Friday, May 14, 2004
Have you ever heard anything more un-American?
A reader from Tree Fort West (it's a long story) sent this:
Defenders of this type of meddling will claim it is merely the Church reminding its flock of its own mandates, but there is a clear distinction to be made between telling Catholics what the Church's position is--the proper role of a priest--and going the next step and telling them how to vote.
The former is the realm of religion; the latter is an overt political act, and as such should render the Church subject to normal political rules. It must lose its tax-exempt status.
Imagine, for a moment, if the Unitarian Universalist Church began requiring its members to vote only for politicians who supported abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage. Can you imagine what the reaction would be from the Catholic Church--not to mention the rest of the right-wing in this country?
Bishop Sheridan has forgotten his place, and, more importantly, he's forgotten the meaning of separation of Church and State. The members of his flock are also citizens of the United States, and entitled to all its civic freedoms. And that includes, whether or not Sheridan likes it, the freedom to vote for whoever they like--regardless of Church doctrine.
American Catholics are BOTH Americans and Catholics, and nothing in the Catholic doctrine can change that. The Bishop cannot reasonably expect them to surrender the former for the latter. If he wishes a flock that will allow their political will to be subservient to the teachings of the Church, he must request that the Vatican transfer him to a country without a Bill of Rights, and without mandated separation of Church and State. There he could insist to his heart's content that religious doctrine take precedence over personal and civic freedoms.
In the United States, on the other hand, it is the Bishop who must govern his actions, not his flock. Accepting a Catholic post in the United States means accepting that his parishoners have freedoms beyond and outside his Church, and that to cross the line from the religious to the political is to require the nullification of the exemptions his religious body enjoys.
The Bishop is free to tell Catholics what Catholic doctrine expects of them; he's free to tell them what doctrine accepts and what it does not accept. But he must himself accept that after he's said his piece, and sits watching them file two-by-two out of Mass, he cannot, in the United States, control how they vote.
To expect otherwise is to believe that Catholic doctrine takes precedence over American freedom. It does not.
The Denver PostNow to our minds, this immediately calls into question the tax-exempt status of the Church. It is an overt political act to tell people how to vote.
Bishop draws line for voters
Communion tied to politics
By Eric Gorski
Denver Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 14, 2004 -
[Bishop Michael Sheridan]...of Colorado's second-largest Roman Catholic diocese has issued a pastoral letter saying Catholics cannot receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage.
Defenders of this type of meddling will claim it is merely the Church reminding its flock of its own mandates, but there is a clear distinction to be made between telling Catholics what the Church's position is--the proper role of a priest--and going the next step and telling them how to vote.
The former is the realm of religion; the latter is an overt political act, and as such should render the Church subject to normal political rules. It must lose its tax-exempt status.
Imagine, for a moment, if the Unitarian Universalist Church began requiring its members to vote only for politicians who supported abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage. Can you imagine what the reaction would be from the Catholic Church--not to mention the rest of the right-wing in this country?
Bishop Sheridan has forgotten his place, and, more importantly, he's forgotten the meaning of separation of Church and State. The members of his flock are also citizens of the United States, and entitled to all its civic freedoms. And that includes, whether or not Sheridan likes it, the freedom to vote for whoever they like--regardless of Church doctrine.
American Catholics are BOTH Americans and Catholics, and nothing in the Catholic doctrine can change that. The Bishop cannot reasonably expect them to surrender the former for the latter. If he wishes a flock that will allow their political will to be subservient to the teachings of the Church, he must request that the Vatican transfer him to a country without a Bill of Rights, and without mandated separation of Church and State. There he could insist to his heart's content that religious doctrine take precedence over personal and civic freedoms.
In the United States, on the other hand, it is the Bishop who must govern his actions, not his flock. Accepting a Catholic post in the United States means accepting that his parishoners have freedoms beyond and outside his Church, and that to cross the line from the religious to the political is to require the nullification of the exemptions his religious body enjoys.
The Bishop is free to tell Catholics what Catholic doctrine expects of them; he's free to tell them what doctrine accepts and what it does not accept. But he must himself accept that after he's said his piece, and sits watching them file two-by-two out of Mass, he cannot, in the United States, control how they vote.
To expect otherwise is to believe that Catholic doctrine takes precedence over American freedom. It does not.
