Ash so I'm basically wasting my breath, but, consider that many people who oppose abortion consider it to be murder. Would you agree with your above statement if it was about murder? Can you understand how the way they feel is totally valid if they consider abortion the same as murder?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I know this is Ash so I'm basically wasting my breath, but, consider that many people who oppose abortion consider it to be murder. Would you agree with your above statement if it was about murder? Can you understand how the way they feel is totally valid if they consider abortion the same as murder?

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I understand a lot of the pro-life people consider abortion to be murder, but it's misleading to say that Obama is "pro-abortion". He's said he wants to stop abortion but thinks making a culture of life is a more effective way than simply outlawing it.

Considering more "socialist" programs would make it more appealing for women to keep their unplanned pregnancies, and the Republicans are against that exact thing, it's a bit sketchy and hypocritical in the opinion of some people. There was a lot of pro-life support for Obama who agree on the "culture of life" direction.

I'm not going to go into the morality of abortion, but I think it's flawed logic to think there's only one path to stopping abortions from happening, and anyone who doesn't agree with that path is tantamount to a murderer.

[TheWitch]

I know this is Ash so I'm basically wasting my breath, but, consider that many people who oppose abortion consider it to be murder. Would you agree with your above statement if it was about murder? Can you understand how the way they feel is totally valid if they consider abortion the same as murder?

The US government has not defined abortion as murder.

The Catholic basis for defining it as murder is an extension of their religious beliefs, ones that aren't necessarily shared by every single person in the USA and therefore there should be no anticipation that those religious beliefs govern people that do not believe them. Not to mention that many more moderate Catholics do not even share these beliefs.

This is exactly why I have nothing to do with the Catholic church. They fail miserably when it comes to an understanding of the separation of church and state.

[ViridianAsp]

The US government has not defined abortion as murder.

The Catholic basis for defining it as murder is an extension of their religious beliefs, ones that aren't necessarily shared by every single person in the USA and therefore there should be no anticipation that those religious beliefs govern people that do not believe them. Not to mention that many more moderate Catholics do not even share these beliefs.

This is exactly why I have nothing to do with the Catholic church. They fail miserably when it comes to an understanding of the separation of church and state.

Wait, wait wait...

See, I do believe it is killing a living being. In a few states if you kill a pregnant woman it is considered double homicide, so the government has established killing a fetus is homicide.

Do I believe it is a woman's choice to do what she will with what is growing inside of her? Yes and No, I have mixed feelings. I was pressured by my son's father to having an abortion, in the end I decided against it, because I felt it was wrong.

I can understand why he feels strongly, but I feel it is irresponsible of him as a man of God to deny or tell people they shouldn't get communion because they voted for a man who believes in abortion, a woman's right to choose. Instead, I think he should be championing Pro-Life alternatives if he feels so strongly about it.

[Mabus]

Revoke their non-profit status.
While I laughed at the story when I read it in the paper, what basis could the government possibly give to revoke the non-profit status of a religious institution that did not break the law?

Many religions find abortion to be murder. The Catholic faith has always found it to be this way.

In 2007 the Pope (who leads the Roman Catholic Church) warned that politicians that support abortion could be excommunicated (essentially, outcast from the community, denied communion and grace). It is not a giant step for the lower clergy to then issue an interdict, with automatic excommunication for the same offense of its members if they do not follow the precepts of the religion.

Religions have no legal requirement to allow everyone to me a member. The whole leftist-egalitarian approach falls flat when dealing with them. They have even denied speakers before and could not be challeneged over free speech rights on their own property. One group, "Call to Action", was excommunicated for advocating a number of liberal social changes within the church itself.

This is nothing new.

Good for the Catholics. They should take a stand, and the Pope himself should excommunicate Biden. Unlikely to happen, but fully within the rights of a religious institution.

[Jorddyn]

While I laughed at the story when I read it in the paper, what basis could the government possibly give to revoke the non-profit status of a religious institution that did not break the law?
...
Good for the Catholics. They should take a stand, and the Pope himself should excommunicate Biden. Unlikely to happen, but fully within the rights of a religious institution.

Their non-profit status should be revoked because the church shouldn't be involved in politics any more than government should be involved in the church.

[Mabus]

Their non-profit status should be revoked because the church shouldn't be involved in politics any more than government should be involved in the church.
Point to the law that states that churches cannot choose their own legal criteria for membership and privileges within their own social institution.

[BriarFox]

Revoke their non-profit status.

This is the perfect answer - fuck with politics, lose your status that's dependent on your not fucking with politics.

[TheWitch]

Do I believe it is a woman's choice to do what she will with what is growing inside of her? Yes and No, I have mixed feelings. I was pressured by my son's father to having an abortion, in the end I decided against it, because I felt it was wrong.

I can understand why he feels strongly, but I feel it is irresponsible of him as a man of God to deny or tell people they shouldn't get communion because they voted for a man who believes in abortion, a woman's right to choose. Instead, I think he should be championing Pro-Life alternatives if he feels so strongly about it.

Choice is good. You made the decision to carry to term, despite pressure from the father. For someone else in your situation, the tables could have easily been turned, the woman wanting to abort and the father pressuring her to carry to term. Every situation is different.

My point being: No one can make you choose abortion. If your religious beliefs prohibit it, if you are not religious but still believe it is wrong, you have the choice - do not have an abortion. But I believe that choice needs to be maintained. The option for a safe, medically supervised abortion needs to be available.

