Asymmetrical Information

I think you're going to take a lot of flack for this post, so let me be the first to say that I think that you are exactly correct, and that your words were dead-on. Nice work.

And no, I'm not religous either...

I, on the other hand, AM religious and I agree with the previous comment and your post.

I am a Catholic, and you are dead on. My wife and I applaud this step. We are hoping the Bishop of Wilmington does the same thing to the Blowhard Biden. He is a pro choice senator and there is no way you can reconcile that stance with being a member of the Catholic church. If you don't like the rules, find another more lenient religion.

Wow, Megan.

Spot on. I am an ex-catholic for a lot of the reasons you cite -- I do not beleive the same things as the Catholic church, therefore I am not Catholic.

Excellent post. I gave you props at the Blog of Xanadu.

J

One clarification on Orthodox Jews - while these days excommunication is pretty much non-existant, there is a question of legitimacy based entirely on belief, not action.

The reason Orthodox Jews do not accept decisions by Conservative Rabbis, including Conversions performed by Conservative Rabbis, is because of a decision in the early 20th century (I believe) that because the Jewish Theological Seminary, the primary ordaining body for Conservative Rabbis, teaches that the Torah may not have been handed directly to Moses at Mt. Sinai in it's exact present form, along with the Oral Law, that they deny a fundamental tenet of faith.

This is based strictly on belief, and not action.

Jane,

Are you a Catholic?

Jane,

You have a lyrical way of cutting through the bullsh*t. Bravo!

Why someone would want to identify themselves with a religion they manifestly don't agree with, and whose teachings they are actively in opposition to, baffles me. But then, so do lots of things liberals do.

I'm a liberal and I'm not Catholic, but I still agree with Jane. I like this particular pope for both sticking to his guns and also being quite socially progressive (that is, his concern for the poor, his wish to heal religious divisions, his skepticism of war, and his opposition to communism.)

I do have to say, however, that just because the Catholic church has the right to tell its members to either shape up or keep quiet about their Catholicism, doesn't mean that that's what it should do. Teachings do change, after all. That is, both teachings and teachings. )(I'm reading a book about Catholicism now (Constantine's Sword), and it's chalk full of examples about how teachings have changed over time.)

It seems to me that most religions would extend their usefuleness to people generally by being less doctrinaire. This is especially true of the Catholic church in the US, which daily loses followers to Mormonism and Protestantism. Does the Catholic Church really want Catholics who agree with Daschle and the millions of of pro-choice, pro-birth control, pro-whatever American Catholics to take a low profile? Wouldn't that make the Church look a little exclusive and welcoming only to the Bill O'Reillies of the world?

Wylie --

People generally don't identify with a religion because of it's principles, but because it's what mama said to do. That's why there's lots of people who living being Catholic, but feel free to disagree with the Pope. I wonder if there are any Catholics left in the world who believe in papal infallibility. Isn't that a teaching?

Yup. But like most non-Catholics, you seem to be unaware that papal infallibility only applies when the pope is speaking ex-Cathedra, which has only happened twice in history, both times on fairly obscure theological points concerning Mary of little possible interest to non-Catholics. The rest of the time, he's just speaking as the spiritual leader of the faith.

Of course a church that's too rigid will lose followers. But so will one that's too loose, as the mainline protestant denominations have discovered, because when you're too un-doctrinal, people begin to wonder what the difference is between a church and a pop-psychology lecture. Should the Church loosen up on that whole son-of-God thing to attract more followers?

Also, the Catholic church isn't in the kind of decline associated with other denominations; its crisis is in vocations, not members. The growing denominations in this country are of the bible-is-the-lieral-word-of-God sort, not the loose, live-and-let-live kind you describe.

Amitava-
This has nothing to do with "papal infallibility", which has to be one of the most misunderstood tenets of Catholic doctrine, at least to non-Catholics. Barring a few odd zealots with some issues best addressed by therapy and/or serious medication, absolutely no-one believes that every pronouncement made by the pope is infallible, must-be-true, cannot-be-disputed. Only when the pope makes a statement about a matter of belief following a very strict formalism is the statement considered infallible. This has, I believe, happened twice in the history of the church. About once every thousand years or so.

All that aside, I agree with the actions of the bishop. After all, if Tom Daschle suddenly decided that the citizens of the United States deserved to control their own money, that they should be considered responsible for their own actions, and that there exists a single basis for determining right and wrong no matter who you are or where you are from, plenty of folks would rise up to demand that he stop identifying himself as a Democrat.

Does the NAACP have the right to kick out somebody who claims to hate black people? Of course it does. Every group excommunicates those who dissent from its most essential beliefs. This sociological dogma is beyond debate. Only someone who doesn't know how to think and follow a logical argument would disagree.

Amitava, I don't understand your logic:

1. "[T]he Catholic church in the US... daily loses followers to Mormonism and Protestantism."

2. "People generally don't identify with a religion because of it's principles, but because it's what mama said to do."

Converts to Mormonism and evangelical Protestantism are hardly following mama's orders. Some of them face quite stiff opposition from their families. It may seem unlikely if you don't share their worldview, but lots of religious people really do believe what they say they do, independently of mama.

You're right it was contradictory. My flipancy should be better thought out.

I do think, though, that both have an element of truth. That is, Europe remains vastly and overwhelmingly Christian, not because of Christian principles, but because Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism, and Islam seem extremely alien. The same goes for the Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, and Muslim nations. This goes more to cultural tastes (or, perhaps, what mama said) than it does to Truth.

On the other hand, the Christian denominations might lose perishioners to other denominations, because they aren't providing what their followers need. People yearning for conservatism leave for more conservative churches (like Mormonism, Souther Baptism, or whatever), while people yearning for more openness become unitarians. What kind of church does the Catholic Church want to be? Hasn't it already had its experience with doctrinaire-ness, with it's indexes of prohibited books, and the like? I like its lack of fire-and-brimstoneness. But who cares what I think? I know my Catholic friends, who love being Catholic, but also disagree with some church teachings, also like it. Does the Church really want to shut them out?

The Church's job isn't to get as many members as possible. It's to save their souls. IF they think you burn in hell forever and ever if you have an abortion, than no they shouldn't loosen their restriction just for the pleasure of having someone agree with them.

You're not looking at it through their eyes. You're looking at it through the eyes of an unbeliever. You have to understand their premises before you start asking "why can't they just. . . ?"

If any religious institution made decisions based solely on getting people into heaven, then I guess there would be a lot less to argue about. But it never really has been like that has it? Church teachings have always been about shoring up papal power here, diminishing secular or temporal authority over there, uniting an empire, breaking up an empire, fighting Muslims, discrediting Jews, raising money, increasing authority by spreading the word. Of course, this isn't only true of the Catholic church, but all proselytizing (sp?) or evangelical religions. Because religious principles have always seemed so subject to politics, people feel free to disagree. But on the good side (from a church's point of view), church's have been able to adapt to the times. From a "saving souls" perspective, the times don't matter. But when has that been any religion's sole purpose?

Now, I'm not arguing that the Pope should change his mind on abortion. I'm just asking whether the church thinks success, however it defines it, will come from suppressing dissent.

A very interesting post. I wasn't going to comment, because I frankly don't care what the Catholic Church, or in this case, agents of the Catholic Church, decide to do with their members.

However, let's take this activity to its logical conclusion. Is the abortion plank higher in the pantheon than pronouncements on the death penalty, economic justice (i.e. the liberal wing of Catholicism)? If I were a studious enough church official, I'm pretty sure I could reduce the churchgoing privileges of every Catholic politican out there. Perhaps this suggests a fundamental incompatability in trying to evaluate political stances through the prism of Catholic doctrine.

As for the bolded afterthought chastising the non-religious left and libertarians, I'm not sure important metaphysical superiority is. It would at least suggest a metaphysical equivalence between the Christian God, the denizens of Mount Olympus, a god in Papua New Guinea represented by a straw doll, and the guy I represented at the Austin State Hospital who thought he had supernatural powers.

But like most non-Catholics, you seem to be unaware that papal infallibility only applies when the pope is speaking ex-Cathedra

Okay, forget that. I didn't know what I was talking about. I was just looking for an example where many Catholics disagree with Church teachings.

I am a recovering Catholic....and an unbeliever. I can see this issue from both sides. The unbeliever in me says that the whole thing is silly. Plenty of Catholics disagree, both publicly and privately, about major church teachings. The bishop is getting involved in politics...which is a no, no in the US. Etc., etc., etc.

The Catholic in me says the bishop is right. Many of the basic underlying tenants of the Catholic faith are related to reproduction. Jesus was the son of a virgin, after all.

The atheist that I have become says that this is none of my business. The bishop has a problem with one of his flock and is addressing that problem. They both have a right to do what they are doing. Daschle has the freedom to claim he is a Catholic and the bishop has the freedom to call him a liar. Let the voters figure it out.

I, on the other hand, am a billionaire. Just don't check my net worth; it's not quite up to snuff. Still, I'm a billionaire because I say so.

As for the bolded afterthought chastising the non-religious left and libertarians

Yeah, that bolded part was a little gratuitously rude.

I'm sorry, but most of the debates I see the left having about the Catholic Church start from the premise that none of the stuff they say should really be taken very seriously, not even by them. Why can't they just be reasonable about abortion, homosexuality, etc.? Well, if God tells you to do something, then there's no reasonable compromise. If you are incapable of imagining what it would be like to start with that premise, then the argument is not likely to go anywhere interesting. I'm sorry you found my note rude, but you came onto the thread and demonstrated exactly what I was talking about -- ignorance of Church theology, combined with the assumption that none of this stuff should be absolute.

I'm not sure if I found the bolded afterthought rude, but it was definitely presumptuous. Subscribing to my own hazy live and let live ethos, I say go ahead and get your metaphysics on.

Getting back to the point about the number of "absolutes" which must pepper 2000 years of Church history--- it's not necessarily about abortion in isolation from every other issue, but rather the idea of selective enforcement. That's why I was honestly asking where the injunction against abortion stands in relation to the injunction on the death penalty. Have conservative Catholic politicians been stripped of their privileges upon running afoul of that edict?

As Reverend Lovejoy once said "Have you ever read this thing (pointing to the Bible)? Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom".

just a few clarifications, the name of the religion in question is the Roman Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Catholic Church which has two rites, western and eastern.

we don't attend services (except for two days a year, Good Friday and Holy Saturday), we attend Mass (the reanactment of the Last Supper--turning the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ--or the Transubstantiation).

there are dogmas and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. when speaking ex-Cathedra (from the chair), we area speaking about divine revelation--the last two dogmas have to do with Jesus's mother, Mary, Immaculate Conception (birth without original sin) and the Assumption (Mary's body and soul residing in heaven)-- the Trinity, Papal Infallibility, the Resurection and the Ascension would be other dogmas.

human dignity (the background which abortion is based upon) is a teaching or the Roman Catholic Church.

as the Roman Catholic Church is an episcopacy (governance by bishops)Daschle is subject to his local bishop.

Finally, Amitava, Roman Catholic Church is dedicated to truth and it is through that truth than man may achieve salvation.

"...combined with the assumption that none of this stuff should be absolute."

This is where we get to the crux of the matter: every group intrinsically adheres to absolutes mandating complete assent of its members! The only real argument is where the line is drawn.

I'm sorry you found my note rude, but you came onto the thread and demonstrated exactly what I was talking about -- ignorance of Church theology, combined with the assumption that none of this stuff should be absolute.

I'm sorry I didn't end my last post with a :) or a ;), as I meant it tongue-in-cheek.

"You came onto the thread" -- you make me sound like a party-crasher.

