Run time: 10:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7xBh5Q8Lc   Posted on YouTube: November 23, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 24, 2009 By DU Member: tomm2thumbs Views on DU: 18089

 
Chris Matthews, on Hardball, confronts the issue of separation of Church and State head on, even though he is a pronounced and proud Catholic. He does a good job I think of demonstrating that Bishop Tobin wants to have it both ways.

For those unfamiliar with the story, Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy to receive the Roman Catholic sacrament of Holy Communion because of his advocacy of abortion rights. Kennedy notes,“The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion”.

Points to Matthews for being able to steer right to the issue at hand.

I should tape that for the upcoming gnosh wi RW relatives. As it is I'm going to have to mutter the 'dining room table' meme.

What did he do apart from exposing the Catholic church as being Catholic?

question. If anyone thinks abortion is actually murder, are they willing to allow the government to charge and try a women who has one for murder? If they're not, the rest is just posturing. Even a priest is not willing to go that far. It's what should be asked of any of these anti-choice yahoos.

Because, as you say, he is not willing to go that far. Because then some members might realise that they were not Catholics.

I liked the interview for what it did. But as an intellectual exercise, it was a travesty.

It wouldn't just be murder, it would be 1st degree due to the planning aspect. Good luck with that.

He is a prime example of what has happened to the Catholic Church. The intellectuals were driven out or silenced and replaced with brain dead parasites. You only have to consider what caliber of people could possibly be attracted to the ministry of a church that continues to teach that contraception is gravely sinful. What type of person would be willing to accept the church's teaching that masturbation is gravely sinful in view of the evidence that such teachings can be extremely harmful to young people. These people are not only brainless twits they are ghouls that prey on the less discerning.

Communion when I was 15 years old and still in Catholic school because I disagreed with them on not just abortion, but birth control. I am an old child BY CHOICE of my parents. I agreed with my parents more than the church. Eventually, I just plain stopped going to church at all.

The Catholic Church needs to realize that this country is not a theocracy. Catholic public officials are elected to their office by people of other faiths and NO faith. They need to represent ALL the people of their districts, not just the stauch catholics.

..a catholic should not pretend that he can be a representative for all of his electorate - and be a catholic at the same time?

It would certainly ensure that no catholic was ever elected to office (if they were to start applying the church's moral authority).
Try outlawing divorce and condoms. See how that goes.

That way they're wouldn't be any Catholics elected to office and the Pope's influence would be weakened even further. But apparently these asshats hadn't thought the process through that far. Assholes. But it's not surprising considering how doofus these asshats are in the first place.


- And failing that, we should at least be taxing these damned mofos.....

Whatever one's religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts -- including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state.
-- John F Kennedy, Interview, Look, March 3, 1959, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

If my church attempted to influence me in a way which was improper or which affected adversely my responsibilities as a public servant sworn to uphold the Constitution, then I would reply to them that this was an improper action on their part. It was one to which I could not subscribe.
-- John F Kennedy, press conference, Houston, Texas, September 12, 1960, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

We do not want an official state church. If ninety-nine percent of the population were Catholics, I would still be opposed to it. I do not want civil power combined with religious power. I want to make it clear that I am committed as a matter of deep personal conviction to separation.
-- John F Kennedy, Interview, CBS-TV, "Face the Nation," October 30, 1960, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me.
-- John F Kennedy, address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, September 12, 1960, quoted from, “The Catholic Conundrum,” Time Magazine, (July 2, 2007) page 59

I am flatly opposed to appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican. Whatever advantages it might have in Rome -- and I'm not convinced of these -- they would be more than offset by the divisive effect at home.
-- John F Kennedy, Look, March 3, 1959, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

It is my firm belief that there should be separation of church and state as we understand it in the United States -- that is, that both church and state should be free to operate, without interference from each other in their respective areas of jurisdiction. We live in a liberal, democratic society which embraces wide varieties of belief and disbelief. There is no doubt in my mind that the pluralism which has developed under our Constitution, providing as it does a framework within which diverse opinions can exist side by side and by their interaction enrich the whole, is the most ideal system yet devised by man. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances which would lead me to a different conclusion.
-- John F Kennedy, letter to Glenn L Archer, February 23, 1959, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty ... Neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection.
-- John F Kennedy, address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, September 12, 1960, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
-- John F Kennedy, address to the Ministerial Association of Greater Houston, September 12, 1960, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

a group of pedophiles...