I do not think it is the government nor the church's business to decide that for me or anyone else, since a decision either way will effect the woman making it for the rest of her life - in different ways.

This priest can of course say what he wants to the parish, especially if he has a vertiable pass from the Pope to say it. And the members of that parish are free to 1. confess and clean their consciences of the guilt the church associates with free thinking, or 2. tell the church to shove it and go to a church that's a little less caught up in control and guilt and one that's welcoming and celebratory. The local Methodist church worked well for me.

[ElanthianSiren]

Good for the Catholics. They should take a stand, and the Pope himself should excommunicate Biden. Unlikely to happen, but fully within the rights of a religious institution.

Sweet, are we then kicking out Bush and congress too? We're obviously not supposed to murder, you know. How far do you take it to blend church and state?

edit: but hey...what's a little depleted uranium?

editedit: if the catholics are going to hold to their right to life bs, I humbly insist they do so in all instances.

[ViridianAsp]

Their non-profit status should be revoked because the church shouldn't be involved in politics any more than government should be involved in the church.

Government is apart of our everyday lives, this priest did not obstruct justice or the government in any way, shape or form. He was talking about abortion, which last I checked isn't a government issue, it is a moral one, really when you get down to it and the question of...is it murder?

Which is a sin..

And last I checked...

Against the law.

[CrystalTears]

Not that I agree with these practices, but I will say that I don't agree with taking away their non-profit status just because they are invoking political reasons into their practices. If they were lobbying with politicians, that's one thing. But just being against someone's beliefs and incorporating it into how they won't side with anyone with that same belief isn't the same thing.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Their non-profit status should be revoked because the church shouldn't be involved in politics any more than government should be involved in the church.

A lot of politicians use religion to garner votes.

[BriarFox]

Point to the law that states that churches cannot choose their own legal criteria for membership and privileges within their own social institution.

Non-profits may not endorse political candidates. This church's action is equivalent to an endorsement. QED.

[Jorddyn]

Not that I agree with these practices, but I will say that I don't agree with taking away their non-profit status just because they are invoking political reasons into their practices. If they were lobbying with politicians, that's one thing. But just being against someone's beliefs and incorporating it into how they won't side with anyone with that same belief isn't the same thing.

Refusal of communion is not something Catholics take lightly, and telling them that because of their votes they shouldn't/won't/can't receive communion is tantamount to campaigning in my opinion.

[Jorddyn]

A lot of politicians use religion to garner votes.

As I said, I don't like it on either side.

[Mabus]

Sweet, are we then kicking out Bush and congress too?
Bush is not, and has not chose to be, a Roman Catholic.

[ElanthianSiren]

Refusal of communion is not something Catholics take lightly, and telling them that because of their votes they shouldn't/won't/can't receive communion is tantamount to campaigning in my opinion.

bingo. There's a reason it's called receiving the "body of christ." Personally, I think it's BS, but if I was a very religious catholic, (instead of a "recovering roman catholic"), I could see feeling quite upset/pressured by it.

[Mabus]

Non-profits may not endorse political candidates.
Which election are they supporting a candidate for, and who is the candidate they are endorsing in this instance?

This is an issue, not a candidate.

[ElanthianSiren]

Bush is not, and has not chose to be, a Roman Catholic.

I'm aware of that. Most churches however preach an "anti murder" doctorine. I was speaking in a general sense. How far do we plan to blend church and state?

[Mabus]

Refusal of communion is not something Catholics take lightly, and telling them that because of their votes they shouldn't/won't/can't receive communion is tantamount to campaigning in my opinion.
Then Catholics should be glad that your "opinion" means absolutely nothing.

[ViridianAsp]

bingo. There's a reason it's called receiving the "body of christ." Personally, I think it's BS, but if I was a very religious catholic, (instead of a "recovering roman catholic"), I could see feeling quite upset/pressured by it.

I wouldn't, I'd go to a different parish.

[ViridianAsp]

I'm aware of that. Most churches however preach an "anti murder" doctorine. I was speaking in a general sense. How far do we plan to blend church and state?

Most churches are against murder, it's one of the ten commandments and uhm, if we're talking abortion yes, most of them consider it murder.

I can't believe people don't understand why others would consider it to be so.

[CrystalTears]

bingo. There's a reason it's called receiving the "body of christ." Personally, I think it's BS, but if I was a very religious catholic, (instead of a "recovering roman catholic"), I could see feeling quite upset/pressured by it.
I'd raise an eyebrow, get up, walk out, and find another church. It's not like there's only one church, and it's not like all priests behave in this fashion.

[ViridianAsp]

I'd raise an eyebrow, get up, walk out, and find another church. It's not like there's only one church, and it's not like all priests behave in this fashion.

EXACTLY.

[ElanthianSiren]

I wouldn't, I'd go to a different parish.

I had that as part of my post, but I deleted it because I remember people I went to church with, -- from my grandmother's church, to the baptist church I went to with my sitter's daughter, to the church in my hometown -- being very attached to the clergy.

Personally, I don't see any solution to the problem, not even removing tax exemption (though I feel we should do this anyway). Religious institutions have always been entangled in politics.

[Mabus]

I wouldn't, I'd go to a different parish.
Exactly. Or choose a different religion altogether.

