Burke has said he will impress his Catholic members if they vote for anyone who doesn’t agree with the R.C. Church about Abortion, etc., that they should not take communion. This is controlling our countrys chance of having the best President elected. This is controlling America to suit the R.C. positions, and using God for their excuse. Haven’t we had enough of this religious controlling for the last seven years? Do we all really want to be another Iraq?

I believe that the Church has a right to speak out on something it considers important. However, denying communion seems to be judging…something only God should be doing.
“Don’t judge others, lest you be judged,”
Peace!

“Do we all really want to be another Iraq?”
Um, the RCC _opposed_ the Iraq War.
Well, I like that Bishop Burke is being fair to both parties, and I think he has every right to do this; there is certainly no rule saying a cleric has to give their blessing to just anyone. To be honest, I’m more concerned about a church that will blindly obey politicians, not one that sticks up for its moral beliefs.
God bless.

I don’t mind the fact that the Bishop will deny communion to anybody he doesn’t feel should get communion, regardless if it is for their support for abortion, gay marriage, or the Iraq War. My question is this:
Why on earth does the press need to know this, if not for political reasons? Isn’t that something personal that should be between the Bishop and Giuliani?

Excellent. The Roman Catholic Church needs to remind Catholics, politicians included, that their allegiance is the Church first and to one’s country only second. We need more good old-fashioned medieval Pope-vs.-King conflicts.

“The Roman Catholic Church needs to remind Catholics, politicians included, that their allegiance is the Church first and to one’s country only second.”
So their allegiance should be to “God” first, the RCC second, their family and their country third and fourth in some order? I’d rather have a president who puts America higher. GWB said it was “God”, family then country and look how he’s botched so many things.
At least Burke is in fact hitting on a Republican, too. Let’s see what he does if Giulaini is nominated. And I’m glad to see Giulaini defending his privacy in this area; more candidates should do that. Of course they are told that’s political suicide.
I notice Ron Paul has raised as much money as McCain probably has, and half as much as Rich Guy Romney. Apparently there are some patriots who give money to Republicans, too.

Good for Giuliani! He isn’t using his religion as an excuse to try and tell women what to do with their bodies. He realizes it is none of his business if a woman finds it necessary to terminate a pregnancy. He is obviously not worried about what Burke,(as a representative of the church) thinks and I give him credit for separating his political life from his religious life. Personally, I’m not voting for any Republican, but I do admire Giuliani for his independence from the church. Nice to know that there are independent thinking folks in the RCC.
I expect Giuliani can get communion from a lot of churches and not have to go to St. Louis.
Nate W:
Alligiance to the church first and then country???? No. Alligiance to family, country and then maybe a church.

“Haven’t we had enough of this religious controlling for the last seven years? Do we all really want to be another Iraq?”
Iran might be a better referent, though if religion takes over here we could indeed get a civil war between religions, like in Iraq and Sudan and earlier Ireland. Mixing religion and government is a really bad idea.

Yes, religion first, family and friends second, country last. I’m sorry, but the Leviathan has done nothing to demand my respect or allegiance. My moral commitments aren’t defined by arbitrarily-drawn political borders, and I can’t see how anyone could be so superstitious as to think they should be.
John Locke argued that Catholics shouldn’t be counted on to be good citizens because they have a fundamental allegiance to a foreign power. That’s an accusation that Catholics, and all Christians, should embrace with pride; we’re citizens of the Kingdom of God, not of this world. I cannot and will not respect the “Christianity” of anyone who puts country before faith, because such “Christianity” is a joke, a mockery, and an insult to every part of the Gospel.
Rudy Guiliani is no Christian if he follows the will of the American people over the will of his Church.

The bottom line is Archbishop Burke is not espousing anything novel in regards to Catholic theology. He’s just saying it out-loud, in a public forum so-to-speak. Giuliani’s faith and practice is indeed, in one of the greatest American traditions, his own private matter. However, the Catholic Church has a legitimate right to proffer to the world that for them, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc. is still considered sinful. Archbishop Burke is most likely less interested in somehow controlling the United States trhough their little catholic minions than maintaining the integrity of the Roman Catholic Cathecism. And for whatever it’s worth (and for those who give darn), true, Christians are not to JUDGE anybody (you know, lest they be judged). HOWEVER, in the Church, Christians are obligated to REBUKE fellow Christians for sins that go contrary to Church teaching.

Nate W
I honestly thought your original posting was a satire, but now I see you were serious.
Jesus, knowing who would betray him to his death, did not deny the Eucharist to Judas at the last supper… yet mortal men such as this Bishop feel they wield the authority to deny it to people based on their political beliefs.
How Jesus must weep.
I find it shocking that you’d seriously suggest that elected officials, whose job it is to govern the laws that apply to all people, and whose obligation it is to serve all members of their communities equally, should act as little more than puppets to a foreign power – be it religious, or secular.
Imagine, just for a moment, if a Chinese Congressman was found to be casting his votes – not on behalf of his constituents, or even on his personal opinions – but rather at the behest of the Government in Beijing. The outrage would shake the foundations of Capital Hill.
Why should the outrage be any less when we discover a politician whose votes are subject to the whims of his Pope, and whose strings are pulled by the threats made against his salvation and soul by the same intuition? Blackmail by any other names smells as rotten.

