Tommy Tomlinson of The Charlotte Observer (free subscription required) comments on Catholic bishops who pick and choose which Biblical moralities to uphold and which to ignore:
Bishops who single out the abortion strictly enforce sexual and reproductive morality. They then deny communion to abortion-tolerant politicians.
But moral issues such as economics, just war and criminal justice make these particular bishops uncomfortable; after all, upholding Biblical morality in these areas tends to offend conservatives. Instead of standing firm on moral principle, the bishops grant communion to (conservative) political candidates who violate Biblical and Catholic moral mandates.
Meanwhile….
In Texas, Bible Belt heterosexuals are developing easier ways to get divorced. (Fort Worth Star-Telegram; free sub required.)
And the state of Virginia is busy convicting a devout Mennonite who believes school buses should not be elevating flag and patriotism to the level of religion, thereby violating his Christian religious beliefs.
As someone raised Catholic, who no longer considers himself a member of the faith, I too am appalled at not only the selective nature of the refusal of communion, but also the refusal at all. The Church teaches (or at least taught when I was in Catholic school) that each member of the church must find their own spiritual path, and the Church can only serve as a guide. Catholic teaching condemns abortion in all cases EXCEPT to save the life of the mother, but many other good and believing Christians (Catholics included) also believe abortion is appropriate in the cases of rape and incest.
Not to mention the church leaves no room for medically necessary abortions when the mother’s life is not specifically in danger. For instance, a diabetic woman who is facing the loss of kidney function (which will not kill her as long as she has access to dialysis) because of a pregnancy cannot get an abortion according to Catholic doctrine (again, this is the doctrine I was taught, it may differ now). Clearly one can be a believing Catholic and still see how an abortion might be appropriate, or at least a valid choice, in that matter. Yet a politician who voiced that opinion could be denied communion.
And we won’t even go into the apparent doctrine of “lead according to Catholic law, not the secular law of the country.” This new doctrine completely ignores the US separation of church and state and IMHO any Catholic politician who went along with this kind of extortion should simply resign from office. If your religion prevents you from representing all your constituents, you should not be a legislator.
Finally, the hypocrisy of the whole thing is quite disgusting. In addition to the doctrines you mention Mike, the Catholic church is firmly against birth control, and sees it as equally immoral to abortion. Yet no Catholic prelate has stated that Catholics who use birth control should be denied communion, probably because they know full well most of their parishioners, or at least those of child-bearing age, would be sitting at communion time.
I kind of have to disagree on the last two observations. While not those observations are false, they are a stretch. Collaborative divorce isn’t so much about making divorce “Easier” in terms of say directly reducing waiting periods and legal requirements. It is more about making divorce a little less bloody. Their view is that the confrontational nature of a trial tends to bring out the worse in both parties and simply adds heartache to an already painful process. Collaborative divorce is simply another process that the couple can use the divide property and obligations rather than the courts. In fact I think I remember reading some statistics in the couples that choose the collaborative process were a little less likely to carry it through to divorce.
Also I have to disagree on the Mennonite observation. The busses were not his property. The state was within it’s right to prosecute him. From what I have read there isn’t much ground for freedom of religion arguments or freedom of speech arguments. I would have had more respect if he had went to the ACLU and brought a lawsuit in this case or something like that
In the Mennonite case, the appellate court jury recommended a $1 fine per decal, for a total of $6. My guess is that the case has cost the state thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees and court costs to prosecute to the appellate level, and the Mennonite may appeal yet again.
So certainly Virginia was entitled to prosecute. But the state’s conservative bureaucracy was stupid — or irrational and zealous — to actually do so.
>So certainly Virginia was entitled to prosecute. But the state’s conservative bureaucracy was stupid — or irrational and zealous — to actually do so.
Probably, but he was guilty of defacing public property. And if the state didn’t do something about that, suppose some graffiti artist wanted to paint a swastika on the buses? Or on other public properties.
One thing you might want to consider is that, the fact is, that the state can make reasonable regulations regarding how one exercises speech–the defendant’s actions here were “symbolic speech”–if the regulations are content neutral. In other words, if it wants to have to right to ban some “symbolic speech” by individuals in regards school buses, it would need to ban all symbolic speech. If the defendant wanted to protest the school district posting little flag decals on school buses, there were other avenues that he could use to exercise his right to protest. He wasn’t limited to defacing public property.
On the other hand, it does seem rather silly that the prosecutor would expend the resources to prosecute this case. But at least, as far as I can tell, the conservative Christians aren’t blaming gay people for this. I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to do so, however.