Please pardon my ignorance. I'm not as well-read as you clearly are. And debates aren't supposed to enlightening or educational anyhow. I shouldn't post on threads unless I'm an expert. (Actually, there's plenty of regular posters who are clearly not experts in any field. But they're Jane's ideological fellow-travelers, so I guess they get passes.)

I never argued -- in the main, at least -- that "none of this stuff should be absolute." I've been arguing about what the Church should do about dissent. You seem to want me to be anti-religious, or anti-Catholic, but I'm not. Actually, I admire the Catholic church.

But I just can't figure out the insulting tone. Aren't these debates supposed to be fun? No matter, Jane, I won't bother you anymore.

You're not bothering me, Amitava; I enjoy the debate. But when you call me rude, don't pick up your ball and go home because I respond in kind. The addendum was not directed at anyone in particular; it was directed at an attitude that I find both common and risible: that because of course the virtue of tolerance is an (absolute) good thing, we cannot tolerate their intolerance!

To answer your question, Norbizness, yes, it is in a different category, as you can see by the fact that executioners are not automatically excommunicated. The Church thinks social justice and criminal policy are complicated. It doesn't think abortion is. In most cases, I happen to agree, but that's neither here nor there.

Amitava, I think you're an interesting voice in the comments area. But there's a big enough difference in perspective here that we're all having to shout across the void. Either you relate to the worldview of those who believe God has told them what to do, or you don't. If you don't, then the question of what the Catholic Church should do about dissent is valid. If you do, it's nonsensical. I guess that's why you don't discuss religion at parties: everyone comes away thinking everyone else is either stupid or insulting.

I was raised a Catholic (First Holy Communion, Sunday school, summer school, Confirmation, evening school). In high school I lapsed and, aside from a couple of short-lived attempts to reconnect with the church, lapsed is where I remain. Yet I still describe myself as a lapsed 'Catholic'.

From talking to plenty of friends and colleagues who were also raised Catholic, I don't think my experience is atypical. Many of my friends have gone back to the Church, particularly after they've had children of their own.

So what does one man's experience have to do with this thread ? Here's what I'd conclude:

1. Mama did, in fact, play a large role in my Catholic upbringing, from taking me to Latin Mass before I hit kindergarten to teaching Sunday school to ironing my white shirt every Saturday night. Taking a flyer at unsubstantiated polling, I'd guess most folks have their religions similarly chosen for them rather than undertake an intellectual journey examining the pros and cons of the world's major theologies. Seemed pretty normal to me at the time, seems pretty normal to me now;

2. A conventional Catholic upbringing does not evaporate, even if one questions certain of the Church's tenets. Therefore, it seems reasonable to a non-practicing Catholic like myself that other practicing, but maybe not '100% pure' practitioners, might still consider themselves Catholic in the most heartfelt fashion; and

3. If Tom Daschle's bishop feels obligated to speak out publicly about Tom Daschle's Catholicism because of Daschle's stance on abortion, with no discernible consideration about the rest of Daschle's Catholic persona, then I have to wonder what kind of political shennanigans the bishop is up to. Why, if he were so concerned, wouldn't he discuss this with Daschle privately ? (And, no, I can't say whether he did, didn't, or even tried. But from what I've read, I don't get that idea.)

Now, the oh-so-cynical out there like David Perron can brand me a liar for describing myself as any kind of Catholic at all. And others can make their cheap political points painting 'most of the left' as unable to appreciate religious faith. I think I'll remain comfortable with the ultimate conversation I eventually have with Someone who has a bit more perspective.

Cheers,

"The bishop is getting involved in politics...which is a no, no in the US. Etc., etc., etc."

Sez who? The bishop has just as much right as any other American citizen to "get involved in politics". He can do any politicking that anyone else can do, up to and including personally serving as an elected official.

As an educational note to the non-Catholics out there, the Canon which would serve to excommunicate those who get or facilitate abortions (but not the hospital administrators or politicians) is #1398. It was adopted in 1983. Somebody took their sweet time getting to that particular "absolute".

As for its application to Daschle, the Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic Unviersity of America said: "A strict interpretation of canon 1398 means that it applies primarily to those directly participating in the abortion. Hence, however morally problematic their behavior, it applies neither to abortion clinic administrators nor to political officials facilitating abortions by advocating abortion rights and voting to fund abortions."

Reading just Monsignor's Green basic commentary on the interpretation of 1398, especially as it pertains to day-after pills, contraception, etc. leads one to belief that even "absolutes" are complicated, if you give it enough time and enough commentators.

To my mind, there are two questions: Should the Roman Catholic Church (or any other church) have the right to tell Tom Daschle to quit claiming to be a Catholic? The second, is Should the church exercise this right (assuming it has one)? Too many seem to think they are answering the first question when they answer the second.

Should a church be able to ask someone to quit professing that they are in good standing, when they are not? Of course. It should MEAN something to be a catholic (or a member of another faith).

Should the church have exercised its right in this case? I think so. (Note: I am not a catholic nor do I live in Daschle's state, so I really don't care all that much.) Daschle is a very public man who is RAISING MONEY to FUND ABORTIONS. This is a far greater departure than simply disagreeing with some church teaching -- Daschle is working for the other side! If the church were to let this pass without comment, I'd think it would be far harder for its less public members to take its teachings to heart. Anytime a member of a church becomes an obstacle to the rest of the church to follow church teachings, it would seem right and proper for a church to take action.

rofe, by perspective, do you having a conversation with someone who thinks like yourself?

Nah, Timmy, I don't talk to people unless they think like me.

(And I thought capitalising 'Someone' was pretty clever.)

Cheers,

Jane said: I'm sorry you found my note rude,

Apology accepted. Let's just say you owe me a meal. Not just soup, an acutal meal. My wife can drive us. Don't worry, I don't mind being seen with a taller woman. Anyway, how can I take my ball and go home when "the ball" is a metaphor for the discussion thread?

I of course agree with Jane. My thoughts on the matter can be found here: http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/#93043760
and here:
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/#92903199

Norbizness, Daschle wasn't excommunicated, so your comments on Cannon Law served what purpose.

Rolfe, you are clever as well as amuzing, don't fall away.

Jane/Megan,
WOW. I don't think I've ever seen an advocacy of a non-personally held faith done better.
I am Christian, though not Catholic. But you can argue for me any time.
Keep it up!

Jane Galt

You are completely wrong on this matter.

Show me the document in which the Catholic Church states that those who dissent from the Church's position on abortion (or any other teaching) are not Catholics. Quote the relevant text from the Catechism, Canon Law, a papal encyclical, or any other official Church document.

Even those who are excommunicated are still considered to be members of the Church.

Donny P, the bishop wrote a letter, which is an official church document.

Don - Jane did not say Daschle was NOT a catholic. She did say she thought his Bishop should have the right to ask Daschle to quit claiming he is a catholic (in his campaign materials and elsewhere). Daschle, by claiming membership in the catholic church, is trying to benefit from the general good will most catholics feel for each other. It's not at all unreasonable for the church to ask him to quit trying to claim this benefit while playing on the other team.

If Daschle wants to be pro-choice (and to raise money for abortions), that's his right. It's also the right of the church to make it clear that his actions are not in keeping with the church's teachings.

Don -- huh? Last time I looked LeFevre doesn't get to call himself Catholic either. There are procedures for reversing an excommunication, but not without repentance and behavior change.

I'm confused.

Why is the basis of the Catholic church's position relevant?

If, as a result of someone getting frisky with the Xerox machine, Church doctrine suddenly includes "thou shalt wear white socks on Tuesday", they're within their rights to exclude those who don't. And no, it doesn't matter how much the sockless value being Catholic, what other doctrines they adhere to, whether their mothers are upset, how long they've been Catholic, whether there are political consequences, etc.

The Catholic church has decided that it doesn't want to be associated with Dashle v2003. That's their right, and it doesn't matter why/how they make that decision.

I'm a Buddhist (if it matters, which I doubt) and I agree with you as well. I also think your boldface rant is one that ought to be saved and republished every so often -- I'm tired of people trying to argue points of Christian theology with me, just because I knew enough to tell them what the general believe of Christians is.

Well, it matters to the extent that the Catholic Church public rebuking pulic officials has an effect on society at large, and we therefore have an interest in inquiring whether or not the Church acted fairly. Why should we suspend moral judgment just because the Church is a private organization? If CNN canned all its conservatives to restore the lost values of Ted Turner, wouldn't people rightfully be hopping mad?

I'm a Buddhist (if it matters, which I doubt) and I agree with you as well. I also think your boldface rant is one that ought to be saved and republished every so often -- I'm tired of people trying to argue points of Christian theology with me, just because I knew enough to tell them what the general believe of Christians is.

I'm a Buddhist (if it matters, which I doubt) and I agree with you as well. I also think your boldface rant is one that ought to be saved and republished every so often -- I'm tired of people trying to argue points of Christian theology with me, just because I knew enough to tell them what the general believe of Christians is.

The thing that seems to be confusing people about the bishop's actions is whether he has (or should have) any authority within the Catholic Church to prevent someone from identifying himself as a Catholic. As Garry Wills accurately points out, the Church isn't the hierarchy surrounding the Pope, the College of Cardinals, the Bishops and the clergy; it's the body of believers itself, of which Daschle is one. One of the reasons that the Pope doesn't actually excommunicate supporters of abortion rights, or the death penalty, is that such an act would gravely weaken the authority of the Church (as well as calling into question his own legitimacy). Such an act would do little to strengthen Church teaching, and would likely split American Catholicism in two.

> Well, it matters to the extent that the Catholic Church public rebuking pulic officials has an effect on society at large, and we therefore have an interest in inquiring whether or not the Church acted fairly.

No, we don't.

The alleged weight that some folks in the public might place on the statements by certain folks doesn't entitle us to do anything about said statements.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that I get some say about the NYT's editorials.

I didn't think so.

Amitava, you got a date with Jane, now you want to pass a moral judgement, an interesting afternoon, eh.

moral judgement is always so complicated.

Jane, unfortunately towards the end of a coherent statement interjects:

The objection to abortion has a number of complicated theological roots....The point is that the Church cannot alter its position on abortion, nor downgrade it, because you find it offensive. Nor can it tell its politicians to vote their conscience, any more than it should have told its German politicians to vote their conscience on the Final Solution.

while not living on the west side and only being a dog, abortion is tied to two common threads "dignity of man" and the timing of when a cluster of cells changes from a thing to a thing with a soul, a human being. if i remember correctly old Thomas of Aquinas (RC's main theologian) said, damn we don't know when the soul enters the body--cluster of cells--(i'm loosely translating from latin here and i'm a bit rusty), so to be safe, it will be at conception.

well if old saint thomas couldn't figure it out, damn if i'm going to be able to figure it out.

But, Amitava, isn't that what morality is all about? Historians have castigated the papacy for not verbally objecting to the Final Solution, as they found the act to be morally reprehensible. If the Roman Catholic Church finds an act to be immoral, it is obligated to comment on it as well as at the very least to insure its members understand its position. The bishop was meeting his obligation in commenting on Mr. Daschel.

Donny P, the bishop wrote a letter, which is an official church document.

No it isn't. A bishop could also write a letter in support abortion rights, but that obviously wouldn't make support abortion rights the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Show me the Church document that states that dissenting from Church teaching on abortion renders one a non-Catholic.

Well that's fine, Amitava, but now you've rather torn the heart of liberalism out, haven't you? People are entitled to hold religious opinions unless they attempt to act on them.

We're certainly entitled to question them, and question whether they can be accomodated in a liberal society, but I don't think we're entitled to be outraged when a bishop tells someone who is not a practicing Catholic to stop calling himself a Catholic. At it's heart, it seems to me that the objection is to a religion having any significant call on its adherents' consciences.