‘John Locke argued that Catholics shouldn’t be counted on to be good citizens because they have a fundamental allegiance to a foreign power. That’s an accusation that Catholics, and all Christians, should embrace with pride’
And as long as that may be true US citizens, including Catholics who don’t want their lives ruled by the RCC, should think long and hard about voting for any Catholic who has not declared his or her political independence from the RCC. The clergy have shown they will use the power they have over many of their faithful.

I do not think that politicians that publicly support abortion should present themselves for communion, but that is an issue for their own conscious. I don’t like it when bishops make this a public matter, although, as Mr. Guiliani has said, they have every right to.
I am disturbed by those who have said that the Catholic Church is trying to “control America” or trying to turn it into the next Iran. That sounds like old fashioned nativism to me. The Catholic Church (which is still a minority religion in this country after all) has every right to make its stance known on political issues, as does every other religious group. Was the Rev. Martin Luther King trying to control America or force his Baptist agenda on America when he said that segregation was wrong? President Kennedy had to say (before a conference of Baptist clergy)that he would resign if he felt his conscious as a Catholic would not permit him to do his duty as president, although I cannot imagine any instance where that would be the case. That was 1960. That was an improvement from the 20′s when Al Smith couldn’t get elected because of his religion and had to face burning crosses along his campaign route. Many thought Kennedy’s election represented the end of prejudice against Catholics, but that was not the case. Catholics have been fighting for 231 years in the United States of America to prove that they can be both good Americans and good Catholics, but it has been an uphill battle. It used to be rascists who primarily blocked our way. Now its those who say a Catholic can only participate in American public life if he disavows his own church and his own conscious, while people whose religions are more palatable are free to do as they please.
The conscious of most people (although not all, of course) is formed by his or her religion. I don’t oppose abortion, the death penalty, or unjust war because I’m told to by any bishop, but because I believe they destroy human life and are wrong. This is not a matter of blind obedience to a “foreign” institution, but of personal conscious. These stanced but across party line. It is prejudice to say that a Catholic can’t serve in public office because he is some how beholden to a foreign intitution (the universal Church) by voting his or her conscious or that the only good Catholic politican is one who doesn’t let his religion “interfere” with his or her job. As an American Catholic I am both a patriot of this land of “pilgrim’s pride” and a loyal son of the universal catholic church. As such I have every right to seek public office and let my conscious determine my actions.

“President Kennedy had to say (before a conference of Baptist clergy)that he would resign if he felt his conscious as a Catholic would not permit him to do his duty as president”
Which is perfectly reasonable since a politician is elected to serve his constituents, not his church.
“Many thought Kennedy’s election represented the end of prejudice against Catholics, but that was not the case.”
And that’s due to the bishops’ clear intention to force Catholic officeholders to vote their way if they can. Many Catholics disagree with their church on abortion, probably most do on birth control but if the bishops had their way any Catholic politician would have to vote against both.
I voted for Kerry so it’s hard to say I’m bigoted against Catholics. I am opposed to any politician who would take his or her orders from unelected people.

It may be a fine point, but doesn’t this bishop’s church enjoy a tax-free status that restricts the making of official statements of a political nature? Given that Giuliani is not a member of the bishop’s diocese, what other motivation could he have had for making the statement, if not political? Somehow it seems that, if it were concern for Rudy’s soul that was the bishop’s motivation, a personal conversation would be more effective.
I agree that every American religious figure has the same rights to be involved in political activity as every other American, just not from within their tax-exempt shelters. They can speak as much as they like about their personal preferences but, once they start using their official capacities to tell others who to vote for, they have stepped over the line.

Question to those who are shocked at those who would put religion ahead of country:
Let’s say that suddenly, Bush does what you all no doubt suspect he’s been planning all along, and tomorrow he suddenly declares himself High Priest of the new Republic of Gilead, and his first act is an order that everyone must convert and swear allegiance to the Methodist Church. Would you do it?
If not, congratulations. You put your beliefs ahead of your government.
God bless.

