Refusing Communion

[ST88]

A few Catholic priests have come out publicly that they should not allow certain people to perform certain religious rites, like Communion, if they do not act politically in accordance with their faith.

What do you think? I don't want to limit this to just Catholicism. For example: if a Quaker politician endorsed a pre-emptive war, how should that affect his/her standing in the Quaker religion? If a professed Atheist politican voted to give more rights to church groups, how should that affect his/her credibility?

[adherent]

I think if you follow a religion devoutly, you are not going to do something not in accordance with it. But then again one could just go against what he believes to gain more votes or support.

So if a Quaker goes for pre-emptive war, he will get slammed for it by fellow Quakers and lose support from them. It is much better for him to just change religions or not go for pre-emptive war at all. Same thing for the Atheist.

[perspective]

What do you think? I don't want to limit this to just Catholicism. For example: if a Quaker politician endorsed a pre-emptive war, how should that affect his/her standing in the Quaker religion? If a professed Atheist politican voted to give more rights to church groups, how should that affect his/her credibility?

Many Atheists want all people to have equal religious rights, it's in the nature of being a religious minority. Your analogy of an atheist giving equal rights to other Americans (church groups) is a bad analogy. Maybe what you meant was an atheist politician giving christian churches more rights then any other religion in the country. This person would be objected to by more than just atheists, but by anyone who is not a part of the christian religion. While that atheist may have another agenda, atheists aren't united in the beliefs that other religions are. I understand your question, I just take exception to the example provided. It confuses the issue.

It's like saying, how would philosophers feel about a self-proclaimed philosopher politician voting for one policy or another? Philosophers are wide in their reasonings and their beliefs, so it's a mute point. Not all philosophers are united in any one thing. The only thing that unites atheists is that they don't believe that supernatural beings exist. If a self-proclaimed atheist was voting to spend tax-dollars making gifts to the supernatural being, there would be an obvious indication that this person was not atheist, but atheists have no need for recourse against this person, because his/her own contradiction shines bright enough on its own. Nor would they have any avenue for recourse, because atheism is not a religion. And for the record, a self-proclaimed atheist could never be a politician in this country. That's why we have to be stealth-like.

[ST88]

Many Atheists want all people to have equal religious rights, it's in the nature of being a religious minority. Your analogy of an atheist giving equal rights to other Americans (church groups) is a bad analogy. Maybe what you meant was an atheist politician giving christian churches more rights then any other religion in the country. This person would be objected to by more than just atheists, but by anyone who is not a part of the christian religion. While that atheist may have another agenda, atheists aren't united in the beliefs that other religions are. I understand your question, I just take exception to the example provided. It confuses the issue.

Point taken. And you're right, it is a bad analogy. But you would have to admit that if (and it's a big if) an Atheist congressperson were to vote to for a faith-based benefits package, his/her Atheist constituency would be all over it.

And for the record, a self-proclaimed atheist could never be a politician in this country. That's why we have to be stealth-like.

That's an interesting question on its own. Hmmm...

[nikolayevich]

I think your first question is actually quite important.

I don't think any "church" body has the right to punish people for how they live out their political or private life. It is antithetical to the faith to reject anyone, "sinner" or not from participating in religious activities. That said, I take no issue with churches slamming a political leader that rises in their midsts and forwards anti-faith or evil agendas. That's purely freedom of speech. It's also a way of keeping leaders in check. The difference is that on one hand we have healthy admonition and correction, and on the other, we have men in [abused] positions of authority judging on behalf of God, to the end that someone seeking God's favor is not rejected by God Himself, but by His [supposed] servants.

[Icarus]

If you are going to claim to be of a participating member of any group, you should be willing to follow the mainline of that group. Since, no group is perfect in its assertions, the base of its intent should be agreed upon.

In things essential, Unity. In things non-essential, Diversity. In all things, Charity.

If in the original question here, the politician is going against something that would be viewed as mainline. For such an issue he should either not claim the religion as his or he should switch.

Now if we are not talking about something that is mainline to a group, then he should simply switch denominations and not religions. Big difference in terms.

[nikolayevich]

If you are going to claim to be of a participating member of any group, you should be willing to follow the mainline of that group.

Depends on the group I guess. There are certainly religious groups where man is the judge of other men and women, but this has historically lead to such things as the crusades and other things. (Because if you were against the church [leaders], you were considered to be anathema).

If we as people of faith have a problem with our politicians, we can lobby against various offices, we can protest various things, but how do we arrogate to ourselves the role of God?

Perhaps this is one of the things I question about Catholocism, where its leaders can do things which, according to their own regulations would condemn people (removing a person's free will to accept God). Refusing people communion, if one understands Catholocism, is a euphemism for something much worse (again, according to their doctrine) because communion, or rather the eucharist, is considered one of the seven sacriments required of a Catholic.

[AV1611]

I think if you follow a religion devoutly, you are not going to do something not in accordance with it. But then again one could just go against what he believes to gain more votes or support.

So if a Quaker goes for pre-emptive war, he will get slammed for it by fellow Quakers and lose support from them. It is much better for him to just change religions or not go for pre-emptive war at all. Same thing for the Atheist.

But would a Quaker stand for political office?

[ST88]

But would a Quaker stand for political office?

Richard Nixon was the most famous Quaker to stand for political office. He was a U.S. Representative, a Vice President, ran for Governor of California, and was elected twice as President. Herbert Hoover was also a Quaker.

Here is quite a long list of Quaker (Society of Friends) office holders and politicians throughout American history.

[proverbial student]

Perhaps this is one of the things I question about Catholocism, where its leaders can do things which, according to their own regulations would condemn people (removing a person's free will to accept God). Refusing people communion, if one understands Catholocism, is a euphemism for something much worse (again, according to their doctrine) because communion, or rather the eucharist, is considered one of the seven sacriments required of a Catholic.

I am not quite sure what you are saying here but in Catholicism if you have sinned and have not gone to confession, the sacrament of Penance, then you should not take the sacrament of the Eucharist. If a priest knows that say one of their members who was a politician and voted FOR partial birth abortion then he can deny him Holy Communion because he voted for an issue that is against the Catholic beliefs and considered a sin.

Now, how can this be? Those who chose to be in the church agree to abide by the rules of the church, its dogma. As Catholics are Christian, they perhaps may follow this particular scripture which was spoken by Jesus Christ:

[edit: I am using KJV]

Matthew 18:
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

The authority for the church to do this is given in this Scripture also spoken by Jesus Christ:

Matthew 18:
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.