As for those who castigated me for making blanket statements about the left, I generally don't like blanket statements, but I'm going to stand by this one: the left is profoundly intolerant of religions that espouse rigid, non-reletavist morality. Perhaps they should be. But that intolerance has resulted in an inability to imagine what the other guy is thinking. I'm not asking people who don't like the Catholic Church to acknowlege that they are theologically correct on abortion or anything else; only that, given their current theological positions on abortion and the obligations required to be a member in good standing of the Church, the position has an inescapible internal logic. Or perhaps inescapable is not the right word, as clearly the Eastern bishops are not confronting the issue. But it has an internal logic that does not value liberal values, or the happiness of the mother, or society's interest in vibrant sexuality, or rectifying the fundamental unfairness of reproduction, as highly as it values the right of the fetus to get born and thereby have the opportunity to be baptized in Christ. That's why, for example, war and the death penalty are not as bad as abortion (the position isn't only dignity of man/hour of quickening, although those are the topics of the pronouncements; there are a lot of arguments about it) -- a condemned man or a soldier may repent and be saved before the hour of their death. Or so I recall from teh paper I wrote on it in college. I hear any number of arguments about this, and homosexuality, that are trying to refute Church positions based on arguments whose values fall lower in the chain than the ultimate right to get born and be shriven, according to the Church. For example, a lot of people will say that homosexuality shouldn't be agaisnt the rules because this makes homosexuals miserable. But lots of things that God permits make people miserable. Would you say that we should allow pedophiles to practice because otherwise they'll be lonely and sad? I am not in any way drawing a moral equivalence between being a homosexual and being a pedophile. I only point that out to show that since God apparently made some people pedophiles, he apparently is okay with some people being lonely and sexually unfulfilled. The Church also doesn't permit people with lonely rotten marriages to find fulfillment in the arms of another. I disagree, which is one of the many reasons I'm not Catholic.

A lot of people are focused on abortion, but that's one of only many areas where Daschle is out of communion with the Church. I actually think his remarriage is more telling. To the church, marriage is one of the seven sacraments, on par with confession, baptism, holy orders, communion, last rites, and I forget the last one because I'm a bad person. At the point where your personal sexual fulfillment means more to you than taking part in the central rite of your church, I think it's totally fair to say that you are no longer a member in good standing. I mean, what is it that someone who doesn't take communion, believes that the central teachings on one of the seven sacraments are incorrect, publicly argues against several of the central teachings of the church (including, my friends on the left, voting for a war that the Church had condemned, and I believe, supporting the death penalty), likes so much about the Church that he wants to call himself Catholic? It can't be the authority handed to Paul when Jesus said "on this Rock I build My church", because it's that authority he's defying. What are we talking about -- he likes the liturgy? He can go across the street to the Episcopalians and get nearly the same thing, and it's written in more sonorous English.

Jane Galt:

Don -- huh? Last time I looked LeFevre doesn't get to call himself Catholic either. There are procedures for reversing an excommunication, but not without repentance and behavior change.

Excommunication is a canonical penalty imposed of Catholics for various kinds of wrongdoing. It's not an expulsion from the Church. A Catholic who has been excommunicated is not in full communion with the Church, but he is still a Catholic. Even if Daschle had been excommunicated, he would still remain a Catholic, and the bishop would still have no basis for demanding that Daschle stop identifying himself as a Catholic.

Jane, the last one is marriage, but that sacrament was covered in your overall comments.

slow down Jane or will soon be talking about 2X4.

Jan, i'm sorry you mentioned marriage but didn't mention confirmation.

David Walser:

Daschle, by claiming membership in the catholic church, is trying to benefit from the general good will most catholics feel for each other. It's not at all unreasonable for the church to ask him to quit trying to claim this benefit while playing on the other team.

Daschle is not "claiming a benefit," he's identifying himself as a Catholic. Unless and until the Church expels Daschle, or Daschle chooses to leave the Church of his own accord, he will remain a member. If the Church does not want Daschle to continue to identify himself as a Catholic because of his support for abortion rights, then it should throw him out. Unless it does that, it has no basis for demanding that he stop identifying himself as a member of the Church.

So how come they won't let LeFebre call himself a Catholic? Just meanness?

Once you've been baptised in the Church, you retain the possibility of returning to communion with it. But you are not a Catholic when you are -- I forget the terminology, but it means that you're not merely not attending services, but willfully acting against the body of the Church.

Beyond that, what Daschle is implying, when he calls himself a Catholic, is not that he was baptised, but that he is a practicing Catholic, which he manifestly isn't.

Well that's fine, Amitava, but now you've rather torn the heart of liberalism out, haven't you? People are entitled to hold religious opinions unless they attempt to act on them

No, no, no! I'm not trying to do anything to the poor bishop who asked Daschle to pipe down about his catholicism. I am not in favor of *doing* anything at all -- not condemning the bishop, nor the church, nor Catholics. I don't want them imprisoned or hauled before a talkshow host and before a congressional committee. I was just trying to discuss, at an abstract level, whether it's fair to publicly condemn dissenters, some of whom are my friends. I think some other Catholic posters posted similarly that it strikes them as unfortunate to deny someone who has grown up Catholic and wants to be Catholic and tries to be Catholic his wish to be Catholic because of doctrinal disagreements. That's all I'm saying. I'm not being intolerant of anything. Ultimately, it's up to the Church to do whatever it wants. But can't I wish that it do something else instead?

And in the sphere of politics, in which this bishop has very intentionally entered, is it intolerant to inquire whether he will be as vigilant against less liberal public servants who have other disagreements with the Church?

Don, you're being silly. Writing a letter in support of abortion rights would not cause a bishop to become not a Catholic, but it would cause him to become not a bishop. Further advocacy would, if memory serves, see him defrocked. It's just not a "live and let live" kind of place. Kind of like when that Catholic hospital started performing abortions and lost the right to call itself Catholic.

Amitava, the Church is it's doctrines. Some doctrines are more important than others -- probably not a lot of people get expelled from the church because of disagreements about the sainthood of St. Christopher. But saying that you shouldn't let doctrine be the arbiter of who is a member of a church is like saying you shouldn't let parenthood be the arbiter of who is a member of your family.

And believe it or not, Amitava, the Church is on conservative politicians like white on rice. They got into several public brawls with Reagan and Bush over foreign policy, nuclear disarmament, and the wars they waged. The only difference was that Bush wasn't claiming to be Catholic, so they didn't have much leverage. In New York City they're heavily involved in liberalish politics, were very vocal (against) on welfare reform, and run the most extensive network of AIDS hospices & such in the city. One may not like the Church's positions, and like any old institution there's a fair amount of institutionalized hypocrisy & rigidity, but under this pope they do attempt to live the message of social justice.

Jane Galt:

I also dispute your claim that, given the Church's theological premises, its teachings have an "internal logic" and are thus immunized from criticism by those who don't share those premises. Many Catholics who do share the Church's premises, or some of them at least, nevertheless dissent from some of its teachings in part because they find those teachings to be so poorly supported by logic and reason. Andrew Sullivan, for example, has written extensively about the irrationality of the Church's teachings against homosexual sex. Garry Wills has written extensively about the irrationality of the Church's teachings on all sorts of issues, from contraception to priestly celibacy to the ordination of women. Sullivan and Wills both consider themselves devout Catholics. And the Church's teachings on abortion certainly fall into this category of teachings that don't make sense even on their own terms. If every fertilized egg is an ensouled human being, why doesn't the Church baptize aborted fetuses? If every fertilized egg is an ensouled human being, why is the Church so indifferent to the 50% or more of all fertilized eggs that are spontaneously aborted? If a fetus is an ensouled human being, why does the Church make a life-of-the-mother exception to its prohibition on abortion? Why is the induced and certain death of the fetus to be preferred to the natural and uncertain death of the mother in such cases?

Amitava, Daschle wasn't condemned, he was asked to desist from refering to himself as a Roman Catholic.

Amitava is your concern about Daschle or the hierarchy making public a pronouncement, such as the Pope commenting on the Iraqi war or the death penalty in the US. In both instances the Pope was expressing the current opinion, not the teaching, of the Church. Were you upset by either position or the problems it may have caused for conservative catholic politicians?

The Church is its doctrines. But it is also more (or less) than that. It isn't in the process of excommunicating all Catholic pro-choicers or others who disagree on whatever issue. Lots of dissenters remain in the Catholic church and aren't publicly condemned. I imagine this is for good reason: perhaps political, or perhaps because the Church wants to keep dissenters within the flock in the hopes to save their souls. I don't know. All I know is that I find highly unlikely the notion that dissent is ever the only reason for some sort of public condemnation. Which brings me back to the question, did Tom Daschle really deserve it?

I should also ad that your remark that liberalism is intolerant of religious rigidity is absolutely true. In fact, I think it is one of the corner stones of liberal thought. Anything that suppresses intellectual discourse is bad. Thus, the Taliban and what it stood for is anathema to liberalism. Some radical leftists target the Catholic Church with such strident condemnation, but I don't know any normal liberals who do. That's because the Catholic Church has demonstrated an ability to grow and adapt -- from accepting that teaching that the world is a sphere is not heretical to abandoning indexes of books to rejecting the notion that Jews (as Jews) killed Christ. (On top of all that, I really appreciate that the Church is not agitating to have creationism taught in our public schools.) And I don't think that anyone on this thread has demonstrated any anti-religiosity to this debate, so I don't see what this alleged bigotry has to do with Tom Daschle.

Jane Galt:

But you are not a Catholic when you are -- I forget the terminology, but it means that you're not merely not attending services, but willfully acting against the body of the Church.

Again I ask: Show me the document in which the Church states that those who "willfully act against the body of the Church" (by which I assume you mean "publicly dissent from a Church teaching") are no longer Catholics.

Beyond that, what Daschle is implying, when he calls himself a Catholic, is not that he was baptised, but that he is a practicing Catholic, which he manifestly isn't.

Again, the distinction between practising Catholics and non-practising Catholics is not the same thing as the distinction between Catholics and non-Catholics. A non-practising Catholic is still a Catholic. But it's hard to know what you mean, exactly, by "practising" in this context, anyway. Are you defining anyone who dissents from or disobeys any Church teaching as "non-practising?" If not, what exactly do you mean by it?

Timmy the Dog said:

Were you upset by either position or the problems it may have caused for conservative catholic politicians?

Let me just say that I'm not upset about what the bishop did (except, being a partisan, to the extent that it might hurt the Democratic party). I don't really have a dog in that fight. It just strikes me as not very fair, not very nice, and shortsighted on the part of a Church that wants to lead all us sheep to heaven.

But I definitely do not have a problem with the Church expressing its opinions. Saying that the war is wrong, but then going to William F. Buckley and asking him to stop calling himself Catholic, are just two different things. The latter, to me, is really extreme.

As for the Catholic church in NY, I'll take Jane's word for it. But does it often ask people to stop calling themselves Catholic?

Timmy:

Amitava, Daschle wasn't condemned, he was asked to desist from refering to himself as a Roman Catholic.

Under the Church's own rules Daschle is a Catholic, and does not stop being a Catholic just because he dissents on the issue of abortion. Thus, the Church has no basis for demanding that he stop referring to himself as a Catholic. By your silly argument, the Church should be demanding that virtually all American Catholics stop referring to themselves as Catholics, because virtually all American Catholics dissent from Church teaching on at least some issues (fornication, adultery, divorce, remarriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, masturbation, fertility treatments...the list is endless).

Amitava, exactly where does liberal thought and social justice emanate from? Develop a thread as to the underpinnings of the concept of human dignity or more precisely, the historical context of ethics, the theory of knowledge, philosophy of the mind, philosophical theology, both Saint Thomas and Autustine immediately come to my mind.