Yes, I am completely serious: a Christian’s primary loyalty is to God and to the Christian community, and loyalty to country is only secondary and only possible if that loyalty does not undermine Christian loyalty. This principle ought to be an elementary part of Christian practice, the kind of thing you hear as a kid in Sunday school, although many people, both liberal and conservative, are opposed to it actually being put into practice. For a religion like Catholicism, where God’s revelation is preserved by a transnational institution, this naturally means that Christians’ political allegiance has to lie beyond the borders of their own country; although for all Christians it ought to be the case that we would should lend our support first to other Christians around the world, and only secondarily to other people within our own arbitrarily-drawn borders. After all, what allegiance should I have to someone on the other side of this massive country who thinks and lives entirely differently from me, that should trump my loyalty to those who share with me a common faith and a common hope?
Should Americanists think long and hard before electing a faithful Catholic to public office? Perhaps they should, but Catholics shouldn’t be ashamed of that, nor should they try to accommodate themselves to American ethics just to win a public seat. Those who do should be denied full participation in the Church, because they clearly don’t see themselves as full citizens of the Church.

“It may be a fine point, but doesn’t this bishop’s church enjoy a tax-free status that restricts the making of official statements of a political nature?”
From my understanding of the law (which may be wrong), religious officials are not allowed to say “you must/must not vote for this candidate.” The bishop did not say anything about VOTING for Giuliani; he commented rather on how “good a Catholic” Giuliani is. And although the RCC’s official position is that Catholics should not vote for a pro-choice candidate, as long as they don’t come out and say “don’t vote for THIS SPECIFIC PERSON” it’s legal. (Which strikes me as being incredibly silly, personally; I’d just have all the laws ended myself.)
God bless.

First, “the bishops” have not “forced” Catholic officeholders to vote their way. This is one outspoken bishop in St. Louis. He doesn’t have any power to force anyone to vote in any particular way.
It is considered sinful for a Catholic to present himself for communion while in a state of mortal sin. Publicly supporting abortion is defined by the Church as a mortal sin. Archbishop Burke has the right to withhold communion from anyone he knows is in a state of mortal sin. What I don’t like is that he’s publicly announced this decision, but that is a matter of my personal opinion. I have no interest or ability to judge Mr. Guiliani’s personal faith, or the faith of any other Catholic politican who supports abortion. That is a matter for God. That said, there is no question that the Church teaches that abortion is the killing of a human life. The leaders of the Church have the right and duty to speak out against abortion, as they do other injustices.
An elected politican, like the president, is elected to serve his constituents. He or she has a duty to vote his conscious. Why is a Catholic who follows his or her conscious “serving his church” (which also happens to be the despotic, foreign, unamerican church feared by generations of nativists) and not his constituents, but a Protestant, Pagan, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. is not. We’ve had very religious presidents in the Whitehouse. None, to my my knowledge had to defend themselves like President Kennedy. No one asked President Carter if he could be a good Baptist and the president. It was apparently very hard to swollow by many in 1960 that an Irish American and a Catholic could be a good president and woudn’t be secretly serving Rome. It appears that that is the case today as well.
If Senatory Liberman said that he must vote in a certain whay because his conscious, as informed by his faith, demands it, would you say he is serving only American jews or the international jewish community instead of his constituents?

Or to use an actual historical example, Joey, suppose you’re living in Nazi Germany, and Hitler says you must get on his genocidal bandwagon or face exile, imprisonment, or execution. Do you go the way of the mainline churches and jump on the bandwagon, trying to offer theological support for serving one’s country, or do you go the way of the Confessing Church and the Barmen Declaration, declaring that Christian allegiance does not lie primarily with national interests, and then face a matyr’s death because of that?
Modern Westerners too often approach the whole Church-State issue with the thought (and usually a highly simplistic, incomplete thought at that) of medieval theocracy dominating their minds, and because of that they fail to see the examples of where the priority of the Church over State is clearly the more just and human option.

If Guiliani wins the Republican nomination I think many of us can breath easy. It will be such a breath of fresh air to not have a president, for the first time in eight years, that owes allegiance to or caters to the Religious Right.

“If not, congratulations. You put your beliefs ahead of your government. ”
Interesting example you offered. But we’d be putting our beliefs ahead of an illegal command, not ahead of making a governmental decision for the benefit of the country.
“First, “the bishops” have not “forced” Catholic officeholders to vote their way.”
No, and happily he can’t. But he’s attempted to by denying candidates something they presumably think is important. And no doubt he’d like to see other bishops do the same. It would be nice if they’d assure us they won’t do that.
“If Senatory Liberman said that he must vote in a certain whay because his conscious, as informed by his faith, demands it, would you say he is serving only American jews or the international jewish community instead of his constituents?”
I think Lieberman has often tried to serve the interests of Israel rather than those of the USA. As an example he’s worked toward getting us to attack Iran even though doing so would be an immense disadvantage to us. I don’t know exactly what motivates him to do that (could be concern for Jews, could be support from organizations that raise a lot of money by exerting influence over US foreign policy in the Middle East, could just be contributions), but I look forward to his not being in the Senate.