This organization is simply stating "These are our rules. If you choose not to follow our rules then you cannot be a full member."

Where were these ranters when "Reverend" Wright was spewing his political brand of hatred? Where were they when his former church, TUCC, continued to have speakers that not only advocated on political issues, but mentioned candidates by name during a primary?

Is it just the personal belief in the issue, a dislike for the specific religion, a political leaning...?

No law has been broken by the institution in this matter.

[CrystalTears]

Gay Right activists, AARP, Free the Sheep... lots of organizations, probably lots of non-profit organizations, lobby and support political candidates and their beliefs. Why is it mostly religions and churches that get this much criticism to get their tax exempt status revoked?

I'm being serious with this question.

[Jorddyn]

Then Catholics should be glad that your "opinion" means absolutely nothing.

The Catholics should be careful, as it's entirely possible the courts will have a similar opinion.

[ElanthianSiren]

I see taking away the tax exemption like a slap on the wrist to the church. It's like saying "bad doggy." Hopefully, if they're punished enough times, they'll get the idea that they shouldn't be preaching political ideology. IMO you aren't going to get this kind of effect where it hurts by just letting people walk out. They'll just ask for more donations. I believe plenty called for Wright's church to lose their exemption after his god damn america bs.

I should prephase any post I write with relation to churches that I'm against most organized religions.

[Mabus]

The Catholics should be careful, as it's entirely possible the courts will have a similar opinion.
I look forward to reading of any challenge.

If you look through my posts you will see I am not a fan of institutional religions. I also believe they should be under the same taxation as any other profit making business. Tax all "non-profits", then allow them to deduct money that has been used charitably within the law.

[Jorddyn]

I'd raise an eyebrow, get up, walk out, and find another church. It's not like there's only one church, and it's not like all priests behave in this fashion.

Instead of imagining yourself, imagine someone like my grandmother. She lives in a town of 8,000 people with one Catholic Church. She's lived there for over 60 years, has attended the same church since she was a teenager, is friends with many people in the church, has donated a lot of money to the church, and is incredibly proud to be Catholic, a member of her specific church, and a Democrat.

Were her priest to suddenly declare that she had to either not vote for Obama or not receive communion, I firmly believe that she would choose the former.

For me it is a non-issue as I do not attend any church. For many people in this country, it is an issue, could reasonably be foreseen to change their votes, and as such should be viewed as campaigning.

[ViridianAsp]

I had that as part of my post, but I deleted it because I remember people I went to church with, -- from my grandmother's church, to the baptist church I went to with my sitter's daughter, to the church in my hometown -- being very attached to the clergy.

Personally, I don't see any solution to the problem, not even removing tax exemption (though I feel we should do this anyway). Religious institutions have always been entangled in politics.

I don't think it's a problem to feel strongly about others feeling strongly about abortion. I mean, other than the radical crazies out there who retaliate with violence.

I almost went through with the abortion of my son, until they wanted me to sign a paper stating that I understood that they were going to inject me with something that would make his heart stop. At that point I broke down, it hit me that I did, in fact have a life inside of me and I felt it wasn't my right to take it or let anyone else for that matter.

Just from my experience, I can see how others would feel strongly about it.

I guess I also have to throw in, that my mother was adopted and she was very loved and I was too by the same family. My grandmother couldn't have children of her own and this was the alternative, which I might add was done through the catholic church. I think adoption is a very, very good alternative to abortion, if it hadn't have been, my mother and even myself wouldn't be around.

[TheWitch]

Gay Right activists, AARP, Free the Sheep... lots of organizations, probably lots of non-profit organizations, lobby and support political candidates and their beliefs. Why is it mostly religions and churches that get this much criticism to get their tax exempt status revoked?

I'm being serious with this question.

Separation of church and state.

The motivation for the Puritans to leave England.

We haven't, historically, done that great of a job with it but ya know, it was there at the beginning.

Gay rights is a civil liberties issue, AARP is a collective of people with age as commonality. Mostly, neither of them or Free the Sheep, etc. are trying to legislate other people's behavior to be controlled in concordance with their religious beliefs. Gays want to marry - which doesn't take a way a straight persons right to marry, AARPers want to have early bird dinner - which you too can have when you're 55 and want dinner at 3PM. No one else looses anything, generally speaking.

[CrystalTears]

Instead of imagining yourself, imagine someone like my grandmother. She lives in a town of 8,000 people with one Catholic Church. She's lived there for over 60 years, has attended the same church since she was a teenager, is friends with many people in the church, has donated a lot of money to the church, and is incredibly proud to be Catholic, a member of her specific church, and a Democrat.

Were her priest to suddenly declare that she had to either not vote for Obama or not receive communion, I firmly believe that she would choose the former.

For me it is a non-issue as I do not attend any church. For many people in this country, it is an issue, could reasonably be foreseen to change their votes, and as such should be viewed as campaigning.
And see, my grandmother would say, "Que que?!" and storm out, and she's a very loyal church goer. But her church telling her what to do would totally piss her off, especially if it means not getting communion.

[Jorddyn]

I don't think anyone here is arguing the right or wrong of abortion. This is about whether or not a church should be allowed to be involved in politics. Can we keep it that way?

[Jorddyn]

And see, my grandmother would say, "Que que?!" and storm out, and she's a very loyal church goer. But her church telling her what to do would totally piss her off, especially if it means not getting communion.