Then factor in dissent and please tell me where Daschle has either been excommunicated or condemned.

Timmy:

Ignoring your sarcasm for a moment, obviously he hasn't been excommunicated.

But let's be honest here. If your minister or priest came to you and asked you not to public associate yourself with his ministry, you wouldn't consider this condemnation? Is that really your position?

Don P your statement

Under the Church's own rules Daschle is a Catholic, and does not stop being a Catholic just because he dissents on the issue of abortion. Thus, the Church has no basis for demanding that he stop referring to himself as a Catholic.

One question and follow up:

What rules are you referring to (be specific)? Second and related, Daschle's bishop has asked him to cease and desist from referring to himself as a Catholic. As the Church is organized as an episcopacy, what precludes the bishop from making this demand.

Amitava, as previous pastor, a Roman Catholic Priest, asked me to not associate with his parish (he was upset on my and my family's exit from Mass right after several of his sermons), I felt no condemnation, rather I felt relief.

Timmy:

What rules are you referring to (be specific)?

The rules governing membership in the Catholic Church. Yet again I ask: Show me the Church document that states that a Catholic who publicly dissents from Church teaching on abortion is no longer a Catholic.

Second and related, Daschle's bishop has asked him to cease and desist from referring to himself as a Catholic. As the Church is organized as an episcopacy, what precludes the bishop from making this demand.

I already told you: the fact that there is no basis in Church law to dispute Daschle's claim that he is a Catholic. Again, if you think there is such a basis, show me the relevant Church law.

Actually, the Catholic Church didn't insist that life began at conception until 1869. Before that, abortion was okay through the 40th day of pregnancy.

So what is someone who believes that the Church's doctrine on abortion reflects the absolute will of God to make of this? That God suddenly changed his mind?

Also, the Church is clearly more than just doctrine. It's a community, a set of rituals, and a social institution with a particular cultural and historical legacy. Many (if not most) Catholics identify themselves as such because they identify with these aspects of the Church, not because they believe in everything the Church teaches.

Don P

when i (my brothers and sister, my children and my cousins) was baptized, i didn't get a membership card or a copy of the bylaws.

at confirmation, they must have run out as well.

but from the official cathecist of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is the following line:

886. "'The individual BISHOPS are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches.'[LG 23.] As such, they 'exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,'[LG 23.] assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.[Cf. CD 3.] The BISHOPS exercise this care first 'by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church,' and so contributing 'to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches.'[LG 23.] They extend it especially to the poor,[Cf. Gal 2:10 .] to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world."

the bishops run the show, the highlights are added by my hand.

> If the Church does not want Daschle to continue to identify himself as a Catholic because of his support for abortion rights, then it should throw him out. Unless it does that, it has no basis for demanding that he stop identifying himself as a member of the Church.

Actually, it does. It asked him to stop referring to himself as a Catholic.

> By your silly argument, the Church should be demanding that virtually all American Catholics stop referring to themselves as Catholics, because virtually all American Catholics dissent from Church

No. The Church has discretion, just as you may choose to associate with quiet Repubs but not notorious ones.

Where do you get this idea that there is a right to be recognized by the Catholic Church as a Catholic? (Church law won't help you here - the right must be external to the Church.)

Liberals condemn Bishop for insisting a liberal hold to a Catholic standard to call himself a Catholic; yet insist that Judicial candidates endorse abortion rights to be judicial candidates.
Liberals condemn Sen. Lott for remarks that imply racism, yet don't condem Rep. Moran, Sen. Byrd, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy for similar remarks.
Liberals condemn Sen. Santorum for remarks commenting on legal ramifications, yet defend NOW Chapter President Mavra Stark for doing the same thing.
I'm beginning to sense a trend: Liberals can say what they want without consequences, conservatives can't.

nathan:

Liberals condemn Bishop for insisting a liberal hold to a Catholic standard to call himself a Catholic;

No, this liberal condemns the bishop for demanding that someone the Church recognizes as a Catholic stop calling himself a Catholic. If the Church doesn't want people who support abortion rights as members, it should throw them out. Of course, if it does that, it won't have many members left.

yet insist that Judicial candidates endorse abortion rights to be judicial candidates.

Many do, yes. So what?

Liberals condemn Sen. Lott for remarks that imply racism, yet don't condem Rep. Moran, Sen. Byrd, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy for similar remarks.

What "similar remarks" would those be?

Liberals condemn Sen. Santorum for remarks commenting on legal ramifications, yet defend NOW Chapter President Mavra Stark for doing the same thing.

Incomprehensible. What actual statements by Santorum and Stark does "remarks commenting on legal ramifications" refer to?

Andy Freeman:

Actually, it does. It asked him to stop referring to himself as a Catholic.

Huh? The Church's basis for asking that Daschle stop calling himself a Catholic is that it asked him to stop calling himself a Catholic? What's that supposed to mean? How does the mere fact that the Church (or, rather, one particular bishop) asked Daschle to do this justify that demand?

No. The Church has discretion, just as you may choose to associate with quiet Repubs but not notorious ones.

What does "discretion" have to do with it? Under Chutch law, Daschle is a Catholic whether he assents to the abortion teachings or not. If Daschle is a Catholic, why shouldn't he identify himself as a Catholic?

Where do you get this idea that there is a right to be recognized by the Catholic Church as a Catholic?

I don't think there is any such right. Where do you get the idea that dissenting from the abortion teaching renders one a non-Catholic?

Actually, the Catholic Church didn't insist that life began at conception until 1869. Before that, abortion was okay through the 40th day of pregnancy. So what is someone who believes that the Church's doctrine on abortion reflects the absolute will of God to make of this? That God suddenly changed his mind?

No. The event that prompted that change in Church teaching was the discovery of fertilization. But the Church's abortion teachings don't make sense anyway, for reasons I have already alluded to, and others.

Also, the Church is clearly more than just doctrine. It's a community, a set of rituals, and a social institution with a particular cultural and historical legacy.

Many (if not most) Catholics identify themselves as such because they identify with these aspects of the Church, not because they believe in everything the Church teaches.

Then they're reducing the Church from a religion to, essentially, a social or cultural organization. Not that that's a bad thing, but you should be able to understand why it enrages conservatives.

Amitava,

The Roman Catholic position is open to the idea of evolution. The change of opinion with regard to abortion was the Church reacting to the new science of biology. Early on the quickening was thought to be the beginning of life, biology proved the organism was actually alive earlier.

The Church isn't just an organization, it is a doctrine. That doctrine can be torturous, but on many issues it is accessible to those of us without a doctorate. The point of all of this theology is to figure out exactly what it is god wants of us. These faiths are central to being a Catholic. To depart from doctrine based upon YOUR determination of what god wants is called protestantism, period.

The church is not democtratic, the search for truth is not democratic, debate can aid in finding the truth, but voting on it doesn't.

Daschle may continue to label himself a Catholic, hell most American Catholics can call themselves Catholic, but if you do not adhere to the doctrines (ayone remember the word revelation?) you are NOT Catholic. The bishop's asking Daschle to refrain from claiming to be what he is not was both the right thing to do, and the moral thing to do. To allow him to mislead American Catholics, is to allow him to lead them away from god.Ummm last I checked the church is supposed to lead people to god, not away.

Quick disclaimer: I AM NOT Catholic.

I'm sure the church will follow up with demands that pro-death penalty and birth-control Catholic politicians stop identifying themselves as such? You know, if it's not just a local political ploy against Daschle or something.

John:

... but if you do not adhere to the doctrines (ayone remember the word revelation?) you are NOT Catholic.

That is not what the Catholic Church itself teaches. The Church does not teach that dissent from its abortion doctrine renders one a non-Catholic.

The bishop's asking Daschle to refrain from claiming to be what he is not ...

The Church does not claim that Daschle is not a Catholic.

Something like 90% of American Catholics dissent from or disobey Church teaching on contraception. Others dissent from Church teaching about homosexuality, and/or pre-marital sex, divorce, remarriage, masturbation, artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, abortion and countless other issues. There are probably virtually no American Catholics that assent to all the teachings of the Church. So by your argument, there are virtually no American Catholics at all.

If those supposed American Catholics believe that they can better determine the will of God they aren't really Catholic. That does not mean they won't be welcomed at mass, that doesn't mean they have to obey doctrine absolutely (Theology allows for the reality of sin) But to assert that you can better determine the will of god is essentialy hubris, given that theology is supposedly based upon revealed wisdom, not personal whim.

And yes there are people, Americans at that, who try very hard to adhere to church teaching.

As to Daschle, it isn't that the church proclaims that he is not a Catholic (that would be excommunication) They don't have logs of who is and who isn't. Daschle holds views which are in direct contradiction to their doctrine. He is free to change his mind and come back to the fold, he is free to go to mass, but he shouldn't pretend to live as a Catholic when he Doesn't.

Don,

Your twisted rationalizations are scary.
Do you believe in the first amendment?
I guess, by your measure, I'm a gay, heterosexual, Catholic, Presbyterian, Muslim Scientologist.
I suggest you take up Jane's suggestion and talk to a canon lawyer.

.

If those supposed American Catholics believe that they can better determine the will of God they aren't really Catholic.

So you claim. Show me where the Catholic Church teaches that Catholics who dissent from Church teaching on abortion (or anything else) are not Catholics.

And yes there are people, Americans at that, who try very hard to adhere to church teaching.

You just claimed that anyone who dissents from any aspect of Catholic doctrine is not a Catholic. If what you say were true (it isn’t), then there would be virtually no American Catholics at all, since virtually all American Catholics dissent from some aspect or other of Church teaching. As I said, on contraception alone, which is just one small piece of the vast body of Catholic doctrines, something like 90% of American Catholics dissent from Church teaching.

As to Daschle, it isn't that the church proclaims that he is not a Catholic

Then if he’s a Catholic, why shouldn’t he be able to say that he’s a Catholic?

(that would be excommunication)

No, it wouldn’t. Excommunication is a canonical penalty imposed by the Church on its own members. Excommunication does not render one a non-Catholic.

but he shouldn't pretend to live as a Catholic when he Doesn't.

He isn’t “pretending to live as a Catholic” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). He is identifying himself as a Catholic.

[anonymous]

Your twisted rationalizations are scary.

Great rebuttal, that.

Do you believe in the first amendment?

Yes, I do. And your point is....?

I guess, by your measure, I'm a gay, heterosexual, Catholic, Presbyterian, Muslim Scientologist.

I have no idea what you are.

I suggest you take up Jane's suggestion and talk to a canon lawyer.

