Oh no, if I don’t vote for the right candidate I don’t get to eat the special Jesus crackers! I suppose the priest is just fine giving communion to child molesters, though.

“When a church participates in a political contest, it is fairly the target of political protest, and when a church takes an intellectually indefensible position (as they usually do) then they deserve strong and emphatic protests.” ~Timothy Sandefur
I’m not clever enough to come up with something of my own, so Tim has to do it for me

Sadly, as a resident of Greenville County, this doesn’t surprise me. However, I doubt that the parishioners will take this too seriously - St. Mary’s has a conservative, but well-educated membership. A few loudmouthed idiots will, but the rest will just be vaguely embarrassed by the attention.

He didn’t deny anyone communion.  He stated that voting for a pro-choice candidate - namely Obama - was a sin big enough that you shouldn’t be accepting communion after committing it but before you go through confession and reconciliation.

Given that neither McCain nor Obama had a 100% pass on the Catholic litmus test, he should probably go ahead and make everyone in his congregation apologize for showing up to vote, period.

But he didn’t deny anyone communion.  He merely advised his parish on their communion-taking habits.  That’s his prerogative as a priest, but its by no means binding.

That’s his prerogative as a priest, but its by no means binding.

Actually, no it’s not.  It’s none of his damn business.  Not the following from Cardinal McCarrick:

On polarization within the church he said: “We are called to teach the truth, to correct errors and to call one another to greater faithfulness. However, there should be no place in the body of Christ for the brutality of partisan politics, the impugning of motives, or turning differences in pastoral judgment into fundamental disagreements on principle.

“Civility and mutual respect which we must witness are not signs of weakness or lack of commitment, but solid virtues which reflect confidence and faith.

“We don’t fit the partisan categories,” he continued. “We are not chaplains of factions, but rather builders of genuine unity reflecting the truth of our faith and the diversity of our community. People can divide up the work, but they shouldn’t divide the church.”

___Comment____

The task force was heavily criticized in some U.S. Catholic quarters for its insistence that there can be no hard-and-fast national rule forbidding Catholic politicians from receiving Communion if they adopt public policy stands that are in opposition to church teaching on fundamental moral issues such as abortion or euthanasia or same-sex marriage.

How many Catholics are there in the upcountry of South Carolina?  I can’t imagine a huge number.

How is this church still tax exempt?

“Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president,”

Christ, I wish.

lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.

Well, at least they don’t have to drink their own urine, like we do at The Reformed Aryan Church of White Butte.  I’ve got to stop eating aspargus.

One notes that he didn’t specifically condemn voting for the party that supported torturing potentially innocent prisoners.  Odd, that.

Also, the idea that Catholics shouldn’t take communion if they have sins on their conscience—whether the “sin” of voting Democrat or otherwise—is outdated pre-Vatican II doctrine.  Catholics are not required to perform the sacrament of penance or otherwise ensure their souls are spotless before participating in communion.  But we’re probably dealing with one of those priests who thinks Vatican II was crazy hippie times.

A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama

I hope one of his parishioners who voted for Barack Obama told this Roman Catholic priest to refrain from engaging in partisan politics and endangering the church’s tax exemption before receiving Holy Communion.

Also, the idea that Catholics shouldn’t take communion if they have sins on their conscience—whether the “sin” of voting Democrat or otherwise—is outdated pre-Vatican II doctrine.

Forget Vatican II, I suspect the Rev. Jay Scott Newman has trouble with certain aspects of “Vatican I”.

He may have been acting above his pay grade, but there is a papally approved guide for Catholic voters that makes the issue pretty clear, and whether or not it was his place to say what he did, he was correct.  PDF: http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf

“How is this church still tax exempt? “

The same reason that Father Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright’s churches are still tax exempt.

Good. Now maybe some of those rejected parishioners will grow the fuck up and leave this bullshit behind.

The male prostitutes in SC should refuse to service Catholic priests.

It boggles my mind that I have only heard about priests pulling this garbage when it involves pro-choice candidacy.  The Catholic Church ostensibly is against abortion because because it claims to value all life consistently, but I’ve never heard of a priest saying voting for a pro-war candidate or a pro-death penalty candidate is a grave enough sin that one should not take communion.

Which kind of blows a hole in the whole “respecting life” theory…

Of course, I’ve known the Church was more about subjugating women and not life ever since the day I heard a priest give a homily saying that women in Africa get less breast cancer than women in the US because they have more children and fewer abortions and if US women just followed God’s will they would not get breast cancer as much.  I almost gagged, and after that could not take any claims of respecting life seriously on the part of the church.  Blaming women for cancer is really, really low.

Forget Vatican II, I suspect the Rev. Jay Scott Newman has trouble with certain aspects of “Vatican I”.

Nah, he made the statement in plain english.

Now, I’ve seen a priest celebrate the mass partly in latin, AND looking to the altar. He was a douche, too.