If Senatory Liberman said that he must vote in a certain whay because his conscious, as informed by his faith, demands it, would you say he is serving only American jews or the international jewish community instead of his constituents?
Ah, but won’t you don’t say is that Jews already control everything from banks to media to politicians, anyway, so a Jewish candidiate might not make that much difference…
Okay, I’m being sarcastic. I don’t believe this, but sadly, many ignorant people do. But I kinda couldn’t resist the opportunity.
If people don’t think the Christian Church in its various forms is trying desperately to influence politics, that’s misguided, too.
Guiliani should keep speaking his mind, protecting his constituents, and not be a zombie for the Church.

“I don’t mind the fact that the Bishop will deny communion to anybody he doesn’t feel should get communion, regardless if it is for their support for abortion, gay marriage, or the Iraq War. My question is this:
Why on earth does the press need to know this, if not for political reasons? Isn’t that something personal that should be between the Bishop and Giuliani?”
Wrong question, I_Like_Dragyn. I would ask, Why on earth does the Church need to do this, if not for political reasons? After all, the Church is yet again attempting to impose its tenets on all citizens of the country, Catholic or not. And this is just a blackmail attempt to influence Giuliani to toe the ‘party’ (you should pardon the expression) line.
Politicians govern ALL citizens, not just the ones that belong to a specific faith.

Michael,
“However, the Catholic Church has a legitimate right to proffer to the world that for them, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc. is still considered sinful.”
Certainly they have that “right”, as do other religions have the right to proffer to the world their tenets. What they do NOT have the “right” to do is to push their tenets into law through the use of coercive threats to excommunicate politicians or deny them communion, etc.
Politicians have the duty to govern ALL citizens, not just the ones that belong to their specific faith. Non-Cathoic citizens also have the right not to have Catholic tenets pushed into laws governing non-Catholics.
If the Church would learn to separate itself from politics (per David Kuo’s suggestion), maybe we’d be better governed.
Oh, and when did this “religious test” of political candidates become legal (or Constitutional) anyway?

“I don’t mind the fact that the Bishop will deny communion to anybody he doesn’t feel should get communion, regardless if it is for their support for abortion, gay marriage, or the Iraq War. My question is this:
Why on earth does the press need to know this, if not for political reasons? Isn’t that something personal that should be between the Bishop and Giuliani?”
Wrong question, I_Like_Dragyn. I would ask, Why on earth does the Church need to do this, if not for political reasons? After all, the Church is yet again attempting to impose its tenets on all citizens of the country, Catholic or not. And this is just a blackmail attempt to influence Giuliani to toe the ‘party’ (you should pardon the expression) line.

MichiganCatholic
>>>I am disturbed by those who have said that the Catholic Church is trying to “control America” or trying to turn it into the next Iran. That sounds like old fashioned nativism to me.
I’m not suggesting that there is some underground Catholic conspiracy with midnight meetings and secret handshakes (Knights of Columbus notwithstanding, of course) aimed at taking over the government. However, you’d have to be blind as a bat to ignore the repeated attempts of the RCC to influence, direct, and control the voting patterns of Catholic politicians both in America and abroad. They are smart enough to keep their hands off until it comes to an issue they feel conflicts with their dogma, and then the spiritual-blackmail begins.
The fact is, the RCC does feel it has a right to supersede Catholic politician’s obligations to their constituents and even their Country and are not afraid to act on it.
To cite an example; during the same-sex marriage debates in Canada (and since, other nations as well) the RCC has directly threatened Catholic politicians with being denied the Eucharist depending on how they cast their vote. The RCC even threatened the then-time Prime Minister of Canada – who then bravely issued a statement to the effect of, “I am here to represent all Canadians, not just a select few.”
A more direct attack on the sovereignty and civil liberties of our elected officials could not be any more blatant.
Another example; When the European Union was set to vote on a president setting bill that would affirm or deny a religious basis of their Union, the RCC again attempted to influence catholic politicians to vote in favour. Not only was denial of the Eucharist used, but hints ex-communication were lobbied, as well as threats to declare Europe a “pagan nation.” The Bill failed, and Europe affirmed a secular basis for their society – and the RCC, acting on its threat, issued a statement declaring Europe a “pagan nation.”
>>> The Catholic Church (which is still a minority religion in this country after all) has every right to make its stance known on political issues, as does every other religious group.
Make its stance known? I think that’s fine, as long as they don’t violate tax-exemption rules. But to actually blackmail politicians into violating their oaths to serve people and country by taking orders from a foreign power in Rome, and casting their votes accordingly? That is a major breach. Any politician who bows to that power should be branded a traitor and dealt with accordingly. (Just like if they were of Russian descent and it was discovered that they were casting votes at the behest of the government in Moscow. Same thing.)
Me thinks the RCC is getting nostalgic for the days when Kings could not be crowned without their say-so. And on that note, James Madison, known by historians as the “Father of the Constitution”, once wrote:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
- James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of Gov. land for churches

Will Burke deny eucharist to his fellow Bishops and Cardinals (Egan & Law)who knowingly allowed child molestors to have access to children as well? He should take care of his own house before looking to civil leaders.