I'm still waiting for anyone here, Catholic or non-Catholic, to quote the canonical law--or any other official Church document--that states that dissent on abortion renders one a non-Catholic. If you claim there is such a teaching, produce it.

i think don p has brought up a point that just about everyone else is not really engaging: why pick on daschle? (if someone already brought this up, sorry, its a long thread)he is only one, amongst many american catholics who hold positions counter to established church doctrine. and the church is not delievering an ultimatum to them (and do we really believe that they will? i do not think so)is it because he is a visible champion of certain positions that are not only counter to church doctrine, but also counter to other ideological positions currently in political ascendancy in this country. i do not think you can divorce these comments from the political realities of our age. after all, isn't the bush administration trying to actively court american catholics? maybe the good bishop is a die-hard democratic supporter, maybe he is politically neutral, or maybe ...

i recommend http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ which is the catholic encyclopaedia. check out its entries on the issues raised here. i have found it to have an air of authority that many folks here could utilize in this debate. i found the entry on excommunication pretty interesting. check it out.

i am open to correction, but since catholics believe that baptism is a sacrament, and thus a sign of god's effectual and REAL grace, that is not something that humans can reverse. thus, daschle, if baptized, is a catholic. and he always will be, even if he is naughty. he may not be a good one under church doctrine, but he is a catholic. i get the sense that many folks here argue by analogy that being catholic is like being a member of a club. if you no longer want to abide by the rules of the club, you leave. i don't get the sense that catholics see it that way. you are a catholic, and you are always a catholic. even if you renounce your catholicness, you are still a catholic (that baptism thing again). this may sound absolutely bizarre to folks here, but here is a quote from that source i mentioned, commenting on apotasy and heresy:

"The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous. The "Shepherd" of Hermas, a work written in Rome in the middle of the second century, states positively that there is no forgiveness for those who have wilfully denied the Lord. [Similit. ix. 26, 5; Funk, Opera Patrum apostolicorum (Tübingen, 1887), I, 547]. Apostasy belonged, therefore, to the class of sins for which the Church imposed perpetual penance and excommunication without hope of pardon, leaving the forgiveness of the sin to God alone." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

i am open to correction from you all, but that would seem to suggest that the bishop was WRONG to say what he did. but please, i would appreciate you all showing me the error of my ways.

To pretend to live is a Catholic is to claim to adhere to church teaching, when you don't. As to contraception, well see my previous comment. By your definition of what it means to be a Catholic I could describe myself as a Catholic even though I don't know whether or not god exists, even thought I don't accept scripture as divine revelation. All this because I was baptised as an infant! Do you really think Catholic is an accurate description of either Daschle or myself?

I suppose the better description of Daschle would be a heretic (I dare anyone to say that word in public though).

I suppose that the bishop may not have been technically correct (so there! I stand corrected), but can you imagine the uproar had he labelled Daschle a heretic.

john,

"can you imagine the uproar had he labelled Daschle a heretic."

now that is an interesting thought!
would he actually be considered a heretic?

Amitava, was open in his statement (after several ranings)

Let me just say that I'm not upset about what the bishop did (except, being a partisan, to the extent that it might hurt the Democratic party). I don't really have a dog in that fight

Don P is out of his league in this fight, he keeps on refering to rules or cannon law, when pushed he changes the subject. The only observation is that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but rather than move on he keeps on making a fool of himself. Good job Don, there is a place for you in the Kingdom of Kos with the other Kossites.

Cas has just entered the fray, bringing up some 2nd century stuff and baptism, so it will take me a little bit longer to respond.

If you're a dashite (a supporter of daschle) your upset because the bishop's letter may hurt tom's relection bid as well as the dem's recovery of the senate. i understand that concern, amitava lays it out nicely. The rest of the ranting is just gravey.

Don P,

There are various degrees of doctrine, certain ones are central, as in affirming that Jesus was the son of god, and ones that are still debatable (as in currently debated by theologians). I don't know the current status of contraception and abortion, but I suspect that they are held to be contra the very sanctity of human life and are thus pretty important.

John:

To pretend to live is a Catholic is to claim to adhere to church teaching, when you don't.

Daschle isn’t pretending to adhere to Catholic teaching on abortion, so by your own definition he isn’t pretending to live as a Catholic.

As to contraception, well see my previous comment.

What comment? I didn’t see you address my statement about contraception at all.

By your definition of what it means to be a Catholic I could describe myself as a Catholic even though I don't know whether or not god exists, even thought I don't accept scripture as divine revelation.

You need to read more carefully. I have not defined what it means to be a Catholic. I have been pointing out to you that the Catholic Church’s definition of what it means to be a Catholic does not include the requirement to assent to every Church doctrine. Your claim to the contrary is just factually incorrect.

Cas,

I just think that might be the better description, but that word is sooo charged. The publicity would, I guess, be huge, but as has been pointed out: most US Catholics don't really give a damn about doctrine when it is inconvenient.

I don't doubt that the Bishop might have been politically motivated. I don't know him and don't know his politics, so maybe.

I wonder if this just might generate sympathy for Daschle, remember his position isn't really ad odds with much of the electorate. I wouldn't be surprised if he plays this as the church trying to force his hand.

I think maybe some people aren't getting what Don P. is trying to say, which he has repeatedly restated. As such, the dialogue seems to have hit a wall.

Don P., correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me what you're saying is that under Church laws someone becomes a Church member (a Catholic) when he is baptized, or converted, or whatever (I don't know how to become a Catholic, but bear with me.) Once that happens that person is a card-carrying member, irrespective of his beliefs. Once that happens, that membership card cannot be revoked except under conditions which are probably set down in writing somewhere. That is, the Catholic Church probably has some form of due process. Until that membership is revoked, that person is a Catholic and gets to call himself one.

This obviously conflicts with the notion that Catholicism is a state of mind. Once someone rejects one or more major teachings, he gets removed from the Catholic column and into the non-Catholic one.

I think the only way to resolve this is to get a lawyer.

cas, baptism is viewed universally as an entry into Christianity. there are alot of baptists out there who have been baptised, but who don't consider themselves Roman Catholic.

I don't want to change the subject, daschle was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church and tom has adverised same. apparently, the bishop wants him to stop the advertising. as the bishop rules tom's home dioceses, he can make such a request.

since my knowledge of Catholicism really begins with the Nicene Creed and the writings of augustine, i some what at a loss to discuss 2nd century writings.

Amitava:

Don P., correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me what you're saying is that under Church laws someone becomes a Church member (a Catholic) when he is baptized, or converted, or whatever (I don't know how to become a Catholic, but bear with me.) Once that happens that person is a card-carrying member, irrespective of his beliefs. Once that happens, that membership card cannot be revoked except under conditions which are probably set down in writing somewhere. That is, the Catholic Church probably has some form of due process. Until that membership is revoked, that person is a Catholic and gets to call himself one.

More or less, yes.

amitava, don p is always talking about some law, when pushed, he asks for your link for the bishop's authority under catholic doctrine. don doesn't know what he is talking about and is locked in an endless loop.

Don,

Not all doctrine, but ingoring or contradicting certain ones would be, as Cas demonstrated, apostasy.

On the contraception front, a declared US catholic that ignores the ban on contraception and claims it isn't a sin is indeed pretending to be Catholic. Daschle does claim to be a Catholic otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen at all. I suppose he may be technically correct, if he was baptised.

To those of us outside the fold when we hear a person describe themselves as Catholic we understand them to mean they are practicing, faithful, Catholics. I suppose that technically once a catholic always a catholic, even the most strident atheist would be accepted by the church.

I still would never call myself a Catholic, baptism or no.

I don't want to change the subject, daschle was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church and tom has adverised same. apparently, the bishop wants him to stop the advertising. as the bishop rules tom's home dioceses, he can make such a request.

Under the teachings of the Catholic Church, Daschle is a Catholic. The bishop has no authority to demand that Daschle stop referring to himself as a Catholic. As long as the Church recognizes Daschle as one of its members, he has every right to identify himself as one. If the Church doesn't like this, it can expel him.

amitava, you started out stating that you know nothing about the Church, you now raise "due process", what is next "presumed innocent until proven guilty". There is a difference between cannon and constitutional law. and we are talking about a theocracy and not democracy, when discussing the Church. please keep this up, i'm waiting for yours and Don's solution to Tom's problem. who can we lobby and pay soft money to?

Timmy,

It seems to me that Don P. may have a point. Isn't it possible at all that the Church might actually have rules governing who is Catholic and who isn't? If so, isn't it possible that the bishop may have actually jumped the gun, without conferring with his in-house counsel?

John,

My experience has been the opposite. I'm from southwest Ohio, which has many Catholics. In fact all my childhood friends (who aren't Indian Americans) are Catholics. All of them are liberals (though not very political by nature), one is gay, I think they are all pro-choice, depending on what mood they're in. Yet, they all call themselves Catholic. They all go to Church. In fact, the (openly) gay one is the executive assistant to a bishop. I imagine if the Church told them to pipe down or get out, they and their parishes would be shocked.

"Cas has just entered the fray, bringing up some 2nd century stuff and baptism, so it will take me a little bit longer to respond."

hi tmd,
great to hear from you! first, i just want to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with the 2nd century from a catholic view. i remember that the bible is but one source of authority for catholics, so commentary is also a valid source. and even if it old, it don't mean its wrong/or not still part of current thinking. check out the article. i found it interesting in a dry scholastic kind of way. i myself hope to age gracefully.

"baptism is viewed universally as an entry into Christianity. there are alot of baptists out there who have been baptised, but who don't consider themselves Roman Catholic."

second, catholics apparently understand the nature of baptism in a different way from baptists (could a baptist please confirm or deny the claim made below?). this is again from the catholic encyclopaedia (on sacraments-sorry, its a bit long, but i love the title-guaranteed to annoy many protestants):

"(2) Errors of Protestants

Protestants generally hold that the sacraments are signs of something sacred (grace and faith), but deny that they really cause Divine grace. Episcopalians, however, and Anglicans, especially the Ritualists, hold with Catholics that the sacraments are "effectual signs" of grace. In article XXV of the Westminster Confession we read:

Sacraments ordained of God be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but strengthen and confirm our faith in Him (cf. art. XXVII).

"The Zwinglian theory", writes Morgan Dix (op.cit., p.73), "that sacraments are nothing but memorials of Christ and badges of Christian profession, is one that can by no possible jugglery with the English tongue be reconciled with the formularies of our church." Mortimer adopts and explains the Catholic formula "ex opere operato" (loc. cit., p. 122). Luther and his early followers rejected this conception of the sacraments. They do not cause grace, but are merely "signs and testimonies of God's good will towards us" (Augsburg Confessions); they excite faith, and faith (fiduciary) causes justification. Calvinists and Presbyterians hold substantially the same doctrine."

Not all doctrine, but ingoring or contradicting certain ones would be, as Cas demonstrated, apostasy.

More irrelevance. The only real question here is “Is Tom Daschle a Catholic?” The Catholic Church’s own answer to that question is “Yes.” Therefore, the bishop has no authority to demand that Daschle stop referring to himself as a Catholic.

On the contraception front, a declared US catholic that ignores the ban on contraception and claims it isn't a sin is indeed pretending to be Catholic.

Not according to the Catholic Church. Again, you are making things up and attributing them to the Catholic Church. Show me the document in which the Catholic Church states that dissent from the ban on contraception renders one a non-Catholic.

To those of us outside the fold when we hear a person describe themselves as Catholic we understand them to mean they are practicing, faithful, Catholics.

Then your understanding is incorrect. The vast majority of Americans who describe themselves as Catholic are NOT faithful to and practicing of all of the Church’s teachings.

I still would never call myself a Catholic, baptism or no.

I’m glad to hear it.

Don P your statement

The bishop has no authority to demand that Daschle stop referring to himself as a Catholic.

Don who says the bishop has no authority (don't forget the Bishop is the Church in tom's diocese).

you now raise "due process", what is next "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

Really, Timmy, you know I wasn't invoking US constitutional law. Is it wrong for me to believe that the Catholic Church has procedural rules it follows before issuing any sort of proclamation or decision? Haven't heretics all through history been given hearings or trials? If the Catholic Church is anything, it is a huge bureaucracy. I cannot believe that it doesn't have a set of guidelines set down to determine what actions are crimes, whether or not a crime has been committed, and how the guilty are to be punished, including expulsion from the church. It seems to me that if a bishop (or anybody) has the authority to demand that someone refrain from calling himself Catholic, that there might actually be applicable law governing the use of such authority. If there isn't any -- if there is no law that says that someone who was baptised can be made to keep quiet about his Catholicism -- then by what authority does the bishop act?

hi twd,
sorry about tmd, i think i get confused on the m and w.

