I am not Catholic, so I have only an outsider’s understanding of what partaking in the Roman Catholic Church’s sacraments mean to members of the Church. I believe strongly that I should be answerable to the country’s laws, and not subject to any Church’s idea of morality.
Bishop Tobin has seen fit to excommunicate Patrick Kennedy from Catholic practice. Given the hierarchical nature of the RCC, I assume this action has the approval of Tobin’s Cardinal and the Pope. I can only imagine this causes Kennedy spiritual pain and confusion, and applies pressure to Kennedy to vote in the way the Catholic Church commands.
As I recall, fear of this pressure was exactly what was used to drum up anti-Catholic sentiment against the election of Patrick’s uncle John F. Kennedy. These fears were assuaged by JFK’s declaration “I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me.”
The problem now is, the Church is demanding to speak for (some) Catholic politicians, under pains of excommunication.
So now comes this primary to determine the Democratic nominee to succeed Ted Kennedy. Two (or maybe three) of the candidates are Catholic. (Pagliuca and Khazei are. Coakley grew up Catholic, but it’s unclear whether she still practices.)
I feel like a bigot for even asking the question, but given Bishop Tobin’s actions, I think it must be asked – should I avoid voting for a Catholic to fill this seat?
BTW, Wikipedia lists Coakley and Capuano as Catholic so if you’re sure about the other two then Dems are 4 for 4 in this race. I think it is reasonable to ask how each might apply their faith, but also take them at their word when they answer. After all, whooever wins will be replacing one of the most famous elected Catholics in the country. There are plenty of pro-choice Catholics, for example, and in Massachusetts if you automatically ruled out Catholics your choices would be very slim indeed.
Since that’s true, it’s unfair to write off a candidate simply because of his or her religious affiliation. You also shouldn’t make snap judgments based on someone’s surname — for example Pagliuca was raised Episcopal rather than Catholic.
<
p>Despite the hierarchical nature of the RC church, many or even perhaps most American Catholics take the “cafeteria” approach that so bothers the hierarchy. From the molestation business to the closings of church buildings, you keep seeing groups of American Catholics who appear to believe that the church belongs to them rather than to the Vatican. With an individual Catholic politician, you have to look at their record and their statements to judge them as an individual. A blanket rule might make sense for minor offices as a convenience, but for this election you have no excuse not to look up all the candidates as individuals. If, like me, you think that support for choice and for gay marriage is a moral prerequisite for the office, then find out their positions and vote that way, As far as I know, all four Democratic candidates are more or less with me on those two issues.
Just for the record: he said in the WGBH debate that he was raised Episcopalian. So unless he joined the Catholic Church later, he’s the only non-Catholic candidate.
is a hair-breadth from RC. Really. Very pro-life – and opposed to abortion except for the life of the mother, rape, incest and fetal abnormality.
It’s worth at least a look at the Wikipedia article on a religious sect before posting about it. Remember that the Episcopal Church of the US is facing a potential schism, with the arch-conservatives in it threatening to secede and affiliate with African provinces of the world-wide Anglican communion. The mainstream American church has elevated a gay man to the rank of bishop and has left the decision of whether to bless same-sex unions up to individual bishops.
<
p>Wikipedia describes the Episcopal Church USA’s position on abortion as “nuanced” — suffice it to say that Mr. Pagliuca is in no danger of being denied communion for his claimed pro-choice position. Here’s the first news article that came up on episcopalchurc.org for the keyword “abortion”. Do these people strike you as “hair-breadth from RC”?
<
p>http://www.episcopalchurch.org…
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, I’m not voting for a guy who’s big pals with Mitt Romney and gave money to elect GWB. But your attack on him here is off base.
I casually mentioned that the Episcopalian church is pro-life, with exceptions. I know this…because I was christened in that church, and quite familiar with it. Church of St. Andrew, Staten Island, NY. So….are you really going to down-rate me because I am stating something I know to be true or are you downrating me because you think I’m wrong?
Your statement that “the ECUSA is a hair’s breadth from the RC on the issue of abortion” struck me as obviously false given my knowledge of lots of ECUSA people (who fit into the mainstream of Amherst MA, if you get my drift). I jumped to the conclusion that you were making it out of complete ignorance. I apologize — you made it out of an almost complete ignorance, equating your single congregation with a denomination that prides itself on allowing diversity of opinion.