Dear Michigan Catholic,
“Was the Rev. Martin Luther King trying to control America or force his Baptist agenda on America when he said that segregation was wrong?”
Being against segregation is standing for what is just. It is harldy an exclusive part of the “Baptist agenda”, but rather transcends ALL faiths, no?
“President Kennedy had to say (before a conference of Baptist clergy)that he would resign if he felt his conscious as a Catholic would not permit him to do his duty as president, although I cannot imagine any instance where that would be the case.”
Then you are ignoring the very instance we are discussing as regards to Mr. Giuliani and the Bishop.
“Catholics have been fighting for 231 years in the United States of America to prove that they can be both good Americans and good Catholics, but it has been an uphill battle.”
Blame THAT on Bishops like Burke. He seems to be saying be a “good” Catholic and to heck with the rest of Americans and THEIR beliefs.
“Now its those who say a Catholic can only participate in American public life if he disavows his own church and his own conscious, while people whose religions are more palatable are free to do as they please.”
Demonstrably incorrect. Look at the troubles Romney’s getting into over peotential Mormon-ruled policies. And apparently Giuliani thinks it is not his business how women decide their reproductive choices. That is his “conscience”, so he has hardly “disavowed” it, even though it stands in direct contradiction to his Church’s stance.
“The conscious of most people (although not all, of course) is formed by his or her religion.”
According to religioustolerance.org, about 85% of Catholics disagree with their Church’s teachings on homosexuality, so I think you are simply wrong on that.
“I don’t oppose abortion, the death penalty, or unjust war because I’m told to by any bishop”
And Mr. Giuliani’s position on abortion is DESPITE what a bishop tells him. So he disagrees with you and his Church. It is another example of being “not a matter of blind conscience”. Is he not allowed his own freedom of conscience?
“It is prejudice to say that a Catholic can’t serve in public office because he is some how beholden to a foreign intitution (the universal Church) by voting his or her conscious”
His conscience, in this instance, IS at odds with that of the “foreign institution. It would be prejudice if he were NOT allowed to vote his own conscience in the matter, something the Bishop is trying to blackmail him into doing. If it is “prejudice”, it seems the Bishop is intent on making it appear that way BECAUSE of his threats.
“or that the only good Catholic politican is one who doesn’t let his religion “interfere” with his or her job.”
That holds true for people of ANY religion, not just Catholicism. It’s called an individual’s freedom of religion (to NOT agree with ALL tenets of the RCC) AND it’s also called “there shall be NO religious test” to hold public office.
“As an American Catholic I am both a patriot of this land of “pilgrim’s pride” and a loyal son of the universal catholic church. As such I have every right to seek public office and let my conscious determine my actions.”
And you are welcome to do so. Does Giuliani not have the same rights? Or any other politician who may NOT be a “loyal son of the Catholic Church”? In fact, OUR fear IS loyalty to a religion over loyalty to the Constitution and to ALL the citizens, not just the religious ones, not just the Catholic ones. Your post seems to justify those fears, not negate them.

Joey,
“Let’s say that suddenly, Bush does what you all no doubt suspect he’s been planning all along, and tomorrow he suddenly declares himself High Priest of the new Republic of Gilead, and his first act is an order that everyone must convert and swear allegiance to the Methodist Church. Would you do it?
If not, congratulations. You put your beliefs ahead of your government. ”
No, that would be putting insanity before reason. It would be putting BUSH’S “beliefs” before our own democratic rights to NOT have religion imposed on us.
Try again, but a little logic please.

Nate W,
INteresting that you should ask, “what allegiance should I have to someone on the other side of this massive country who thinks and lives entirely differently from me” immediately after espousing the value of allegiance to a “transnational” entity that the majority of your fellow citizens are not a member of!

I am impressed at the volume of traffic on a topic that is acutally more about religion and less about sex. Way to go!
Telling a kid to go to their room without supper is effective not because they don’t get anything to eat (angry people rarely have much appetite), but because they are denied to company (and hopefully the loving support) of their family. Denying G communion is not depriving him of a soggy wafer, but of the community. God does not deny us grace – it is ours whether we want it or not. Grace is not earned or withheld by our actions or decisions, and when it happens is something we would never have expected.
A Bishop has to do what a Bishop (thinks he) has to do. I am more sad for the Bishop more than for G. Won’t he be disappointed if/when God’s grace falls on G, with or without his ingestion of the soggy wafer.
I am no fan of G’s, in fact I do not trust him even a sliver. But I would never think to deny him the symbols of God’s work that is greater than anything I can do or prevent. The symbols are no more mine to control than are the mountains or stars. But then, I am not RC either – for more reasons than can be counted by the sand on the beaches of the sea.