But you do understand my point? They're attempting to influence votes. Whether or not it is successful, it is not right.

[CrystalTears]

But the priest was up in arms because of our next president not being completely pro-life, so it's as much of an abortion issue, if not more, than a political issue.

[CrystalTears]

But you do understand my point? They're attempting to influence votes. Whether or not it is successful, it is not right.
Sure I do. But they can do whatever they want with their congregation.

[ElanthianSiren]

I wasn't arguing the right or wrong of abortion. I was saying if churches see abortion as murder, where were they during the most recent spat of wars? Additionally, organized religions have a fair share of blood on their historical hands IMO; a catholic priest arguing this would make me laugh a little inside, even if it wasn't such an obvious chest pound by this isolated section of the church.

[ViridianAsp]

But you do understand my point? They're attempting to influence votes. Whether or not it is successful, it is not right.

So? The teachers of my son's elementary school were wearing Obama support buttons during the election. They had stickers on their cars, I was a McCain supporter I could say that the teachers were trying to influence my child that Obama was the right choice, when I clearly thought it wasn't.

Should I be up in arms at the fact that teachers were supporting him?

I wasn't, because it is their right as Americans to it is free speech. I honestly don't have a problem with this priest saying. "Yeah I'm opposed to Obama and what he backs up.", however I do think it is wrong to deny people communion because they voted for someone who didn't have the same agenda.

I have a feeling that the church will not be happy with this priest, I could be wrong but I didn't think a priest could deny anyone communion.

[CrystalTears]

The differences between casualties of war and the voluntary death of a fetus is an argument I don't think I have the strength for.

[CrystalTears]

I wasn't, because it is their right as Americans to it is free speech. I honestly don't have a problem with this priest saying. "Yeah I'm opposed to Obama and what he backs up.", however I do think it is wrong to deny people communion because they voted for someone who didn't have the same agenda.

I have a feeling that the church will not be happy with this priest, I could be wrong but I didn't think a priest could deny anyone communion.
That was my problem with this story. Not that the priest was stating his beliefs and damning of our next president, but the refusal of the Eucharist that pissed me off.

[Gan]

As long as the church does not get a record of who voted for who... and as long as the priest did not go out and photo cars in the parking lot with Obama stickers on them...

Its hard to prove who to give communion to and who not to.

And I bet that even if they do refuse communion from someone, they'll still take their tithe.

:whistle:

[ViridianAsp]

I wasn't arguing the right or wrong of abortion. I was saying if churches see abortion as murder, where were they during the most recent spat of wars? Additionally, organized religions have a fair share of blood on their historical hands IMO; a catholic priest arguing this would make me laugh a little inside, even if it wasn't such an obvious chest pound by this isolated section of the church.

While I agree most religions have a bloody past. I think what they are talking about is...

This life, this fetus, can't choose for itself to go into a battle for a religious cause, it can't do anything in it's current state. It's helpless, innocent and has no voice to oppose it's own death.

I think that's what they are getting at, I think that is the moral crux of the matter. Can we kill something which is human, that has no voice to say otherwise?

At least that is what I believe, and it's hard to think on. Can we and should we? I know I wouldn't, but I wouldn't stop others from making the choice.

[Jorddyn]

So? The teachers of my son's elementary school were wearing Obama support buttons during the election. They had stickers on their cars, I was a McCain supporter I could say that the teachers were trying to influence my child that Obama was the right choice, when I clearly thought it wasn't.


Can your son vote?

[Jorddyn]

Government is apart of our everyday lives, this priest did not obstruct justice or the government in any way, shape or form. He was talking about abortion, which last I checked isn't a government issue, it is a moral one, really when you get down to it and the question of...is it murder?

Which is a sin..

And last I checked...

Against the law.

This isn't about the right or wrong of abortion, which by the way is NOT against the law. It's about the church attempting to influence votes.

[ViridianAsp]

Can your son vote?

No, he can't but they are influencing his decisions in a way that I *might* not like.

[Mabus]

Separation of church and state.

Nice phrase from Jefferson's Letter.

Here is the full letter:

Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephram Robbins, and Stephen S. Nelson, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut

January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,—The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

[Mabus]

This isn't about the right or wrong of abortion, which by the way is NOT against the law. It's about the church attempting to influence votes.
For which election are they attempting to "influence votes"?

The previous one?

[ElanthianSiren]

As long as the church does not get a record of who voted for who... and as long as the priest did not go out and photo cars in the parking lot with Obama stickers on them...

Its hard to prove who to give communion to and who not to.

And I bet that even if they do refuse communion from someone, they'll still take their tithe.

:whistle:

It's just another attempt to muzzle dissent in the church. If you voted for Obama, shhhh don't say anything or you won't get communion. If you voted for McCain though, you're just fine! In that way, it's forcing an image of the religious community that's skewed and pressuring others to conform rightwardly.

I agree with your last paragraph entirely.

[Jorddyn]

Sure I do. But they can do whatever they want with their congregation.

Then you may find this link interesting.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2007-41.pdf

Rev. Rul. 2007–41
Organizations that are exempt from income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as organizations described insection501(c)(3) maynot participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

[Jorddyn]

For which election are they attempting to "influence votes"?

The previous one?

Or the next one?