<
p>It was sheer speculation on my part that your motivation was to attack Pags, but I was trying to make some sense out of what you were saying.
and this piece,about avoiding voting for a Catholic, isn’t ignorant.
I casually mentioned that the Episcopalian church is pro-life, with exceptions. I know this…because I was christened in that church, and quite familiar with it. Church of St. Andrew, Staten Island, NY. So….are you really going to down-rate me because I am stating something I know to be true or are you downrating me because you think I’m wrong?
From the Ask.com summary –
<
p>
<
p>There’s a lot of individal decision in Protestant congregations, even within denominations. It has been said that the English believers have 60 religions but only 1 sauce; even now, in Maine you have towns of 2,000 with four competing Baptist churches.
<
p>One thing I’ve wondered about ever since the debates – Capuano said, “I’m very comfortable with my own religious beliefs. What I do is between me and God and nobody else – and that applies to any church, including the Catholic Church.”
<
p>Does he understand that he is articulating the core of the Protestant rebellion? That a person’s faith is indeed between himself and God, and does not need an intercessor in the form of a priest? If this is truly his belief, he isn’t actually a Catholic at all.
To Capuano, as to many American Catholics, it’s he rather than you or the Pope or the Bishop of Rhode Island who gets to decide whether he’s a Catholic. That’s why so many of them stay inside the church and try to fix it, rather than accept the hierarchy’s definition of what the church is.
<
p>Whether the “progressives” will win control of either the RC church or the Anglican communion is yet to be decided. There’s a good argument that the numbers are hopelessly against them — the great majority of Christians in the world are conservative ones in the Third World.
Again, I claim only an outsider’s knowledge of how the RCC works, so I may be totally wrong on this.
<
p>But it seems that, with Tobin’s actions, the RCC is changing. It is telling Patrick Kennedy that he can’t participate in the sacraments. This church behavior seems new.
Said of the aformentioned gay bishop:
<
p>http://www.catholicculture.org…
<
p>
“While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion..”
I spent thirty years as a dedicated, pledging, going-every-week Episcopalian. This comment is incorrect on several counts.
<
p>First, the Episcopal church is famous for not taking a stand on anything, ever. They ducked the issue of slavery for a hundred years. The Episcopal church is culturally opposed to taking a firm position on anything.
<
p>Second, the Episcopal church is, by design, bottom-up instead of top-down. An Episcopal Bishop has less authority than an Episcopal Priest. The Archbishop of Canterbury has less authority than any Bishop. The physical building of an Episcopal parish is owned by the parish, not the diocese. Each parish makes contributions to the diocese, not vice-versa. The Episcopal church lacks the institutional mechanism to take an institutional stand on anything. The church meets in convention annually, at both the diocesan and national levels, and those conventions consider and pass resolutions on every side of every issue — resolutions that have zero authority or effect.
<
p>Third, the Episcopal church has been a leader in womens rights and issues of gender and sexuality for decades. It was the first major denomination to ordain a woman bishop. It has a long history of championing reproductive choice, and a long history of championing gay and lesbian causes. It has an equally long history of opposing such changes, as the entire world has seen played out after the ordination of Gene Robinson as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire.
<
p>I offer, for example, this 2004 piece:
<
p>
<
p>Later in this piece is an example of how the Episcopal church virtually always approaches such questions (emphasis mine):
<
p>The style of the Episcopal church is to offer support and comfort for each view of each divisive issue. A person who opposes abortion in all cases will readily find numerous convention resolutions, statements of encouragement, and personal testimony in accordance with that view. A person who fervently supports a woman’s right to chose will readily find numerous convention resolutions, statements of encouragement, and personal testimony in accordance with that view.
<
p>The Episcopal church is the antithesis of the Roman Catholic church on such matters — which is why so many Roman Catholics seek the Episcopal church as a refuge from the far more authoritarian posture of the Roman Catholic institution.
Are you sure, absolutely sure of that?