"please keep this up, i'm waiting for yours and Don's solution to Tom's problem. who can we lobby and pay soft money to?"

what was the problem you were referring to; i couldn't find the post?

also, on the issue of being a card carrying catholic and whether it can be revoked: as far as i can tell, you are a catholic for good. even if you are really naughty, join another religion, commit heresy, get excommunicated, etc. that baptism thing is very important it appears. can a practising catholic confirm or deny this?

cas, always interesting to gain your insight. i have to rely upon the teachings of Sister Mary Wolford, who taught me in the 3rd grade that baptism was universal and was a sacrament which could be delivered by anyone who was previously baptised. i never forgot that lesson and never forgot the Sister.

again, i'm just not in a position to discuss 2nd century writings. on the other hand, if we move into 1st century church (jamesian vs peter/paul)i'm somewhat conversant. daschle doesn't survive in either context (james or peter).

Richard Sipe is a former monk who has conducted extensive research into the sexual lives of American Catholic priests. In a report published in 1990, Sipe concluded that about 20% of American priests are sexually active with women at any one time. Another 8 to 10% are exploring some kind of intimate ties with women. 20% of priests are homosexual, and half of those are sexually active (4% with children). 80% of priests masturbate, at least occasionally. Sipe published another book a few years later in which he revised some of these numbers upward.

The Jesuit sociologist Joseph Ficher found that 30% of German priests are having affairs with women.

Andrew Greeley, an American priest and sociologist, concluded that 25% of priests under 35 are gay, half of them sexually active.

William Masters, the famous sex researcher, found that 98 out of the 100 priests he surveyed were masturbating.

So much for the vows of celibacy and obedience.

By the way, in his book American Catholic, Charles Morris reported that about 80% of young priests think the Pope is wrong on contraception, and about 60% think he is wrong on homosexuality.

Amoung the Catholic laity, levels dissent and disobedience from Church teaching are even greater.

amitava, your question:

"then by what authority does the bishop act?"

the authority given to Peter by Jesus.

cas, the following comment, the referenced Tom is Tom Daschle.

amitava, you started out stating that you know nothing about the Church, you now raise "due process", what is next "presumed innocent until proven guilty". There is a difference between cannon and constitutional law. and we are talking about a theocracy and not democracy, when discussing the Church. please keep this up, i'm waiting for yours and Don's solution to Tom's problem. who can we lobby and pay soft money to?

Don P, one can be homosexual and still be a Catholic in good standing. Under the rules, Don you have to be chaste if you are not married. The Church requires Catholics to abide by the marriage vows. Next issue Don?

(1) I'm Catholic.

(2) I haven't read all of the comments, so I can't even imagine how the comment before mine got to that looney tune Sipe.

(3) Jane: Bravo.

(4) My theology is shaky these days, but if Daschle is excommunicate by nature of the crime itself (that's the Latin bit), then it would not be "foul" to tell him not to attend services in his home diocese any more. I think.

(5) Don P: Have some issues with the Catholic Church, do we? Let me resolve them right quick: Simply because folks call themselves Catholic does not mean they are. I am not The Lord Paladin of Krysandria just because I call myself so. I don't care what deviancies or errors many "Catholics" or Catholics in this country engage in of their own volition; if they step outside a certain line, they are no longer Catholic. The right to associate is also the right to exclude. Deal.

hi twd,
"i have to rely upon the teachings of Sister Mary Wolford, who taught me in the 3rd grade that baptism was universal and was a sacrament which could be delivered by anyone who was previously baptised. i never forgot that lesson and never forgot the Sister."

does that sounds like a catholic sister! if so, i know about them. she probably thought that the protestants were just wayward members of the faith... in some sense...?

"again, i'm just not in a position to discuss 2nd century writings. on the other hand, if we move into 1st century church (jamesian vs peter/paul)i'm somewhat conversant. daschle doesn't survive in either context (james or peter)."

the point i was trying to make is that the first council of nicea fixed christian doctrine (as a response to the heresy of arianism--that jesus was not the son of god in the sense that he was a manifestation of god), and cut the church off from perceived heretical ideas. they used texts developed prior to that 325c.e. council to develop the ideas used at nicea. if we wanted to be extreme on this (not that i am suggesting that we do), why should we look at the bible: its older than nicea...

the distinction between james and peter/paul sounds interesting. what do you see as the essential difference between them that supports your view?

no cas, Sister Mary Wolfred, thought all people were the children of god, she was a Roman Catholic and spent the majority of her career teaching migrant farm worker's children.

as for the early history of the church, the initial question, did you have to convert to judaism before you could become a christian. jamesian church (which fell away in 70 ad) leaned towards judaism, the church of peter and paul (the roman church) did not.

i'm sure all will still be commenting in the morning, hockey is on and i will see you later.

Thomas:

Simply because folks call themselves Catholic does not mean they are.

True. And it is equally true that just because you call yourself a Catholic does not mean that you are. I'm glad we've got that settled.

if they step outside a certain line, they are no longer Catholic.

What "line" is that? Justify your answer with quotes from the relevant Church documents.

Several have raised the question as to why Daschle should be singled out. After all, there are a lot of politicians who are pro choice and also claim to be Catholic. It seems to me that Daschle has departed from the "I'm personally opposed, but think it should be legal" formulation that most pro choice putative Catholic pols have adopted: Daschle is publicly raising money for NARAL (is that the right acronym?) and other abortion rights organizations. He is helping finance abortions, so just how "personally opposed" to abortion can he be? The Bishop may have willing to tolerate a very public figure advertising his association with the church as long as he did not become too large an obstacle to the teaching of the faith. Perhaps, by personally financing abortions, Daschle crossed a line and (in the view of the Bishop) his close association with the church some how blurred the line between what the church thinks is appropriate behavior and what is not.

As for Don P.'s oft' asked question: You may be right Don. Daschle may still be a Catholic per the church's rules. That does not mean those same rules do not permit the Bishop to ask Daschle to quit calling himself a Catholic. In my own church, there are several steps the church can take before expelling someone from the church. One of those steps, is to ask them to not proclaim their membership publicly -- by not offering prayers in public, speaking on doctrinal issues, etc. Why would the church take this course? Two reasons: First, it is hoped the "sinner" will take to heart the seriousness of the situation. Second, the person's example may be hurting more than it's helping. That is, others aware of the person's personal life, might think that similar behavior on their part would be okay since their example is still allowed to participate actively in church life.

It can be a great help to a church to have a famous person known to be a member -- even if that person's life is not entirely lived in conformity with church teachings. On the other hand, a famous person who lives will outside of church teachings can make it very difficult to get the rest of the membership to take those same teachings seriously.

Timmy:

the authority given to Peter by Jesus.

Show me the authority given to Peter by Jesus that gives the bishop the authority to demand that Tom Daschle stop referring to himself as a Catholic.

Canon Law
Actually, whether one is or isn't a Catholic is determined solely by Canon Law. Daschle hasn't been excommunicated or executed a formal act of renunciation. He therefore is Catholic. In Canon Law, the Bishop, the local ordinary, doesn't have the authority to command Daschle not to call himself a Catholic. That's it. There isn't any more to say about the question--because there are formal rules that govern it.

David Walser:

Daschle is publicly raising money for NARAL (is that the right acronym?) and other abortion rights organizations. He is helping finance abortions, so just how "personally opposed" to abortion can he be?

Lots of people, including Catholics, donate to NARAL. Why isn’t the bishop demanding that all Catholics who donate to NARAL stop referring to themselves as Catholic? American Catholic women have abortions at about the same rate as American women in general (that is, about 43% of Catholic women will have at least one abortion during their lives). Why isn’t the bishop demanding that all such women stop referring to themselves as Catholic? NARAL defends the right to abortion. Daschle supports the right to abortion. Supporting the right to abortion is not the same thing as supporting the act of having an abortion.

The Bishop may have willing to tolerate a very public figure advertising his association with the church as long as he did not become too large an obstacle to the teaching of the faith. Perhaps, by personally financing abortions, Daschle crossed a line

Daschle is not personally financing abortions. Why isn’t the bishop demanding that all Catholic women who have had an abortion, and all other Catholics who have helped someone procure an abortion, and all Catholics who donate to organizations that support abortion rights, and all Catholics who support abortion rights in any way, stop referring to themselves as Catholic?

Okay, so why hasn't he been disciplined & the Church rescinded the request? It's been long enough for action to be taken if indeed Canon law forbids it.

I'm putting odds on the bishop knowing the Canon Law better than anyone on this website, no offense. But he could just be overreaching, in which case it's a matter for church discipline, and still not for the people who were proclaiming that he didn't have a right because it violated their ideas about separation of Church and State.

hi lawrence,
"Actually, whether one is or isn't a Catholic is determined solely by Canon Law. Daschle hasn't been excommunicated or executed a formal act of renunciation."
do you have a reference that i can look up online. that seems to contradict what i have read regarding the nature of sacraments (unless that is part of canon law?), and i want to pursue your claim further.

David Walser:

As for Don P.'s oft' asked question: You may be right Don. Daschle may still be a Catholic per the church's rules. That does not mean those same rules do not permit the Bishop to ask Daschle to quit calling himself a Catholic.

Of course they do. If Daschle is a Catholic the bishop has no basis for demanding that Daschle stop identifying himself as a Catholic. If the bishop thinks that Daschle is a bad Catholic he is free to say so. If the Church wishes to expel Daschle it is free to do so. Unless and until the Church removes Daschle from its membership, or he voluntarily leaves the Church himself, it has no basis for demanding that he stop identifying himself as a Catholic.

In my own church, there are several steps the church can take before expelling someone from the church. One of those steps, is to ask them to not proclaim their membership publicly -- by not offering prayers in public, speaking on doctrinal issues, etc. Why would the church take this course? Two reasons: First, it is hoped the "sinner" will take to heart the seriousness of the situation. Second, the person's example may be hurting more than it's helping.

Those reasons don’t make any sense. It doesn’t make any sense to demand that a Catholic stop identifying himself as a Catholic unless he isn’t one. But Daschle is a Catholic. If Daschle had been claiming to be a Catholic who is faithful to the Church’s teachings, then the bishop would have reasonable grounds for his demand. But Daschle has made no such claim. He simply identifies himself as a Catholic, which both he and the Catholic Church itself believe to be a true statement.

Jan, suprised that you're still up. A wonderful blog, expect the comments may approach the discussion about 2X4 (my first introduction to your site).

It's been long enough for action to be taken if indeed Canon law forbids it.
--The Bishop has every right to express his view that Daschle should not call himself a Catholic. He just doesn't have the power to order Daschle to stop calling himself a Catholic when he is a Catholic.

I'm putting odds on the bishop knowing the Canon Law better than anyone on this website, no offense.
--I don't know this Bishop, but I have been astounded by the ignorance of Canon Law evinced by many prominent Catholics, including some Bishops I know. Since I don't know exactly what the Bishop said, I have no idea whether the Bishop actually made any mistakes.

But he could just be overreaching, in which case it's a matter for church discipline, and still not for the people who were proclaiming that he didn't have a right because it violated their ideas about separation of Church and State.
--He does have a right to his opinion about what Daschle should do. But Daschle has a right to call himself a Catholic, because he is one.

Jane Galt:

Unless you are claiming that the bishop is claiming that Daschle is not a Catholic (and I thought you had said otherwise) then it's not a question of Canon Law. It's a question of whether the Church may justly demand that someone it recognizes as a Catholic stop referring to himself as a Catholic. In effect, the Church is demanding that Daschle lie about his religion, if not by commission then at least by omission. It's demanding that Daschle deceive his constituents.