[Mathari]

I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but the article linked to in the OP has a very misleading title. The priest is not "denying" anyone Communion, because Church law doesn't allow him to refuse anyone Communion, apparently. He is just telling his parishioners that they should not receive Communion if they meet the conditions he mentions. Any parishioner who disagrees is free to disagree and receive Communion.

Here's a link that makes this clear: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/14/national/main4603110.shtml

Maybe this doesn't change anyone's opinion, but it could be relevant.

[CrystalTears]

Then you may find this link interesting.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2007-41.pdf

Rev. Rul. 2007–41
Organizations that are exempt from income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as organizations described insection501(c)(3) maynot participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Which this church didn't do.

[Jorddyn]

No, he can't but they are influencing his decisions in a way that I *might* not like.

What's that have to do with the tax exempt status of a church, for whom participating in a campaign is against the law?

[Tea & Strumpets]

It's just another attempt to muzzle dissent in the church. If you voted for Obama, shhhh don't say anything or you won't get communion. If you voted for McCain though, you're just fine! In that way, it's forcing an image of the religious community that's skewed and pressuring others to conform rightwardly.

I agree with your last paragraph entirely.

I don't want to play apologist for the church, but I think what they said was that if you took communion before confessing your crime of voting for someone that is pro-abortion, that you risk your soul.

I don't think that is any better than saying "we won't give you communion if you voted for Obama unless you go to confession", but we all might as well argue about what was actually said/published/whatever rather than the thread title.

/end splitting hairs

[ViridianAsp]

I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but the article linked to in the OP has a very misleading title. The priest is not "denying" anyone Communion, because Church law doesn't allow him to refuse anyone Communion, apparently. He is just telling his parishioners that they should not receive Communion if they meet the conditions he mentions. Any parishioner who disagrees is free to disagree and receive Communion.

Here's a link that makes this clear: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/14/national/main4603110.shtml

Maybe this doesn't change anyone's opinion, but it could be relevant.

True, he didn't sorry if my posts stated otherwise, I still think it is in poor taste to even suggest that someone shouldn't. They aren't Obama because they voted for him.

But at the same time, he didn't obstruct anything government or otherwise, there are many organizations out there religious or no who do their best influence votes.

[Jorddyn]

Originally Posted by Jorddyn http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=840061#post840061)
But you do understand my point? They're attempting to influence votes. Whether or not it is successful, it is not right.


Sure I do. But they can do whatever they want with their congregation.



Organizations that are exempt from income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as organizations described insection501(c)(3) maynot participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Which this church didn't do.

You believe that they're attempting to influence votes, but do not belive that this act is participating or intervening in a political campaign?

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't want to play apologist for the church, but I think what they said was that if you took communion before confessing your crime of voting for someone that is pro-abortion, that you risk your soul.

I don't think that is any better than saying "we won't give you communion if you voted for Obama unless you go to confession", but we all might as well argue about what was actually said/published/whatever rather than the thread title.

/end splitting hairs

Point taken.

[ViridianAsp]

What's that have to do with the tax exempt status of a church, for whom participating in a campaign is against the law?


I didn't realized public schools were being taxed nowadays, my bad. The point is that influence is everywhere, if you're that weak minded to fear a priest telling you you'll burn in hell because you voted for someone, maybe you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

I don't think religious orders should be taxed, moral laws and government laws sometimes go hand and hand, yes church and state are supposed to be separate but sometimes they cross over. Do I think they should lose tax-exempt status because they oppose a law? No, I think that's stupid.

"What? Your morals go against our laws? You are speaking out against us? Sorry, we're taxing you now."

[CrystalTears]

Bah. I shouldn't have said sure I do because I don't feel they are trying to influence votes. I'm sorry about that misunderstanding (or lack of reading) on my part. I just don't think it's right with how they're going about influencing people with their beliefs.

That said, they weren't influencing anyone regarding voting for a candidate since the election is over. There is no vote to influence. If this was said and/or done during the campaigns, then maybe I might agree with you, but not after the fact.

[Jorddyn]

I didn't realized public schools were being taxed nowadays, my bad.

You're making huge leaps here.

We're talking about a church trying to influence voters in an election, and you're talking about the morality of abortion and the influence of a teacher over your son who is not able to vote. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Jorddyn]

That said, they weren't influencing anyone regarding voting for a candidate since the election is over. There is no vote to influence. If this was said and/or done during the campaigns, then maybe I might agree with you, but not after the fact.

Might you agree that the same people will likely be voting in the next election and may in fact take this in to account?

[Jorddyn]

"What? Your morals go against our laws? You are speaking out against us? Sorry, we're taxing you now."

I'd feel the same if preachers were saying they'd withhold communion for someone supporting McCain. I'll try harder to oppress you next time, though.

[Sean]

No, he can't but they are influencing his decisions in a way that I *might* not like.

Personally I don't think teachers should be wearing their politics to work (at the high school level and below I don't have much of a problem with college professors). But given your scenario why wouldn't you be upset if you felt your son's teacher was influencing him beyond your comfort level?

[ViridianAsp]

You're making huge leaps here.

We're talking about a church trying to influence voters in an election, and you're talking about the morality of abortion and the influence of a teacher over your son who is not able to vote. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

No, it isn't. This is a case of influence, which happens everyday. These people should have the wits to know better than to listen to this guy. While I understand the priests feelings on the matter I do believe he took it too far, just because some people in an organization be it religious or otherwise, do stupid things like this, their tax-exempt status shouldn't be revoked.

