I did not force you to discuss the denial of communion aspect of the story.
You did that yourself when you said:
"This does not mean that I would hesitate to vote against a president who
asked the Pope to instruct American bishops to denounce action I approve
of."
The "action that I approve of" in the context of this story has to be Kerry
taking communion in violation of Church norms. If you mean that phrase to
refer to a pro-choice stand, then I am genuinely surprised at your lack of
understanding about this Pope's repeated condemnations of the pro-choice
position. If that's the case, I apologize for that misinterpretation.
To aid in your understanding of the context, here is the basic background of
the dilemma: No person should take communion unless (s)he is in state of
grace. The Church does not generally police that judgment. However, when a
person has made public pronouncements against the faith, the Church may have
to intervene to avoid the scandal that others may think that such a position
was consistent with the taking of communion and to ensure that the adherent
understands that his or her soul is in danger.
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it has
everything to do with the peculiar question discussed on this listserv.
My understanding of Marty's question was whether it is
constitutionally appropriate for the President and the Pope to talk about
what American Bishops should do concerning giving John Kerry communion, not
whether Kerry should take or be given communion. Discussing that question
(of constitutional appropriateness) does not (cannot) force me (or anyone
else) to take a position concerning the "Kerry-communion" question. And
that latter question is precisely what Mr. Sarwal asked me: "Just so I
understand, you approve of Catholic politicians taking communion against the
express wishes of their Church and you would base your vote on it? " Nothing
in my post committed me (or would I want it to commit me) to an answer to
this question. How could I, a non-Catholic, have a good faith answer to that
question?
Further the comment "[t]he Religion Clauses simply do not impose a
filter on the President's communications with religious believers" is an
answer to the question of constitutional appropriateness not an answer to
the Kerry-communion question. And it needs to be argued for not merely
asserted. However, that said, it is an issue appropriate for the
religionlaw list question. In my view, an answer to the Kerry-communion
question is not an appropriate
question for this list, nor should we be asked whether we "approve of
Catholic politicians taking communion against the express wishes of their
Church. " As indicated earlier, as a non-Catholic, I can have no good faith
opinion on this matter.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