It might be a good thing for Democrats if the incoming administration were to quietly spread the word (1) that the IRS was no longer going to turn a blind eye to this sort of thing any more and if Father Newman, et al. didn’t want the Treasury Department going through their books, or having to explain to their congregations why tithes and other contributions were no longer deductible,  they should cool it.

There’s a new sheriff in town.

(I hope.)

(1) Oxymoron, I know. Maybe they could just start a rumor.

He may have been acting above his pay grade, but there is a papally approved guide for Catholic voters that makes the issue pretty clear, and whether or not it was his place to say what he did, he was correct.

Actually he was NOT correct in that he mentioned Obama by name in connection with an election. And no, it doesn’t matter that the election is done, since Obama will be running again.

The booklet you linked to goes out of its way not to mention specific candidates or parties, and talks only about a Catholic making a choice about values and voting his conscience, and not does not demand bloc voting or donations. The Catholic Church, unlike Rev. Newman or the Mormons, has a LOT of experience in pushing its interests right to the line, but not over, while rendering unto Caesar.

This is what, example 410,984,871st of the standard overreach of the catholic church and the general vile, controlling patriarchy that typifies most christianist sects.

Haven’t we grown past this kind of stupid shit yet?

Naturally he wasn’t supposed to name any candidate under church auspices, nor did the pamphlet…but the papally approved literature I’ve read on voting makes it abundantly clear that a pro-choice candidate (and let’s not play coy about which one that was) is not an acceptable vote for a Catholic to make; and is an issue of eternal salvation (which religious people might worry about a little more than other factors.)  I really only learned about it because Catholic Republicans and conservatives were admonished not to vote for Giuliani in the primaries because he was pro-choice, and they were convinced that meant losing their salvation, excommunication and denial of sacraments.  They produced the literature proving it, and while I disagreed with them, it’s their religion, not mine.  So perhaps he should have just noted that anyone who voted for a pro-choice candidate is not exactly in good standing with the church or who the church believes God to be, since that is the church’s position on it, as opposed to wrongly naming the candidate. 

Not sure why you mention the possibility (and at this point it is only a possibility) of his running again or this election being over, but ok.

The priest may or may not have gone too far.  I am sympathetic to his viewpoint.  Re: Vatican II, it never nullified the need for reconciliation prior to reception of communion if one is conscious of serious (i.e. mortal sin).  The guidelines for Catholic voting made it clear which issues were prudential and which were not open to compromise. 

I hope the bishops continue to show some courage on the abortion issue and the fight against FOCA.  This is an opportunity for them to restore some spiritual credibility after the pedophilia, pederasty debacle. 

It is very sad that so many Catholics failed to understand their responsibility.  I view this as a major failure of catachesis by the church.  The voting numbers were quite so bad amongst those who were actual regular weekly Mass attendees.  There is a big difference between those who self-identify as Catholics and those who actually practice their faith.

This is from the Catechism of The Catholic Church:

The Celebration of the Christian Mystery

1385   Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

The Catechism says this about abortion:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.

2272 The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.

Also, in my Roman Missal under the section on a Guide For a Good Confession it says:

Did I consent to, advise, or actively take part in an abortion? Was I aware that the Church punishes with automatic excommunication those who procure and achieve abortion? Do I realize this is a very grave crime?

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.

Except in the fourth, twelfth, and sixteenth centuries, of course, plus under the teachings of Augustine. OTHER THAN THAT, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of ever procured abortion, and totally excommunicated everyone who procured and achieved abortions, except of course that DWill’s own quotes indicate that in fact it hasn’t - otherwise, who would mention their participation in abortion procurement in confession? I must have missed that time when 40 percent of catholics were excommunicated.

The Catholic Church has no way of knowing who has or has not had an abortion. Unless, the person makes it known to them. They don’t read minds. If someone wishes to hide a sin from the Church they can do so.

St. Augustine never approved of abortion. He always said it was “evil work.”               

The Catholic Church has never approved of abortion.

Fr. Newman is a former Episcopalian who left ECUSA for the usual reasons conservatives do-women’s ordination, the 1979 Prayerbook, etc. He stands in the conservative (not traditionalist) wing of the RCC, and I’m pretty sure that his parishoners are probably close to being in ideological lock step with him.

but the papally approved literature I’ve read on voting makes it abundantly clear that a pro-choice candidate (and let’s not play coy about which one that was) is not an acceptable vote for a Catholic to make;

According to that same pamphlet, one shouldn’t vote a pro-war candidate either… which McCain was, so the remaining option is, what, not to vote?  Ooops, the pamphlet also states that one should vote and participate actively.

Geez, it’s a no-win.

Courtesy of Daily Kos, here’s some background on this alleged Man of God, as well as the smack down he got from the local monsignor who’s filling in until they get a bishop.  Most enlightening.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/15/01126/965/794/661283

As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Seems like a pretty gentle “smackdown” to me. But whatever.