[Jorddyn]

No, it isn't. This is a case of influence, which happens everyday. These people should have the wits to know better than to listen to this guy. While I understand the priests feelings on the matter I do believe he took it too far, just because some people in an organization be it religious or otherwise, do stupid things like this, their tax-exempt status shouldn't be revoked.

Except for that pesky thing called the law, which says it should be.

[Mabus]

The priest is not "denying" anyone Communion, because Church law doesn't allow him to refuse anyone Communion, apparently.
Sure it does in a way (no matter what the linked article says).

"Any prelate having jurisdiction in foro externo can impose an interdict on his subjects or his territory. "

A member of the Catholic clergy can interdict a person, a locale or a mixture of the two for not following canon law. It would then move up the chain as to whether further action was needed, or to rescind, the interdict.

Any priest can deny Eucharist (which differs from the general term "Communion"), if he believes the person continues to live in grave sin.

Any parishioner who disagrees is free to disagree and receive Communion.
And could be risking "their immortal soul" (according to church doctrine) by doing so.


Here's a link that makes this clear: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/14/national/main4603110.shtml

Maybe this doesn't change anyone's opinion, but it could be relevant.
Good link. It is always good to review several sources on a story. My paper's version was the Associated Press version linked in the initial post.

[ViridianAsp]

Personally I don't think teachers should be wearing their politics to work (at the high school level and below I don't have much of a problem with college professors). But given your scenario why wouldn't you be upset if you felt your son's teacher was influencing him beyond your comfort level?

Freedom of speech, one. Two, I know that I instill values at home, I'm not worried if these teachers are bringing political influence into the classroom, if my son came to me and said,

"Mom, my teacher thinks A, B and C and he thinks it's right."

I'd say, "Well I think D and E are right and here is why.."

I think it's a matter of information, I want my son to know that everyone's opinions and feelings on a matter are different, mine isn't the only way of thinking and if he feels something else is better, it's his right to choose it.

As long as it isn't incredibly dangerous, insane or otherwise.

[Mathari]

Sure it does in a way (no matter what the linked article says).

"Any prelate having jurisdiction in foro externo can impose an interdict on his subjects or his territory. "

A member of the Catholic clergy can interdict a person, a locale or a mixture of the two for not following canon law. It would then move up the chain as to whether further action was needed, or to rescind, the interdict.

Any priest can deny Eucharist (which differs from the general term "Communion"), if he believes the person continues to live in grave sin.
Yes, this is true. I meant to qualify my original sentence, but forgot to. The qualification is that Communion can't be denied to someone based on one's political choice. For this reason, the priest has said that he won't be denying anyone communion. Here's another link that says this: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130314&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

[Keller]

Point to the law that states that churches cannot choose their own legal criteria for membership and privileges within their own social institution.

I don't have the time right now to research this -- but I am pretty sure some basic legal research would say that a church would be engaging in political activity if it denied the sacraments to members that voted for a political candidate.

[DeV]

No, he can't but they are influencing his decisions in a way that I *might* not like.They have the ability to do this on any given day about any given topic every time you send your son to school. If you don't like it, take it up with the school. If teachers are getting political in the classroom you have a right to make known your concerns.

Keeping in line with the typical response time to a major issue from the Catholic Church; it's a few days late and a few million dollars short of being an effective, yet indirect endorsement. I do realize this is one Priest's opinion and fortunately the masses do think and vote for themselves.

On the flip side, government can't tell us who to pray to, and that's something you better believe churches count on.

[Mabus]

Yes, this is true. I meant to qualify my original sentence, but forgot to. The qualification is that Communion can't be denied to someone based on one's political choice. For this reason, the priest has said that he won't be denying anyone communion. Here's another link that says this: http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130314&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
Thank you for the link.

Just in case any of you are Roman Catholic and want to research this further it would be under Canon Law #915:
"Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."

[ElanthianSiren]

Freedom of speech, one. Two, I know that I instill values at home, I'm not worried if these teachers are bringing political influence into the classroom, if my son came to me and said,

"Mom, my teacher thinks A, B and C and he thinks it's right."

"I'd say, well I think D and E are right and here is why.."

I think it's a matter of information, I want my son to know that everyone's opinions and feelings on a matter are different, mine isn't the only way of thinking and if he feels something else is better, it's his right to choose it.

As long as it isn't incredibly dangerous, insane or otherwise.

Funny story. I grew up in a very very right wing small town until I was about 10. When I was in third grade, one of my teachers told us that people in Russia were all "slaves." So I came home and told my dad, "Mrs. X said that all people in Russia are slaves. Why?" He then had to sit me down and explain to me that Russia had a different governmental and economic system than we did, and the people in Russia weren't, in fact, slaves.

To be fair, this woman also was a crazy born again Witness who tried to outlaw christmas plays and halloween time. IMO there are times when a teacher expressing their "beliefs" goes too far. She was one of those times.

[ViridianAsp]

Yeah hence the incredibly dangerous, insane or otherwise....

A teacher like that I'd pretty much not want teaching my son, but if a teacher expresses their beliefs, I've no problem with it.