Lawrence, Don, et al - I really can't believe we are disagreeing about this. You are right. Daschle is a Catholic and, unless or until, the church revokes his membership, he can still truthfully identify himself as a Catholic. By the same token, the Bishop can ask him not to claim membership in the church.

As to why the Bishop would ask Daschle to not advertise his membership while not making the same request to other Catholics engaging in the same behavior, I suspect it has to do with the Senator's public profile. (I don't know the Bishop, but I am going to presume good faith on his part in this matter -- just as I do for Daschle.) If a lay member makes a contribution to NARAL, the Bishop and other members of the church might not even know. If Sen. Tom publicly raises money for NARAL, it's fairly likely that the Bishop will hear about it. It's also likely the Bishop has heard church members ask, if Daschle can do it, why can't I? In that manner, Daschle's very public behavior can prove to be an obstacle to the growth and unity of the church.

hi david,

"unless or until, the church revokes his membership, he can still truthfully identify himself as a Catholic."

i don't think that the church can revoke any catholic's "membership." for any reason. only god can do that. (even if you reject god, the possibility always exist, no matter how dark your soul has become, that you will return to god's endless love). canonical law derives from god. a violation of canonical or eclessiastical law is a sin, and is punished as such. as i understand it, sinning is not a reason for being expelled from the catholic church. its a reason for penance.

Don P. "In effect, the Church is demanding that Daschle lie about his religion, if not by commission then at least by omission. It's demanding that Daschle deceive his constituents."

I disagree. If someone says in their campaign materials that they are the member of a particular church, it is understood to mean more than the mere fact that the person's name is included on the church's rolls. No, it implies a certain agreement with the church's teachings. (Not a perfect agreement, but agreement nonetheless.) I am not a Catholic, but I have liked most of the Catholics I have met. They tend to be good, hard working, family oriented people. If someone claims to be a Catholic, I am going to assume that they are similar to the other Catholics I have met -- in other words, I will be predisposed to like them.

In the opinion of the Bishop, Daschle's actions take him far outside the mainstream of Catholic teaching and calling himself a Catholic would be misleading (if not factually incorrect).

Wow, you guys are still at it! Funny thing is I haven't noticed anything new in the recent posts.

Let me explain, no let me sum up:

Cas, Don P et al. : Once a Catholic always a Catholic and there is precious little you or anyone but god can do about it.

The rest of us: To claim to be a Catholic should indicate a fair amount of adherence to the faith (observance of rules, faith, and giving a rats a** for Catholic doctrine)

The bishop did not have the authority to command Daschle to cease and desist.

Yes?

> >Actually, it does. It asked him to stop referring to himself as a Catholic.

>Huh? The Church's basis for asking that Daschle stop calling himself a Catholic is that it asked him to stop calling himself a Catholic?

The "does" should be "has", as in "the Church has started to throw Daschle out" - that's implicit in asking him not to call himself a Catholic.

>> No. The Church has discretion, just as you may choose to associate with quiet Repubs but not notorious ones.

> What does "discretion" have to do with it?

Discretion has to do with why the Church can decide to go after Daschle but not others who have done things that outsiders might consider the same.

Daschle is intimately involved in govt funding for things that the Church disapproves of. Few of the bishop's other parisoners are. (The Church might well, and reasonably, feel that coerced support for abortion, via govt, is different than voluntary donations.)

>>Where do you get this idea that there is a right to be recognized by the Catholic Church as a Catholic?

>I don't think there is any such right.

You're arguing that Daschle has such a right.

>Where do you get the idea that dissenting from the abortion teaching renders one a non-Catholic?

I don't have that idea, and my argument does not depend on why the Bishop made the call. The fact remains that he did. The basis for his decision is not debatable unless you think that there's some right to be called a Catholic.

> I'm sure the church will follow up with demands that pro-death penalty and birth-control Catholic politicians stop identifying themselves as such?

One might reasonably test such a campaign with an example.

Or, maybe the Bishop is acting on some other basis.

These things are only relevant if there's some right to call yourself Catholic despite the Church's expressed opinion.

> You know, if it's not just a local political ploy against Daschle or something.

And, what if it is? Does the Church have some obligations along these lines?

Is there a right to call yourself a Catholic?

"Wow, you guys are still at it! Funny thing is I haven't noticed anything new in the recent posts."
-John

Me either.

For people like Don P., I guess religion is like a lifetime membership to the NRA, you are in once you pay your dues and not out until Charleton Heston tears up your membership forms.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, membership to the church is a combination of belief and works. No matter if you've been baptized and accepted the sacrament, you are not RC if you are going to your local Buddhist temple and kneeling before the Buddha.

All Christianity is based on beliefs to an extent. Most modern day organizations are based on works (primarily the work of paying membership dues), and will accept anyone so long as they pay (see: Michael Moore & NRA). Only the most egregious examples of counterproductive behavior generally end up having memberships revoked in these types of works-based organizations.

Roman Catholicism isn't entirely works-based though, and just because you were once baptized doesn't mean you're forever Roman Catholic. Don P is just trying to hold the Church to an unreasonably high level of formal expulsion from the RC Church for someone who clearly does not hold to fundamental tenets of the faith. By Don's standard, Tom could be swimming naked in the Atlantic Ocean trying to free Cthulu from his watery prison and still be Roman Catholic until 20 years later when a formal expulsion from the Church arrives from Rome. Not going to happen.
There is a lot of anti-RC sentiment in the secular world right now anyway, and publicly going about expelling politicians from the Church would be extremely damaging, since it would be interpreted as an "intolerant" "witch-hunt." Even extremely heretical Catholic priests (ie, Michael Fox, who thinks Christ was merely a good philosopher, encourages nuns to practice Wicca, etc.) are no longer expelled from the Church, so I doubt they're going to make the leap to whiny-politicos anytime soon. That doesn't mean reasonable people shouldn't be allowed to make distinctions about whether Tom still is Catholic.

The question about "Why Daschle?" is silly. This is South Dakota. How many prominent local figures are on the one hand, raising money for NARAL and not attending church, and on the other, claiming they're Catholic, in this bishop's diocese?

Does fame matter? Of course. I could start telling people I'm Catholic (in fact, I did in high school when I realized how much this enraged my mother), and the bishop won't order me to stop because the bishop doesn't know or care. Similarly, I can claim that I'm a member of NOW, and they're not going to stop me. On the other hand, if I get national press attention for being against the ERA, pro-life, proclaiming that Martha Burk needs some happy drugs or a hobby, slamming them for giving Clinton a pass on sexual harassment, and they're going to ask me to stop claiming I'm a member because I'm deceiving people about their support for my views. Can I submit a secret membership that they don't know about and continue so claiming? I guess, but it's stupid. I'm not adhering to the tenets of hte organization, and they aren't supporting what I say. It's a cynical political move, not a statement of conscience.

It's possible that Daschle was denied due process, in which case the bishop is wrong. But he isn't wrong for the reasons everyone jumped on him, which is to me the interesting part of hte discussion. Few of the public commentators give a rat's ass what the Church's internal laws say -- they were mad at the bishop for violating their conceptions of a liberal political society. (by liberal I mean in the classic sense). They were trying to morally condemn someone who does not share the fundamental premise that tolerance in teh public square is the highest of virtues.

My point is that the church decides who is Catholic, not Tom Daschle. It's not a decision of conscience, the way adopting Luther's principles or Wesley's method is. I think the left/liberal tradition in this country is doing an extremely poor job of grappling with what happens to ubertolerance when authoritarian religion is also int eh public square, and I think they'd better find a better solution than name-calling and exasperation if we're going to continue to live in a pluralistic society. The debate on abortion is just one symptom of this: pro-choice people I talk to often seem emotionally unable to grasp that if you think over a million people are being murdered every year, you can't just live and let live. I'm sure there are religious people who are every bit as ignorant of the worldview of the other side, but as far as I can tell none of them live on the Upper West Side, so I write what I know.

I was borne into a Catholic family, baptised and raised Catholic. I now attend and am a member of a Lutheran church. Is it really the position of Don, cas, etc that I should be allowed to publicly refer to myself as a Catholic, when it suits me? Just curious. Because even if I say I am, I'm not.

In related news, there's a woman in my church who was born and raised as a Jew. Does she retain the right to claim to be a Jew? I'm thinking no. Church approval really doesn't have all that much to do with it; otherwise there's a lot of Jews killed in the Holocaust that could be referred to as Mormons.

So, it's all muddy. Still, it should be pretty clear that (as expressed by my first post this thread) you can claim to be something, but if you aren't in fact that thing, you're a liar.

Just my two cents. Some ideas that I'm not all that married to, so don't bother jumping all over them.

David, I don't know if you're misinformed or just being funny, but as far as Mormons are concerned, if someone dies without being baptized a member of the church, they're not Mormon. Mormons are very big on free will and do not go around claiming people as members of a church they didn't decide of their own free will to join.

As far as the Jewish lady who joined the Lutheran church, that feels different to me. Judaism isn't a religion you have to join. My dad was raised Catholic, but I wasn't baptized Catholic, so I'm not Catholic. But if my mother were Jewish, wouldn't I automatically be Jewish and stay that way? Can you do something to make yourself not Jewish?

Katherine:

I was being flip regarding the Mormon thing. And a bit lazy, too. Perhaps I should have said something to the effect that they could be regarded as Christians, since the Mormons had gone and baptized them without their consent. That, too, should be regarded as flippancy.

The woman in my church was born and raised Jewish, but I'm pretty confident that if you asked her if she was Jewish, she'd answer in the negative. I have no idea how a rabbi would respond to the question.

To be fair, Katherine, I don't think that any of the zillion ancestors my great-grandfather had retroactively baptized consented. But they do wait until you're dead, which renders free will pretty much moot.

hi all,
i thought john's comment re the essential differences between positions was a good one. the only thing is that even though people appear to accept, in an immediate sense, the premise that a catholic is always a catholic because of the sacrament of baptism, i do not get the sense that many folks let that implication filter all the way through--daschle can call himself anything he wants, a buddhist, a pagan, anything, but in the eyes of the church, he will always be a catholic, perhaps a naughty one, but always a catholic--i repeat--in the eyes of the church.

in other words, the bishops statement is extremely problematic, unless we understand it in a different light than the way this discussion initally got started off--dealing with whether daschle had the right to call himself a catholic when he is being errant, etc. as far as i can tell, the only way i can understand this bishop's statement is as a political statement; as a piece of rhetoric designed to elicit conversation.

why rhetoric: i think we should be very mindful of the choice of words the bishop used: "should" as opposed to "must". "must" is an imperative leading to consequences for disobedience; "should" is suggestive. yet, the way this has played out in many minds has been to think of the issue as if the bishop said "must." i don't think i appreciated this difference enough last night. i still feel a bit unsure, but i will have a go at what i think this means.

jane galt makes an interesting point that there is a clash of values between a hierarchial structure and liberal ideals. she asserts:

"I think the left/liberal tradition in this country is doing an extremely poor job of grappling with what happens to ubertolerance when authoritarian religion is also int eh public square, and I think they'd better find a better solution than name-calling and exasperation if we're going to continue to live in a pluralistic society."

i think there is merit here, because as far as i can make out, the bishop exercised his ability/right, as an american living in a pluralistic society to debate senator daschle on his public position. the confusion came because it was not possible for many of us to separate the private statement of a free citizen from the role he also has as a bishop. i do not know if you can (or if he can), but i think that is an issue to think about. would we have been so involved in this discussion if an ordinary citizen had made the statement about daschle? i would like to get a copy of the original report to see in what context the statements were made--in this case, i sense that context really matters. i want to see if the bishop was mindful of it, or just decided to invite a storm of protest. (i wonder how much of this is tied to the echoes of the papist conspiracy issue that pops up occasionally in us history?) i think that being mindful of this issue will help address some of the concerns raised by jane galt above.

i really enjoyed this discussion. even though i think that jane's initial post was a bit off the mark. but i learnt an awful lot in the subsequent discussion about what it means to be catholic.