“First, “the bishops” have not “forced” Catholic officeholders to vote their way. This is one outspoken bishop in St. Louis. He doesn’t have any power to force anyone to vote in any particular way.”
True, MC, Giuliani hasn’t been “forced” to follow Catholic tenets; he’s only been threatened with not receiving the sacraments. His “power” emanates from the public threat and the public humiliation. Do you wonder why so many of us don’t find that to be Christian behaviour?
“What I don’t like is that he’s publicly announced this decision”
Trust me, we don’t like it either.
“Why is a Catholic who follows his or her conscious “serving his church”
I think you missed the fact that Giuliani IS following his conscience, and it just happens NOT to ‘serve his church’. Our question is, MUST a politician toe the line and always/only follow his faith’s dictates, or should s/he be free to actually vote their conscience DESPITE what his/her faith may teach – and do it BECAUSE they think it’s the right thing to do?
“No one asked President Carter if he could be a good Baptist”
So why does this particular Bishop have the right to insist that Giuliani be a “good Catholic”???

FWIW, Giuliani has raised $11 million in the last three months, more than any other Republican, even Romney who’s donated millions to his own campaign.
Romney is wrong and dangerous on foreign policy and should never be made president, but it would appear there are those who want to recapture the Republican party from the religious right wackos and that would be a good thing.

Denial of communion does mean that the person will not gained the benefits of communion, which is at the heart of Catholic worship, but it doesn’t mean you can’t attend mass. He can probably receive communion in 99% of the Catholic parishes in America. Many people, including my Protestant family when they visit my parish, don’t go up for communion. It’s not a big deal. We don’t point and stare.
You are supposed to be a “good Catholic,” in the sense of being free from mortal sin, when you receive communion. That is a matter of cannon law (I think). In nearly every case, however, this is a decision the communicant makes, not the priest or lay minister distributing communion and no one knows the difference. There are many devout Catholics (I should do this sometimes and don’t) who refrain from receiving communion because they are not in a state of grace. It’s a private decision. In this case the sin is a very public one and the bishop is within his rights. I do not agree with the bishop’s public use of this right as a public political statement, although I oppose abortion. Apparently, Mr. Guiliani has followed his conscious. That is his right. Fine. My best friend is a very intelligent Catholic. He also believes in the “I don’t personally like abortion, but I think a woman has the right to make the decision” school of thought. I disagree, but I would never question his sincerity. He has not run for public office, however.
What I don’t like is the argument that those Catholic politicians whose conscious’s (spelling?) are in line with the Church’s teachings don’t have the right to act according to their conscious because they are just minions of the heirarchy, who can’t think independently and don’t have the best interests of their constituents at heart because their beholden to a foreign power. That’s prejudice.

Here is a WSJ article (openly available) about a pole of Republican voters. Not much on “social issues” but a lot on free trade. Interesting.

“What I don’t like is the argument that those Catholic politicians whose conscious’s (spelling?) are in line with the Church’s teachings don’t have the right to act according to their conscious because they are just minions of the hierarchy, who can’t think independently and don’t have the best interests of their constituents at heart because their beholden to a foreign power.”
That’s not my point, though I can see I may not have been clear enough. If voters can determine by politicians’ previous actions or even (if they are naive enough) by politicians’ words what their beliefs are, the voters can decide whether to vote for them. But if, e.g. a Catholic is elected and later his/her bishop or whatever pressures him/her to vote in a different way than voters would expect, that’s not kosher. And if the politician does so democracy has been subverted.

“INteresting that you should ask, “what allegiance should I have to someone on the other side of this massive country who thinks and lives entirely differently from me” immediately after espousing the value of allegiance to a “transnational” entity that the majority of your fellow citizens are not a member of!”
What’s so interesting about it? I’m saying my allegiance is fundamentally to those who share my beliefs, my goals, my religious hopes, etc. I’m asking why I should set that aside and put my allegiance fundamentally in someone who has little in common with me but just happens to live on the right side of an imaginary line. Can you answer the question?

“I’m saying my allegiance is fundamentally to those who share my beliefs, my goals, my religious hopes, etc. I’m asking why I should set that aside and put my allegiance fundamentally in someone who has little in common with me but just happens to live on the right side of an imaginary line. Can you answer the question?”
So you don’t hold to countries or allegiance to America, and if you were in the Service you’d ask what religion someone has before you’d decide whether to watch their back?
If you were running for office would you announce that your allegiance would be to those with the same beliefs you have?
Has it occurred to you most people have the same goals, like a better life for their children and maybe leaving the world a little better than they found it (though with widely differing ideas of what “better” means) and, in a lot of cases, keeping food on the table and a roof over their heads?

Nightlad your explanations for the antagonism against the “In your face” dictates from the Vatican,to their members and how they should be reminded to toe the line with their doctrines, and use it in our political lives in this country is excellent. You are not being prejudicial at all. It is what it is.