My french teacher was mormon, in Junior highschool. She told us, I don't feel comfortable teaching you how to say the words for alcoholic beverages, one it goes against my beliefs and I think you're all too young to learn them anyway, but feel free if you want to study the lesson on your own, but it will not be required on your next test to know them.

I didn't have a problem with that, I don't think it's a bad thing.

EDITED: As far as religious beliefs as long as they aren't making my child pray, fast, or anything else. I don't feel its a bad thing for the teacher to express their beliefs, I feel that it's a good thing for children to be open-minded about other people's beliefs.

[Mathari]

Thank you for the link.
No prob; you're welcome.

Just in case any of you are Roman Catholic and want to research this further it would be under Canon Law #915:
"Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."
Right; I think this is at least part of what the priest has in mind when he says (as the last article to which I linked paraphrases) "he won't [actively deny the sacrament to Obama voters] because the church teaches that no one is denied communion unless it would cause 'grave scandal' . . . " Presumably, since one's political choice is usually not "manifest" to one's church, and since a vote is apparently not something in which one can "obstinately persist" (it's a one-time thing), giving Communion to an Obama voter is not forbidden by Canon Law #915, and so does not constitute a cause of "grave scandal."

[TheWitch]

They aren't Obama because they voted for him.

Nor did they themselves have an abortion.

And lets not forget, Obama stands for just a wee bit more than this issue. Which is one reason I think the church is making a mistake trying to make abortion THE issue: there is just so much more to consider.

It is an important point, that the priest was calling on people to police themselves. And then he went to point out how exactly to do that.

Good ol Catholic guilt.

[Mabus]

Presumably, since one's political choice is usually not "manifest" to one's church, and since a vote is apparently not something in which one can "obstinately persist" (it's a one-time thing), giving Communion to an Obama voter is not forbidden by Canon Law #915, and so does not constitute a cause of "grave scandal."
I would agree. He could have just lain a territorial interdict upon his parish, and informed them of it in a letter or sermon. This would have brought #915 to bear. Instead, he informed them they should seek forgiveness before taking part in the sacrament.

But he did state voting for those that believe in killing innocents "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil", hence why he calls for "penance" before accepting the Eucharist.

Rather nice of him.

[TheRoseLady]

Exactly. Or choose a different religion altogether.

This organization is simply stating "These are our rules. If you choose not to follow our rules then you cannot be a full member."

Where were these ranters when "Reverend" Wright was spewing his political brand of hatred? Where were they when his former church, TUCC, continued to have speakers that not only advocated on political issues, but mentioned candidates by name during a primary?

Is it just the personal belief in the issue, a dislike for the specific religion, a political leaning...?

No law has been broken by the institution in this matter.

Exactly.

[TheRoseLady]

But you do understand my point? They're attempting to influence votes. Whether or not it is successful, it is not right.

Seriously, any Catholic already knows that they have to try to reconcile the disparity between a pro-choice candidate and the stance of the Church.

A priest doesn't have to say jack about how one should vote to a Catholic, it's a given.

What's not a given - and appears to have been reinforced by this priest is that (in his parish) if you haven't been to confession to discuss (what I am assuming is considered a mortal sin) and seek forgiveness - you better not take communion.

Abortion is just one of the many issues that concern the Catholic church. The church is also very concerned with caring for the sick, homeless, helping women with difficult pregnancies, feeding the hungry, pursuing peace, educating children. While defense of life is paramount, it's not the only issue that we face.

Admittedly my pro-choice stance puts me in a precarious situation with the Church, I couldn't vote simply on the one issue and ignore the mountain of other issues. (Even though I originally said that I would never vote for a anti-choice candidate, it turned out that other issues ultimately made my decision.)

[TheRoseLady]

I hate all of you. I can't post at work, and miss out on the good conversations.

woe is me.

[Joe]

He'll tell them they can't go to confession anymore next.

[Parkbandit]

Refusal of communion is not something Catholics take lightly, and telling them that because of their votes they shouldn't/won't/can't receive communion is tantamount to campaigning in my opinion.


Since it happened after the election.. what exactly is the campaigning for?

Sounds more like revenge.. but that wouldn't be very Christian like, now would it?

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n257/OrangeClouds_115/church_lady.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I'd raise an eyebrow, get up, walk out, and find another church. It's not like there's only one church, and it's not like all priests behave in this fashion.


Weird..

So you are saying that if the priest or reverend is saying or doing something you disagree with, you would simply get up, walk out and find another church?

[Parkbandit]

Were her priest to suddenly declare that she had to either not vote for Obama or not receive communion, I firmly believe that she would choose the former.


Here's where you went wrong.. this happened AFTER the election.. not before.

[Parkbandit]

But the priest was up in arms because of our next president not being completely pro-life, so it's as much of an abortion issue, if not more, than a political issue.

B-I-N-G-O

[Parkbandit]

You're making huge leaps here.

We're talking about a church trying to influence voters in an election, and you're talking about the morality of abortion and the influence of a teacher over your son who is not able to vote. It is irrelevant to the discussion.


We're not talking about a church trying to influence voters in an election... BECAUSE THE ELECTION ALREADY TOOK PLACE.

[CrystalTears]

Weird..

So you are saying that if the priest or reverend is saying or doing something you disagree with, you would simply get up, walk out and find another church?
Considering that I don't attend church anymore because I don't like to be preached to, yes, if I didn't whole-heartedly agree with what my priest was insisting on to be a part of his church, I wouldn't attend there. There are plenty of options around here, there's no sense in staying around someone whom I don't agree with as a priest.