It is very sad that so many Catholics failed to understand their responsibility.  I view this as a major failure of catachesis by the church.  The voting numbers were quite so bad amongst those who were actual regular weekly Mass attendees.  There is a big difference between those who self-identify as Catholics and those who actually practice their faith.
tomonthebay on 11/14 at 08:52 PM

Now, seriously, do any of you anti-choice-in-submission-to-the-Pope types actually think that the majority of your fellow Catholics just don’t know that their Church teaches that abortion is murder? I realize that not every Catholic went to Catholic school (as I did from 1st through 10th grade) nor are all families equally diligent about sending their kids to CCD or whatever they are calling it nowadays.

But I don’t think I picked up my own anti-abortion indoctrination at Catholic schools; I got it at Mass, and from my parents.

So, I suppose that this hand-wringing over “failure to understand” is a disingenuous form of charity—pretending they just didn’t hear you the first 100,000 times you, their priests, the bishop, the Pope, and a half century of mass media reminded them that their Church says feti are babies and abortion is murder.

The alternative is to face the fact that either

A) (the only way y’all will see it) your fellow parishoners are in fact wicked, wicked daughters of Eve and sons of Adam indeed, in league with the Devil to pretend to be Christians while cynically committing this vile crime;

or B)—you, and the alleged Right Reason of 2000 years of authoritarian bureaucracy cherry-picking the contradictory mass of Tradition, have erred somewhere along the way, and actually abortion is not, or not necessarily or always murder, and your fellow parishoners who dare to disagree with you on this know something you don’t—or won’t admit you know anyway.

Let’s end this charade that pro-choice Catholics must be ignorant, shall we? Call them sinners, traitors, apostates, and of course murderers if you must, and let the chips fall where they may. But stop pretending they are just stupid.

I will admit that in my case, the proper resolution of the conflict between the claims of the hierarchy and the evidence of my senses and reason was to abandon all pretense of Catholic faith; I grew up defining Catholicism as submission to the Pope as the divinely guided agent of God, and when that broke in me the whole notion of Christianity as a true religion went with it. Perhaps you all would prefer that all your fellow Catholics who defy your perceptions should give up too—but the “bad” voting tom bemoans indicates how empty the pews would be.

But actually, there is more to the Catholic tradition than blind, zealous sycophanty to some allegedly infallible and pure pages of dogma; above all else the Roman Catholic Church is about community. If community is not just a mindless cast of millions choreographed on some meta-Cecil DeMille extravaganza, but an actual communion of real human beings—you are going to have some divergence of opinion, and behold, you do. That is the true strength and life of the Catholic Church.

But go ahead, keep demanding lockstep. Either your fellow Catholics will go on rolling their eyes at you, or it will finally come to a head—and we’ll see then who winds up excommunicated from whom.

There is no way that these “wayward” parishoners of yours are just suddenly going to wake up in that obedient army you dream of. Either you shatter the Church in schism, drive them into outright secularism (where in fact they have been living pretty happily) or perhaps get yourselves ousted along with those loons who left over Vatican II—or the wholething just goes along as it has for 2000 tears, with lots of bluster in magnificent, disregarded Latin and people will go on doing what they do anyway.

Either way, no army of zombies for you. Get over it.

What?!?!? I cant have my army of zombies!?!? rats

Siobhan, I have never heard anyone claim that Catholic Answers Actions booklet, Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, was approved by the Pope.  Do you have a link to a news article or other source which supports your claim?

Just an interesting note:

The official Catholic party line is that you couldn’t vote for a pro-choice candidate *because* they are pro-choice. That would be sinful. You can, however, vote for a pro-choice candidate on the basis of other moral issues (e.g., anti-war, anti-poverty, etc.).

However, I am glad that the Catholic church is doing stuff like this. I think that they should take their stand and make their decisions. If they want the church stands on abortion and birth control to be litmus tests, they should be loud and public about it. Or, they should accept that US Catholics have a broad basis of opinion on the matter, and officially state that this is okay.

None of this “we’ll bring it up as an election issue when it’s appropriate in the news cycle”.

Some random thoughts:

First, the National Conference pamphlet made it clear that Catholics must vote based on an informed conscience.  Catholics may not vote (according to the NCCB) specifically for a candidate solely because he or she is pro-choice.  However, Catholics must consider all moral issues, including poverty, the death penalty and endless war.

Secondly, the neo-cons have never been willing to stand up and vote their consciences: Bush has never drafted a pro-life Constitutional amendment and sent it to Congress.  In short, Bush, Cheney, McCain, Rove et al simply want to keep the issue alive (pun intended) to stoke the vote.  As a devout Catholic, I bitterly resent that Bush et al has used this issue to confuse so many Catholics.  For Bush et al, it is not about life, it is about votes.  The longer they can keep this issue alive, the longer they can ask for votes from people who would normally not vote for endless war, profiteering, the death penalty and the like.  Governor Bush executed a woman whose execution the Pope and Billy Graham asked him to stay: he smirked when he did it.  This was a pro-life candidate?? 

Third,  when Mr. Obama moves to Washington, he will meet with Bishop Wuerl, conservative, but intelligent.  I will be interested to hear what Bishop Wuerl has to say to him.