Jane - Your great-grandfather was a Mormon? If so, all of the zillions of ancestors he had "retroactively baptised" will either accept the baptisim peformed on their behalf or they won't. Under Mormon doctrine, the ordinance has to be accepted by the person it was done for to be effective, so free will is NOT moot.

David, I thought maybe you were being flip... sorry to overreact.

Jane, I didn't mean that consent is somehow mysteriously wrested from people after they die, but that Mormons truly don't consider those baptized after their death Mormons. It's kind of like if you were at a conference, you got into a popular session, and you saved a seat for your friend, not knowing whether she wanted to go to that session or not. If she shows up, there's a seat saved for her. If not, no biggie. But you're not going to pretend she's already at the session just because you're saving her a seat. That would be weird. In the same way, Mormons don't go around calling people Mormons who didn't choose while they were alive to join the church. That would be weird.

Jane,

Better get this out of the way right away; I'm Catholic. Love the post. Love to see such a even-handed post concerning Canon Law. Thank you.

One more note; yes we are a religion without any wiggle room. Take it or leave it. Which is why, I suspect, so many have left it.

Thanks again!

I don't mean to offend any mormon -- great-grandfather was a late convert, and didn't managed to convert anyone else in the family, so I don't know much about the religion. I just know we've got an amazing geneological collection he assembled while on his quest to baptize everyone.

No offense taken, Jane, of course. Especially not when Timmy keeps reminding us of that 2x4!

Katherine, my comment regarding 2X4 pertains to quantity not quality of the comments. i've enjoyed the conversation.

Jane's morning comment addressed my principal concern, that questions being raised were more political than conceptual. i've always viewed liberal forums as an opportunity to discuss a wide range of concepts and ideas (a leftist forum contains none of those qualities). i would share Jane's concern about a migration away from liberal forums.

with respect to Canon Law, it remains a somewhat esoteric body of law, one that is rarely discussed with much understanding. i try to avoid it at all costs.

finally, cas, in my opinion, the bishop exercised his authority as the head of a diocese; the church remains an autocracy which i believe most american catholics struggle with. almost all non-catholics struggle with it.

Jane comes very close to explaining the bishop's motivation, but she leaves out the big word a hardcore Catholic uses to describe what Daschle is doing and why it's bad, that is scandal. In the Catholic sense of the word (and it is also used this way in some Pauline Epistle too I think) scandal occurs when a prominent Catholic behaves in a way that might make people mistake what Catholic doctrine is, thus making it necessary that the Church says something to make it very clear that so and so's words or actions are not 'Catholic'. Dachle selling himself as a Catholic politician, rather than a politician who happens to be baptised Catholic, combined with his views and his fundraising on abortion, is the source of this particular 'scandal' and per the Church, he must either stop it, or the Church is going to have to publically disparage his "Catholicness" lest people get the wrong idea as to what the Church stands for. In technical Catholicspeak, Daschle's behavior risks propogating Error and obscuring Truth, and the Church must comment on it. He won't be kicked out, and Daschle's membership or views per Catholicism in and of themselves aren't the issue.

"I think the left/liberal tradition in this country is doing an extremely poor job of grappling with what happens to ubertolerance when authoritarian religion is also int eh public square, and I think they'd better find a better solution than name-calling and exasperation if we're going to continue to live in a pluralistic society."

I don't really get where all this angst is coming from. Why does the future of pluralistic society depend on whether or not left/liberalism reaches equilibrium with authoritarian religions. I like how you characterize the left/liberal response: name-calling. Convenient. I don't hear a lot of name-calling from the ACLU, People for the Amerian Way, and others who fight to protect the wall of separation. What I see are lawsuits filed to prevent religions from bringing theocracy, discrimination, or bigotry into state matters. That's the way it should be handled. I see no reason for angst any more than there should be angst as a result of the right/conservative forces inability to deal with gender equality and sexual freedom.

And this theme of the problem of liberal name-calling which seems to perpetually come up is really kind of ... I don't know ... juvenile, paranoid, unfair. If the name-calling bothers you, stop listening to the name-callers and listen to the rest of us. Stop pretending that name calling is such a liberal/left thing. This also goes to Timmy's assertion that left/liberals can't engage in civilized dialogue. As if only right-wingers have a monopoly and civility. I remember the 90s. I don't buy that sh*t.

Amitava, let me reread my comment, give me a minute, ok, i said:

i've always viewed liberal forums as an opportunity to discuss a wide range of concepts and ideas (a leftist forum contains none of those qualities).

i don't recall making or infering any comment on right wingers. let me check it again, no i viewed liberal forum as an opportunity to discuss a wide range of topics. yes, that is what i said.

so amitava, what the f**# are you talking about?

by the way, just to vent, separation of church and state, doesn't mute religious groups, they continue have the right to both speak out as well as the right to meet, they don't loose their first amendment rights simply of their religious association.

amitava, ponder this, think of all the private institutions of higher education in this country, and tell me how many didn't start out as either a school of divinity and/or was not affiliated with a religious institution. i can only think of two, but i'm sure you'll come up with alot more.

by the way what is the derivation of the verb "borked"?

Timmy,

I didn't mean to start a new thread on church-state separation. But I did want to question where Megan's angst about the future of pluralism was coming from.

I'm sorry I misinterpreted your quote. I breezed through all of today's posts too quickly. I retract what I said. It obviously has nothing to do with Megan's concern about liberal name-calling.

Don P says:

Unless you are claiming that the bishop is claiming that Daschle is not a Catholic (and I thought you had said otherwise) then it's not a question of Canon Law. It's a question of whether the Church may justly demand that someone it recognizes as a Catholic stop referring to himself as a Catholic. In effect, the Church is demanding that Daschle lie about his religion, if not by commission then at least by omission. It's demanding that Daschle deceive his constituents.

First: The letter from the Bishop was private

Second: Daschle's positions regarding abortion appear to take him into the range of error, possibly heresy.

Third: The Church has the right to ask its members to behave in accordance with its rules or to stop publically identifying with the Church.

Some relevant sections of Canon Law:

Canon 751: Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate coubt concerning the same; apostasy... ; schism... .

Canon 1369: A person who uses a public show oe speech, published writings, or other media of social communications to blaspheme, seriously damage good morals, express wrongs against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.

Canon 227: Lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedomin the affairs of the earthly city which belongs to all citizens; when they exercise such freedom, however, they are to take care that thier actions are imbued with the spirit of thegospel and take into account the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church; but they are to avoid proposing their own opinion as the teaching of the Church in questions which are open to various opinions.

Canon 229, $1: Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowlege of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so they can live in accord with that doctrine, announce it, and defend it when necessary, and be enabled to assume their role in exercising the apostolate.

Timmy:

by the way what is the derivation of the verb "borked"?

The confirmation hearings for the elevation of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court were characterised by smears, lies, and character assassination on the part of the liberals. Since then, the verb "to bork" has entered the political vocabulary meaning to smear someone based on distortions of his or her views.

thanks anthony, it was cynical question to point out to amitava that the left is often beyond the pale.

Not a catholic, don't play one on TV.

Here's a possibility. The bishop may have the same understanding of canon law that Don P. does, and believe that Daschle is, technically speaking, Catholic. However, he wants Daschle to stop *advertising* himself as Catholic. (1)

There are Christians who hold to "Once saved, always saved." If some baptized fellow starts talking about how we really ought to be sacrificing babies to Tlaloc, I wouldn't find it unreasonable if an OSAS-er asks the Aztec revivalest to stop describing himself as Christian.

Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier

(1) Well, OK, what he really wants is probably for Daschle to return to the embrace of Holy Mother Church.

Amitava, I've said about six times that when I say "liberal" in this context, I mean it in the sense of the classic liberal tradition of tolerance in the public square, not in the sense of "big government democrat". There is a separate thread on the left which is very hostile to authoritarian religion because God doesn't seem to be very socially liberal. But it wasn't liberal bashing, a subject on which you seem to be extremely sensitive. I didn't say anything about liberal name calling; I said that both movements, but particularly the classic liberal tradition on both left and right, seem to be unable to imagine in any way what it is like to believe in an authoritarian religion. If this isn't resolved, it could bring down the movement, of which I am, as a libertarian, a partisan. I feel this angst because I see it daily in the total and complete intolerance that my neighbors express for people with devout, non-relativist religious views -- intolerance expressed in the name of tolerance. This is a fatal contradiction that threatens to render the movement incoherent at worst, and at best, prevents the liberal tradition from making less hostile accomodations with the religious communities in this country. It seems to me, you will forgive me, that the reason that you don't understand it is that you still don't really seem to imagine the completely different logic and premises of the religious communities. You've repeatedly said things that sound totally nonsensical to someone who thinks that there is a God who set up rules that you have to obey or you go to hell, such as "why not ease up on the doctrine to expand your membership?" If the purpose is to save souls, expanding your membership by damning everyone to hell is stupid. But you have to at least be able to imagine believing that there is a hell, and that the rules set up in the Christian bible are the way to avoid it, a premise which most left/liberals I know dismiss as risible, before you can ask meaningful questions about why people do or do not do certain things. It literally doesn't seem to occur to the left/liberals I know that religious communities take these ideas seriously, much less that the relatavist, tolerant ideals they espouse require them to examine the possibility that these ideas are true, as the liberal tradition informs us that until we have seriously considered the matter, the received wisdom of the Church has as much possibility of being true as the received wisdom that forms most peoples' world view. That's a big problem.

don for god's sake... cite a fing canon law passage... don't just wave your hand... you've said the same thing multiple times, so you've lost the "short argument, no time to find a cite" excuse...

if you don't cite (with html link) you lose.. you'll notice that cas and one of your opponents have both put up cites...

btw its nice that maitavagave up and admitted jane was right: we can talk about whether this was a good idea or not tactically... but we shouldn't discuss why it is wrong... unless of course people really but out the canon law (which, don p, is your responsibility since you say bishop is wrong)

now i don't agree with practicallythe entire catholic church, but they should be able to say who are members... unless of course they have rules that say everyone is a member, or that no one can be kicked out...

hi anthony,

"Third: The Church has the right to ask its members to behave in accordance with its rules or to stop publically identifying with the Church."

i would point out that there is nothing in the clauses of canon law that you cite that supports the claim you made above. they give the church the right to punish the errant catholic, not allow/require the errant catholic to claim he is a non-catholic.

cas, the holy roman catholic church is an autocracy, that power, in an episcopacy, reverts to the home bishops and they have the executive power to do all kind of things, including telling tom what to do.

cas: "i would point out that there is nothing in the clauses of canon law that you cite that supports the claim you made above. they give the church the right to punish the errant catholic, not allow/require the errant catholic to claim he is a non-catholic."

What is meant by the term "punish" in the phrase "punish the errant catholic"? There are precious few forms of punishment available to a church -- we don't allow a church to confine an errant member (against the members will) nor do we allow a church to impose a fine.

We do allow a church to withhold some of the privileges normally accorded its members. For example, a member may be forbidden from taking communion, actively participating in worship services (such as praying in public or speaking from the pulpit), or even, from publicly claiming membership in the church. There is nothing in the term "punish" as it is usually applied to church members that would seem to exclude Daschle's Bishop from asking him to quit identifying himself as a Catholic. So, the cited cannon law would seem to support the Bishop's action -- unless cannon law specifically prohibits this form of punishment.

Comments are Closed.