<
p>
What is there to object to? The Epicopalians acknowledge the legal right of women to choose, but hopes they regard it as a serious choice.
and I have no objection. Earlier in this string, I was accused of “attacking” Steve Pagliuca, for pointing out that the Episcopal Church is a a hairbreadth from Catholicism. Not on all issues, mind you, but if you’ve ever been to the Mass, it’s quite familiar. And the point I have been trying to make is that the EC emphatically opposes abortion as a means of birth control,family planning,sex selection or reason of mere convenience. It believes that if this right is exercised, it should only be used in extreme situations. This is NOT what previous posters have stated. I was only clarifying the position.
From what you say, your CONGREGATION held these views. The Episcopalian Church per se is not as doctrinaire.
<
p>As I posted, the similarity between Roman Catholic and Episcopalian churches are primarily liturgical and cosmetic; doctrine and teaqching are very different, with Catholics taking a hard stance.
<
p>It is often hard for those in overwhelmingly Catholic Mass. to understand that the Catholic Chruch is not representative of religion and/or Christianity overall. I remember during the height of the clergy abuse scandal, I mentioned that it would be harder for that to happen in Protestant churches, as we hire/fire as congregations, and there isn’t the same sort of hierarchy to transfer ministers around without consent – still, many believe that ALL churches have a structure that allows that.
The approach of the Roman Catholic church is to articulate, from the top down, a formal statement of dogma and resulting policy. The institution now presumes to punish lawmakers who refuse to reflect this dogma in their pursuit of their public (and explicitly secular) duty.
<
p>The antithetical approach of the Episcopal church is to issue, in a non-binding convention resolution (we don’t even know whether at the Diocesan or national level) a statement that firmly asserts both sides of the issue.
<
p>Your quote conveniently elided the opening phrase of the portion you offer:
<
p>See? Both sides. Take your pick.
…does not a hair’s-breadth make. I don’t hear Episcopal Bishops trying to excommunicate those who disagree either, and I’m not sure they even acknowledge the concept. The Anglican Communion was largely Protestantized under Edward VI and Elizabeth I and the US Episcopal Church at least ordains and consecrates women. It does straddle the fence a bit between mainline Protestantism and Catholicism, but I see it as the perfect church for those who want to combine Protestant theology with Catholic practices.
I blame Charles V. Henry was only trying to avoid another War of the Roses, which was understandable, but Charles was just being thickheaded in his defense of his Aunt.
…that the Anglican Church gets all tied in knots about divorce (Edward VIII and Wallis, Charles and Camilla). The church wouldn’t exist but for a king insisting on his divorce. That said, it has now evolved separately from Catholicism.
The divorce was an issue, yes, and was so in the context of the escalating battle over who controlled the future of what we, today, call the “United Kingdom”.
<
p>Henry had no heirs, and (rightly or wrongly) blamed his wife for not producing sons. He was desperate to produce an heir to avoid regressing into another War of the Roses, as JoeTS rightly observes.
<
p>Even more crucial to the formation of the Anglican church, however, was King Henry’s insistence that he — not the Pope — determine who was and was not to be elevated to Bishop. The Anglican Church was founded to moot this controversy — hence the creation of the “Archbishop of Canterbury”. It is no accident that the office has minimal real civic power.
<
p>The Anglican Communion has, since its inception, had separation of church and state wired into its cultural and institutional DNA. It is why the Episcopal church is literally and figuratively independent. It is why it is so incorrect to describe it as “hair-breadth from RC” — the difference is pervasive and fundamental.
<
p>Finally, not to put too fine a point on it, it is the independence of the Episcopal church (an independent American entity) in ordaining Gene Robinson (and legions of women priests and bishops) that is creating such a fundamental fracture in the Anglican Communion. For example, the Episcopal church itself was born when a renegade Bishop ordained a Bishop in the colonies — breaking the iron grip over ordination that the C of E had maintained until then. Such an ordination is recognized in the Anglican tradition and is not recognized in the RC tradition. Here is one description (emphasis mine):
<
p>The analogous action — of ordaining Gene Robinson — is literally impossible in the institutional Roman Catholic church.
<
p>The attitudes towards divorce are — frankly — irrelevant.
Somehow I’ve managed to read more about this “Great Matter” as the King called it than most episodes in English history and this one was not about investiture. Henry VIII had every intention of staying with the Roman church until he decided he couldn’t get his divorce. He even wrote “In Defense of the Seven Sacriments” in response to Martin Luther, earning him the Papal title of “Defender of the Faith” which, break from Rome notwithstanding, British monarchs still hold.