Nate: “What allegiance should I have to someone in the other side of this massive country”?
Having lived through all the wars from the 2nd WW to now I find this statement hard to read. Where did you go to school? How can you live in this country and be an American with men fighting from all over this “MASSIVE” country for “our” country and not see how we are inter-related? It’s sad to see how you have put yourself in a tiny little box and can only find relevance with your own religious group who think exactly like you do. Have you ever served in our American Armed Forces? That’s a great melder of spirits and diverse people.

“So you don’t hold to countries or allegiance to America, and if you were in the Service you’d ask what religion someone has before you’d decide whether to watch their back?”
When did I ever say I wouldn’t protect another human being just because that person isn’t a Christian?
“If you were running for office would you announce that your allegiance would be to those with the same beliefs you have?”
I would have to honest with my constituents that I have moral and religious commitments that may not always align with their interests, and they can cast their votes based on that knowledge.
“Has it occurred to you most people have the same goals, like a better life for their children and maybe leaving the world a little better than they found it (though with widely differing ideas of what “better” means) and, in a lot of cases, keeping food on the table and a roof over their heads?”
I know a lot of people have those goals, and I share some of them. But answer my question: my should I have a fundamental allegiance to those a thousand miles away who just happen to share with me the desire to put food on the table, INSTEAD OF placing my fundamental allegiance with those who share the same goals as mine much more robustly–people who worship the same God, hope for the same salvation, serve the same Kingdom, etc.? Answer the question, please.

Henrietta:
“Where did you go to school?”
Emory University
“How can you live in this country and be an American with men fighting from all over this “MASSIVE” country for “our” country and not see how we are inter-related?”
Of course we’re interrelated. We’re all interrelated, even beyond the U.S. borders. But just because I’m interrelated with someone else doesn’t mean they have my fundamental allegiance. When there are conflicts of interest among different groups with whom I’m interrelated, I have to choose which one I give my allegiance to. And I’ve chosen those who are fellow citizens of the Kingdom of God over those who are fellow citizens of the U.S., or whatever other country I may happen to live in. I may be a dual citizen, but my fundamental citizenship is with the Kingdom of God. I don’t see why it should be so shocking that someone should value something else more highly than they value the United States.
“It’s sad to see how you have put yourself in a tiny little box and can only find relevance with your own religious group who think exactly like you do.”
I’m not in a tiny little box; I have a very diverse set of “allies”–my allegiance is with two billion Christians from every corner of the globe, every race, and every culture. They don’t all think exactly like me, and they don’t all behave in ways I think they should behave, either. Nor have I limited myself to caring ONLY about them, anymore than you care ONLY about people who happen to live in the same borders as you. It’s only a matter of where my fundamental allegiance lies.
“Have you ever served in our American Armed Forces? That’s a great melder of spirits and diverse people.”
I’ve never served in a military and probably never will (I’m a borderline pacifist), but I’m sure it’s a “great melder of spirits” as you say. I’d have no problem dying alongside a fellow American defending my friends and neighbors; all I’m saying is that neither national interests nor the interests of the people within these borders claims my fundamental allegiance, which means there may very well be times when I would have to stand up and refuse to participate in what our country is doing, if I find the country’s actions to be against that to which my fundamental allegiance lies.
It’s really not that shocking a concept, unless you’re turning the country into an idol, a god.

Nate W:
You have no loyalty to anything in this country except your group of like believers? Gee! I hope I never have to count on you for any help since I may live on the other side of this massive country…and I certainly don’t have the same religious convictions that you do.
However, what makes this country great is the diversity of religions, colors, etc. In a time of need this country pulls together. (does 9/11 mean anything to you?)
The bishop has his inner circle too, and he feels that he can deny a politician communion if he (the bishop) doesn’t like that politician’s public views. Giuliani can separate his religious life from his public life. It doesn’t mean he is any less loyal to his beliefs.

“But answer my question: my should I have a fundamental allegiance to those a thousand miles away who just happen to share with me the desire to put food on the table, INSTEAD OF placing my fundamental allegiance with those who share the same goals as mine much more robustly–people who worship the same God, hope for the same salvation, serve the same Kingdom, etc.? Answer the question, please.”
You don’t have to, but you are being supported by a lot of people who have a broader concept of to whom to owe allegiance. You’ve been defended, and are being defended by atheists, Buddhists, jews, muslims and many others not in your group. And this country is much stronger because of its diverse people with all their knowledge, skills and associations.
I have some sympathy for pacifism and I don’t hold a lot of loyalty to my state of birth (though I do for its best state university). And I don’t hold that the US in unquestionably the best country in the world; in fact it’s made that a really hard sell for several years now. But we as an entire nation still have a lot of promise that some homogeneous group doesn’t have.

“my allegiance is with two billion Christians from every corner of the globe, every race, and every culture. They don’t all think exactly like me, and they don’t all behave in ways I think they should behave, either. Nor have I limited myself to caring ONLY about them, anymore than you care ONLY about people who happen to live in the same borders as you. It’s only a matter of where my fundamental allegiance lies.”
In a way you have a broader concept of allegiance than a lot of people. Why don’t you enlarge it farther to include all of us humans?