I heard this crap on the news this morning and thought to myself....hmmm, doesn't the Catholic church have more to worry about such as.....relocating their pedophile priests to another church to wreak havoc on another innocent CHILD. They are so worried about the "child that may be aborted" when they should be worrying about the many children that has been put through hell from the acts of these pedophiles. :mad:

that they will have many more to choose from. Doncha know they are our saviors..I don't pray to men.

81% of assaults by priest were gay. I don't think that we want to publicize this particular problem......unless you are looking to criticize gays.....???? Is that your intent??? What is it you are trying to say???

That heterosexual pedophile priests don't try hard enough? That <insert name of person who does not matter> might make the assumption that because we criticize pedophile priests that is a criticism of gays? People with logic that feeble don't need us to feed their delusions.

(Careful you don't use up all the question marks.)

--imm

Men who sexually abuse boys are not homosexual==>>they are pedophiles. Their sexual preference is for children, not men. Oh and fuck you.

I wish he would have asked him if he were going to deny communion to those that supported the war.

Perhaps then we could have discovered whether or not he was principled in his logic or simply opportunistic.

Wish more would take these hypocrites to task.

May I suggest that if abortion is against your moral code, then you should not have one. Problem solved.

Lawmakers have to write laws for the entire population, not just Catholics.

....is because they need more kids to sexually assault. This is the height of hypocrisy.

Is this an attempt to be funny??? Maybe that is your intent, but I won't try to judge. Please try to respect people of differing opinions or ideas.

~which includes the right for women to have an abortion (women's health care). I will not be respectful of people who don't respect my and my grand daughters rights.

Upthread you wrote a homophobic post. Here you continue with women. Perhaps you are lost.

He does not give a damn how many women die.

I hope he has morning sickness every minute for the rest of his life.

That Bible-totin' half-wit deserves way worse!

An excellent message in a secular society.

Good for you, Tweety!

I hope a few others here are growing to appreciate him too.

I've always liked Matthews, Manny, and he showed up that holier-than-thou moron for what he is:
A HYPOCRITE....
That being said, WHAT is it with Matthews ALWAYS getting on others, and ALWAYS pointing out the
correct (his opinion )way to pronounce DICK CHENEY's name.
He seems to have an obsession with DICK's last name....
I've even heard him (Matthews) say Cheney's name with an "A" sound, like most people do,
within the context of actually correcting other highly educated people, as if Matthews is an
expert on name origins and pronunciations....

WHO THE HELL CARES HOW DICK(HEAD) CHENEY'S NAME IS PRONOUNCED...???!!!

CHENEY IS A 5-DEFERMENT, COWARDLY, LYING, CHICKEN HAWK IDIOT WHO DOESN'T DESERVE THE TIME OF
DAY, LET ALONE EVEN THE DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HIS NAME IS BEING PRONOUNCED CORRECTLY....

CHENEY'S LAST NAME SHOULD BE PRONOUNCED AS TO WHAT IT REPRESENTS....

S-H-I-T...!!!

SO WHAT IS CHRIS MATTHEWS' PROBLEM...???!!!

I KNOW...

I'M AS OBSESSED WITH MATTHEWS AND HIS CHENEY NAME HANG-UP, AS MUCH AS MATTHEWS IS ABOUT DICK'S LAST NAME....!!!

LOL...!!!!!!

:)

THAT IS THE WAY TO DO IT!!!! They should ask: so you want the same abortion policy as the Taliban imposed on American women regardless of their situation or their views on the subject???

to dictate moral values to anyone but its own members. Plenty of Christians have no problem with reproductive choice and equal marriage rights. I don't give a crap if that guy's the Bishop of whatever. As a non-Catholic and an atheist, I think he's just another right-wing asshole, as far as I'm concerned.

I wish Chris Matthews hadn't kept calling him "Your Excellency." I'd have called him Mr. Tobin or Bishop Tobin. He's far from "Excellent," as far as I'm concerned.

And if any Catholics here object to my characterization, I'd ask if they support outlawing abortion and same sex marriage. If they do, they're on the wrong web site.

It wasn't all that respectful..it had a kind of dagger to the heart quality about it. Sardonic, maybe. Like when Mark Antony keeps calling Brutus "an HONOURABLE man" in his speech over Caesar's body.

Respectful beyond reproach, Chris Matthews showed his Roman Catholic upbringing, and rendered himself untouchable.

Then, he eviscerated that tool.

I wish he'd asked him how "His Excellency," as a representative of Mother Church, can reconcile his meddling in political affairs while enjoying the benefits of tax- exempt status. I wish he's asked "His Excellency" how he's like it if the Federal government went to all the US parishes on Sunday mornings, and delivered homilies telling the faithful that they were to abstain from things like gossip and telling lies, which are a couple of things mentioned in the Ten Commandments. That they must stop those things under penalty of punishment - not yet defined, of course - by the United States government.