<
p>You are correct that the national churches of the Anglican Communion are more-or-less independent, though they do “covenant” (to use a term popular in my own United Church of Christ) with each other and based on prayers of intercession in Episcopal services I’ve attended they do at least symbolically acknowledge the Archbishop of Canterbury as their spiritual leader, praying for him in the same space the Pope would be prayed for during Catholic Mass.
<
p>While there is complete religious liberty in the UK and no denial of rights on that basis church and state are NOT completely separate. The sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (was Supreme Head until they decided in true Protestant fashion that only Christ should have that distinction). She appoints the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the various other Bishops (like everything else she does on the advice of the Prime Minister). The two Archbishops and some Bishops serve as Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. Scotland has always been a bit of a maverick in both secular and religious matters, even to the point that the new Supreme Court of the UK is the final appeal for England and Wales, but not Scotland.
<
p>Ironically of course, Henry VIII’s perfectly legitimate first-born daughter (of his first divorced wife, Catherine of Aragon) Mary DID eventually become Queen and, attempted coup featuring Lady Jane Grey notwithstanding, did not face significant challenge, though she did have to yield to her younger brother, Edward VI, who died without children of his own.
When I wrote that “The attitudes towards divorce are — frankly — irrelevant”, I was responding to this part of your last comment:
“Which is why I find it amusing that the Anglican Church gets all tied in knots about divorce (Edward VIII and Wallis, Charles and Camilla)”
<
p>While the question of Henry VIII’s divorce was certainly relevant (at the time), my point is that it is a mistake to believe that it was the “reason” for the split. The Anglican church would not have taken root nor blossomed the way it did were the soil in which it grew not fertile indeed.
<
p>My point about independence is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, as head of the Anglican Communion, nevertheless does not have the authority to order the Episcopal church to do anything — covenant or not. In the RC tradition, no ordination is recognized without Papal authority — while precisely the opposite is true within the Anglican tradition. Had Gene Robinson been “ordained” as Bishop within the RC tradition, the ceremony would have been dismissed and ignored (as the various attempts to ordain women as RC priests has been dismissed and ignored).
<
p>The current schism within the Episcopal church in particular and the Anglican Communion in general regarding the ordination of gay and lesbian priests and bishops could not happen in the RC church. Similarly, the decision to close RC parishes could not happen in the Episcopal church. Both are impossible for the same reason — authority in the Episcopal church comes from the bottom towards the top, while authority in the RC tradition comes from the Pope down.
<
p>This is what I meant in my response to Justice when I wrote that the Episcopal church is — literally — the antithesis of the RC tradition.
…but given all I’ve read and studied I can assure you that yes, the king’s divorce (or more precisely his not getting it from Rome) WAS THE reason for the break in jurisdiction though not theology. It was Edward VI (his counselors really since he was a boy) who completed the doctrinal and theological break.
…no royal divorce means no Anglican Church, at least not then and there. If Catherine of Aragon had borne a surviving son and Henry VIII stayed happy in his marriage he wouldn’t have broken with Rome. This isn’t to say that Protestantism would not have eventually come to the Isles, but I suspect it would have been in a form already in place on the Continent such as Lutheranism or (more likely given what did happen) Calvinism, rather than in the form of a national church initiated by the Crown. If you’re saying that church teaching evolves, OK, but given what DID happen I still find Anglican hand-wringing over a royal divorce ironic to say the least.
“I assume this action has the approval of Tobin’s Cardinal and the Pope.” I have no idea why the Pope would have knowledge of such a minor kerfuffle. With child abuse issues still raging in Canada and Ireland, he’s got much bigger fish to fry.
<
p>As for your other question, it is foolish to presume that all Catholic politicians will be cowed by church officials in other states.
if the Pope (or Tobin’s cardinal) disagreed with Tobin, Tobin would be told to act differently, and Tobin would comply.
The Catholic Church is against the death penalty, but you don’t see too many of the Church Hierarchy denying communion to politicians who support the DP. The hypocrisy is astounding.
It’s because the death penalty doesn’t constitute an attack on the church militant.