[Parkbandit]

Considering that I don't attend church anymore because I don't like to be preached to, yes, if I didn't whole-heartedly agree with what my priest was insisting on to be a part of his church, I wouldn't attend there. There are plenty of options around here, there's no sense in staying around someone whom I don't agree with as a priest.


Hmm... sounds vaguely familiar...

[CrystalTears]

What are you getting at?

[Parkbandit]

What are you getting at?

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/PH2008050101691.jpg

[CrystalTears]

I see. You're saying that Obama did the same thing, which you condemned him for.

I still feel that his political career should never have been dependent on his spiritual life. Two separate things, not mutually exclusive.

[Parkbandit]

I see. You're saying that Obama did the same thing, which you condemned him for.

I still feel that his political career should never have been dependent on his spiritual life. Two separate things, not mutually exclusive.


No.. just pointing out how you would expect someone to walk out when their priest is doing something or saying something they disagree with in this case, but had no problem with Obama sitting in the pews for 20 years.

I just found it funny.

[CrystalTears]

I wouldn't expect anyone to do anything. I stated what I would do.

I'm not Obama so I can't tell you why he didn't leave sooner. Maybe he slept through the sermons. Maybe he didn't feel that what was being said was that bad. Maybe he thinks Wright just said things for effect and didn't really believe them himself. I have no clue what went through Obama's mind.

However I will say that I didn't agree with how Obama handled it during his campaign rather than earlier if he truly felt that way. He just threw Wright under the bus because it would jeopardize his campaign. I would have rather Obama just stick up for his pastor and stay and let people determine things from there. I honestly don't think it would have ruined his campaign had he been honest. If Wright truly offended him enough to leave, he would have done it sooner.

But again, I defended Obama because I feel that his political career has nothing to do with how he practices his spiritual life. That pissed me off. What Wright says to his congregation has no bearing on whether Obama can lead the country.

[Gan]

What Wright says to his congregation has no bearing on whether Obama can lead the country.

I would agree with you 100% if Obama could lead the country all by himself.

So I understand why Wright was an issue with some. Its a matter of perspective.

[Daniel]

Guys. There's a place you can discuss this: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37461&page=5

[Parkbandit]

Guys. There's a place you can discuss this: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=37461&page=5


Actually, I'll discuss it where I please. If you don't like it, start a new thread of how I am ruining your enjoyment on these boards.

[Daniel]

Actually, I'll discuss it where I please. If you don't like it, start a new thread of how I am ruining your enjoyment on these boards.

Let it go brother. It will be okay.

[Stanley Burrell]

This ... is the first time in the history of South Carolina that a religious figure hath spoken against the Satanic ritual of abortion. Blessed be.

[Parkbandit]

Let it go brother. It will be okay.


Yea, because I'm so distraught over the election. /sarcasm.

Seriously, you are fucking stupid as all get out. Obama winning the election had nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making. Maybe get a grownup to help you comprehend a thread, because so far, you have failed miserably.

[Daniel]

That's why you're still talking about shit no one cared about 9 months ago ;)

[Parkbandit]

That's why you're still talking about shit no one cared about 9 months ago ;)

Making a point.. something you fail to do on most occasions, so I wouldn't expect you to understand.

[CrystalTears]

Making a point.. something you fail to do on most occasions, so I wouldn't expect you to understand.
So what IS the point you're trying to make?

[Daniel]

So what IS the point you're trying to make?

That you're a semi former conservative?

[mgoddess]

Good Lord, I am so glad I'm not affiliated with the Catholic church anymore... I know for sure that not all Catholics are like this, but damn.

[Clove]

I would agree with you 100% if Obama could lead the country all by himself.

So I understand why Wright was an issue with some. Its a matter of perspective.Nobody does any important job by themselves, however, I don't respect a perspective that will ignore a career record in favor of a sensationalistic association. How I do my JOB (for which there is a record) should determine my consideration for more important jobs. Not whom I'm married to, whom I'm friends with, or whose church I go to. To suggest otherwise is entirely against our beliefs of religious freedom and tolerance and at best flirts with bigotry.

[Gan]

Nobody does any important job by themselves, however, I don't respect a perspective that will ignore a career record in favor of a sensationalistic association. How I do my JOB (for which there is a record) should determine my consideration for more important jobs. Not whom I'm married to, whom I'm friends with, or whose church I go to. To suggest otherwise is entirely against our beliefs of religious freedom and tolerance and at best flirts with bigotry.

In Obama's instance, I dont believe anyone was ignoring his record in lieu of his associations. Or at least rationally ignoring one for the other.

I think all of that information is part of the analysis of what makes up the man.

Ignoring the facet of associations is simply turning a blind eye towards information attributed to character and in the case where a person's job moves from being a one person job to being a multi-person job its a foolish omission.

[Clove]

Ignoring the facet of associations is simply turning a blind eye towards information attributed to character and in the case where a person's job moves from being a one person job to being a multi-person job its a foolish omission.If Obama had ever suggested putting Wright on his cabinet or including him as an official in his campaign, I'd concede this point. Mere association is immaterial; and yes his association with Wright was being pushed as a concern that rivaled his career history in my opinion.