Turn about is fair play.
Guiliani can make it so the Bishop does not get any good tables at any restaurants in all 5 burroughs. How, you ask? He has his ways – he is —-GUILIANI!
NO SOUP FOR YOU, BISHOP!

OK, this has gotten silly, Everyone stop here and go to the posting about Myanmar. This is theological self-flagellation, that is a genuine crisis. This is chewing on an old rag, that is nothing but shrouds over silent protesters.
ENOUGH!

“If Guiliani wins the Republican nomination I think many of us can breath easy. It will be such a breath of fresh air to not have a president, for the first time in eight years, that owes allegiance to or caters to the Religious Right.”
You’re kidding, right? If Giuliani wins the nomination America will be in even greater danger of moving toward dictatorship than it has been under Bush. Giuliani has proven time and time again that he has nothing but disdain for the Constitution and, most especially, the Bill of Rights. Heaven help us if he were to win the Presidency!

“In a way you have a broader concept of allegiance than a lot of people. Why don’t you enlarge it farther to include all of us humans?”
I think this question is aiming pretty far beyond the point of the original discussion, which is whether I as a Christian American prioritize Christianity or American higher when the two don’t line up perfectly in their goals.

Paganisister,
“You have no loyalty to anything in this country except your group of like believers?”
I’m not saying that at all! For one thing, I’m not even saying my allegiance is aimed directly at my fellow believers, but primarily at the Kingdom of God which is our common hope. What I’m saying is that that Kingdom, rather than the American nation, is where my fundamental political allegiance lies. That means I value Kingdom culture over American culture, and I don’t abandon those values even if all the rest of my fellow Americans create a culture that is at odds with them. But do I have moral loyalties to other people in this country besides Christians? Of course. I have friends and family who aren’t Christians, and I have loyalties to them. There are poor and needy in my neighborhood, and I have obligations to them. I have loyalties to all the people all over the country with whom I live under a common political system. But my primary citizenship is in the Kingdom of God, and when the demands of dual citizenship become impossible to bear, I have to follow the law of the heavenly country over the law of the earthly.
“Giuliani can separate his religious life from his public life. It doesn’t mean he is any less loyal to his beliefs.”
From certain theological perspectives, perspectives that have overwhelming historical precedent in the Christian tradition, that’s exactly what it means. Many Christians just don’t buy the so-called public-private distinction when it comes to religion. For many, religion must be public, and if that becomes the dominant opinion of the Catholic hierarchy, then Catholic politicians will have to deal with that, or else find a new religion that is more compatible with their beliefs.

Nate, men communicate very well when a woman steps on their toe, and you just did. You have given some very good reasons for how you believe. Everyone, I have an interesting explanation of how America looks at God. Maybe you have already discovered this, but if you haven’t it is from Baylor U.: http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf
Scroll down past all the introduction and look for Americas Four Gods–Page 26. It isn’t on Pg. 26, however, it is on Page 28. Once we study this and arrive at where we are or where the person is who we’re discussing subjects with you have a better understanding of their reasoning. It’s really quite interesting, even if you had this in class before, it refreshes your memory.
The way my family has lived their lives is this; we’re Americans, we’re Christians, we roll it all together with all others who are, or are not our religious persuasion or otherwise. This is our country, we all have one God whether we acknowledge that or not. It would have been a boring 75 years if I hadn’t known all kinds of people and cared as much for them as I do people who agree with my catagory of Christian believers. You would be hard put to carry out your religious beliefs without our American Constitution, so don’t put it too far down your list of things to do.

NateW:
Thanks for explaining your alligences more clearly.

Henrietta, I downloaded the pdf at your URL and just got the questionnaire I presume they used, not the text you described. Is there another URL? I’m curious whether my total absence of a belief in a god is one of their categories.

nnmns I just checked to see if I could still get in and here is how I get it. Same address. You see the big Eye, and it says American Piety in the 21th Century. Scroll down past the intro. On the bottom in the frame on left hand side it says 4of 74, click on four, then click on arrow next to it until you reach page 28 and there you are. Total absence of a belief in a god is one of their categories. I didn’t print it last night, running low on ink. I did write it down so if you still can’t get it let me know. I’d like to read all the Chapters, and plan to when I have time. Enjoy.

Henrietta, thanks. I tried a different browser and it worked.

Henrietta,
I just scanned a bit of the Baylor document you cited. Very interestng reading. I, too, may make my way through more of it. If nothing else, it expalin why some of my orientation as a northeast liberal Protestant is different from much of my congregation which is mid-western. There are generational shifts as well, as well as accounting for when in history a generation was in its early teens. I did not see that included in the study. Cynical me, I’m curious about the questions, the manner the survey was done, and from where the largest samples came. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. It will make an interesting addition to my library and thoughts.