If they are going to deny communion to someone who is pro-choice then logic dictates that they should also deny communion to those politicians who are pro-death penalty.
I’ve gone over this before, but it’s a distinction worth mentioning for this exact reason.
<
p>In the church, there is something called latae senteniae, which is when someone excommunicates themselves by completing certain acts. These include people who apostate against the church, priests who break the seal of confession, and people who procure or do the abortion procedure.
<
p>The idea behind latae senteniae is that such acts are attacks against the church militant, which is the ecclesiastical division of catholics that are living (as opposed to those who are in heaven or purgatory).
<
p>For example, a priest who breaks the seal of confession attacks the church militant because he commits an act that causes people to stop having their sins confessed, which has huge reprecussions. The reason abortion is such an offense is because the family is considered to be the foundation of the church, and an abortion is one of the most anti-family things one can do, and therefore counts as an attack on the church militant. Since a person who is being put to death is assumably guilty of a very egregious crime, this person is probably already not in good standing with Rome. Furthermore, there isn’t a long-term threat to the church militant as far as the way the death penalty is utilized in America. Thus, one would not earn excommunication from supporting it, even though the church does not support the act.
<
p>However, the church does act incredibly slowly in changing dogmas and doctrines, so while it is not on the books yet, look for some sort of sex-abuse related clause to appear within our lifetimes to reflect the problems we are currently experiencing.
Many good points.
<
p>My frustration is not with any of the candidates, it’s with the Catholic Church. Not being Catholic, I have no influence over the Church. I resent the fact that the Church wants to have influence over me – it feels deeply un-American.
<
p>I know that all the candidates in the Democratic primary want to represent their constituents, not the Pope. My concern is that the RCC is saying “thou shalt vote the way I say”.
<
p>This seems to be a new position for the RCC, and I hope they cut it out.
The genesis of this was Patrick Kennedy saying the RI bishop had sent him a letter suggesting he refrain from sacraments.
<
p>The letter was sent in 2007, and I don’t recall any bishop making a public deal over this until KENNEDY himself raised the issue.
<
p>This bishop sent a letter telling a congregant that he was breaking church law, which Kennedy knew, and he should obey his conscience which Kennedy apparently did, as there hasn’t been any mention of him actually being DENIED communion.
<
p>So where’s the ‘thou shalt vote’ in all this? It wasn’t the church that publicized this.
<
p>(This is why I’m so glad my church has what it called an ‘open table’ – matters of thought, repentance, and belief are between you and the only One who knows, and who is perfectly capable of applying His judgement individually at a later date – if YOU want Communion, well, mazel tov!)
Kennedy was not having or procuring an abortion. He was representing his constituents.
<
p>Why does it matter who publicized it? The fact is, the church had excommunicated Kennedy for the way he was doing his job.
Are you considering not voting for African-Americans in case you don’t agree with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or whomever claims to speak for all African-Americans?
<
p>I don’t see why you’d reject all practicing Catholics because some of their leaders are nuts. To reference the above discussion, not all Anglican/Episcopalian leaders are hot stuff either:
<
p>
<
p>Bishop Peter Akinola
(as far as I know) Catholics believe their leaders are infallibly speaking G-d’s will. Catholic leaders determine who can and who can’t take part in the sacraments – they are the judge of who is and who isn’t allowed to practice their religion.
<
p>This is not true of Jackson’s or Sharpton’s church. You can disagree with them and still be Christian (and still be black!).
<
p>Episcopalians and Anglicans may be different – I don’t know enough to say. In fact, I don’t think I know enough about the Catholic Church either, which was one motivation for the thread.
The infallibility extends only to the Pope, only in matters of faith and morals, and only when he invokes ex cathedra, which is super-rare.
<
p>Bishops and priests are given a lot of independence as far as who can recieve communion and who can’t, but they are bound by numerous rules in the Catholic ruleboook, which is called The Code of Canon Law.
Again, you’re confusing what Catholic leaders say that Catholics have to believe, with what Catholics actually believe. A very few Catholics believe that Pope Benedict XVI speaks infallibly, but the vast majority don’t — they use birth control, to start with. I think you’re not giving enough credit to people who identify themselves as practicing Catholics.