Vatican: Be careful on denying Communion
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 06-04-2004 - 2:39pm |
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Bishops%20Politics
Friday, June 4, 2004 · Last updated 10:19 a.m. PT
Vatican: Be careful on denying Communion
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK -- A top Vatican cardinal told visiting U.S. bishops they should be cautious about denying Communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support policies at odds with church teaching, according to a news report.
Bishop Donald Pelotte of Gallup, N.M., said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke of proceeding cautiously on the issue, Catholic News Service reported. Ratzinger said he would like Vatican officials to meet soon with a U.S. bishops' panel reviewing how church leaders should interact with Catholics in public life.
Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, did not say whether the sacrament should be used as a sanction, said Pelotte, who was among a group of bishops participating in the meeting this week in Rome.
Pelotte was traveling and could not be reached for comment Friday, his spokesman told The Associated Press. American bishops have been at the Vatican for "ad limina" visits, which prelates must make every five years.
Several bishops have sparked a national debate on religion and politics with their varied positions on whether Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who is Catholic and supports abortion rights, should receive Communion.
Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has said he would not give the sacrament to the candidate.
Other bishops have said Kerry should not attempt to take Communion, but would not be denied the sacrament if he did. Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., extended a similar warning to those who vote for Catholic politicians who make policy contrary to church teaching.
However, several prelates have said Communion should not be used as a public punishment.
Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, leader of the bishops' task force on the issue, has not spoken with Ratzinger about a meeting, his spokeswoman told The AP. But the cardinal said in a statement, "I am happy to meet with him on anything."
What Ratzinger "was suggesting was a meeting as soon as possible between the (bishops') task force and people at the doctrinal congregation, to work out some kind of understanding," Pelotte told CNS, an independently operating news agency that is under the communications arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The task force is expected to give a progress report on its work at the U.S. bishops' closed-door, national retreat in Denver starting June 14, but the committee may not finish its work before the November election.
cl-nwtreehugger
Community Leader: In The News & Sports Talk
I can also be found at Washington, TV Shows & QOTW

In a related article, a Colorado Springs Roman Catholic church is having it's tax-exempt status challenged for using church resources to try to influence voters, and to place sanctions against people who supported politicians who supported issues that are contrary to church doctrine.
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/43004-mcgreevy.html
The RCC is also trying to interfere, by inserting their 2cents,
ITA. Except we should have done this when the protestant churches began preaching a position on elections from their pulpit. This is just the latest step in churches trying to use their power to determine governmental policy. Soon we may not be able to distinguish religious influence from governmental influence.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we should address the problem of militant Muslim imams who screech JIHAD from their mosques thus interfering with freedom loving civilians.
>"militant Muslim imams who screech JIHAD from their mosques thus interfering with freedom loving civilians."<
Agreed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/politics/08church.html
Representative Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, added the measure to a much larger bill, introduced in the committee on Friday, that centers on revising certain corporate taxes. The provision, called Safe Harbor for Churches, would allow religious organizations a limited number of violations of the existing rules against political endorsements without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Although its chances of enactment are uncertain, Democrats and other critics of the proposal argue that its timing suggests that Republicans are trying to bend the tax rules in time to help the president's re-election campaign.
Last week, an effort by the campaign to enlist members of "friendly congregations" in distributing campaign information at their places of worship came to light in the form of a message e-mailed to some members of the clergy and other people in Pennsylvania, and legal experts warned that any implicit endorsement of one candidate over another could jeopardize a religious group's tax-exempt status.
"It looks suspicious," Daniel Maffei, communications director for the Democratic minority on the committee, said of Mr. Thomas's proposal.
The bill, now proceeding on a fast track, is scheduled to move from committee to presentation on the House floor next week. If passed in time for the election, Mr. Maffei said, it could invite "widespread abuse" by religious leaders using their positions to support favorite candidates.
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the timing "simply reeks to high heaven, literally."
Representatives of Chairman Thomas and of the Ways and Means Committee's Republican majority did not respond to calls for comment, and Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said it had not yet taken a position on the bill.
But Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, called Mr. Lynn's view extreme.
"He would like to exclude people of faith from participating in America's civic life and participating in the political process," Mr. Schmidt said. "That is just fundamentally wrong. The Bush campaign has an inclusive message. The campaign wants people of faith to participate in the political process."
Conservative Christians have pressed for years to loosen the restrictions on political endorsements by religious groups, and Representative Walter B. Jones, Republican of North Carolina, has previously proposed legislation to that effect.
In an interview yesterday, Dr. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said his denomination also supported efforts to lift the restrictions.
"We don't think that churches should be endorsing candidates,'' Dr. Land said, "but that should be a decision made by the churches, not by the government.''
The Safe Harbor for Churches provision is less sweeping than previous proposals to change the rules. It would greatly reduce the tax penalties for either one or two deliberate political endorsements in a calendar year and would also allow a church to make as many as three "unintentional" political endorsements in a calendar year without penalty. It does not define "unintentional.''
"Our impression is this means you get three sins with no penance," said Mr. Maffei, of the Ways and Means minority staff. "That means you can take the last three Sundays before the election and pass out a voter card and still retain your tax status as a church."
Still, earlier attempts to loosen the restrictions have all failed. Representative Thomas has said he believes that the bill before his committee will pass the House. But it also needs to be reconciled with a version, already passed by the Senate, that does not include the Safe Harbor provision.
Opponents promise an energetic fight.
"I think there will be a huge battle," said one of them, Mr. Lynn.
"He would like to exclude people of faith from participating in America's civic life and participating in the political process," Mr. Schmidt said. "That is just fundamentally wrong. The Bush campaign has an inclusive message. The campaign wants people of faith to participate in the political process."
How is restricting 'the church' from making political endorsements in any way excluding 'people of faith' from the political process?