It would be the exact same scenario this Professional Virgin, "His Excellency," is touting in public now. Bet he wouldn't like it at all.

That "His Excellency" stuff reminds me that our country was founded by people who were sick of monarchies The Roman Catholic Church is as outdated and out of touch as the House of Windsor, but at least they're fun to watch while they screw up and make fools of themselves - messy divorces, drunkenness, debauchery. All the RCs, the priests, that is, seem to do is get caught buggering young children, and knocking up young women if they missed out on the buggery.

I'm glad Matthews had him on his show, and I think he did a terrific and irreproachable job with this empty vessel. He should go after the rabid GOPigs (my wife's phrase) the same way. Like the next time Tom Delay is on his show. And you know there will be a next time, although I don't understand why.

I agree with you 100%, MM...!!!
"Your Excellency, INDEED...!!!
I'm sure Tobin quite enjoyed Matthews' GROVELING...

ANOTHER RIGHT-WING, HOLIER-THAN-THOU, MY WAY OR NO WAY, NUT CASE...!!!

TO HELL WITH HIM...!!!

:mad:

is a Catholic and that how you address a bishop

"Kiss my ring" . . . !!!

Wow -- "Reverend" is cute, too --

Recovering Catholic here -- !!

Chris Matthews makes me crazy. He wastes our time so often diddling around with personal attacks and inconsequential "game" notes. And he never seems to do his homework. Obvious lies slide by all too often without a challenge from him.
But today he did himself proud. The Bishop was a deer caught in headlights, completely incapable of offering any kind of an answer to Matthew's terrific points.
Good on yer, Tweets.

I WANT TO MAKE ABORTION ILLEGAL AND CHARGE THOSE WHO GET THEM WITH THE CRIME OF MURDER.

they won't say it because it's CRAZY.

death penalty. Of course he is nuts...

Way to go, Chris.

Thanks for posting, tomm2thumbs.

the segment actually started with the Kennedy tape, starting about 2:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p0OMJbia4s

which made the interaction even more telling - given that if the Bishop wants to go back in time, he should heed the words of the original Kennedy who ran under such terms and won - the whole clip is a good watch, but just wanted to point out what wasn't included since I think it set a tone for the discussion

to support, in whatever way you can, the efforts of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

It is dedicated to combating religious intrusion into the civil sphere.

Read about them here:

LINK: http://www.au.org/

:)

You posed the dilemma very well: Assuming for sake of argument that abortion is a crime, who is the criminal? And what should the punishment be? Is the poor woman who has the abortion the criminal? What about the man who made her pregnant? And again, assuming for sake of argument that abortion is murder and premeditated murder at that, what should the penalty be? Death? And again, do two deaths, the death of the mother as well as of the child right the wrong (assuming abortion to be wrong).

In addition, as one who was raised in a Christian family studying the Bible and the history of Christianity, aren't all sinners worthy of forgiveness in the eyes of God and the religions? After all, if I remember the story correctly, Paul of Tarsis, later St. Paul, was a murderer before his conversion, not just any murderer, but a murderer of Christians.

This bishop needs to see the film the Magdalena Sisters about how unwed mothers were forced into convents and abused in Ireland.

He seems to forget that the Bible equates the first breath with the beginning of life. It acknowledges the presence of a foetus in the womb, but it refers to the first and last breaths as the beginning and end of life.

If we want to think of the life of the soul, it is according to Christianity, eternal. So, there is no end to life for the truly faithful.

Are the ones who scream its name the loudest.
I believe in Freedom. I live in a Free Country. Bishop Tobin and all of the Southern Vicious Christians want the Freedom to make everyone do what they tell them to do.
That is not Freedom that is the Death of Freedom.

they want her to get pregnant again and give them more people to rule and to tithe. Money is the major reason that abortion is considered a 'sin'.

First of all, its annoying the way Matthews goes on and on without giving his guest the opportunity to address the salient aspects of the issue. Secondly, it didn't seem to register for Matthews, or most of the commentators here, that the Bishop's role isn't to legislate the matter of abortion (i.e. write the laws that would define our public policy), but rather, his role is to instruct members of the Catholic faith on the Church's stance on the matter and of the necessity for each member to conform to their teachings. Rep. Kennedy, as a member of the Catholic Church, submits himself to the Church's judgment and authority by virtue of his membership, as would any member of any other religious organization. Matthews confused the issue and failed to recognize the difference between the Bishop's religious authority (denial of communion for Kennedy), and the role of legislators creating public policy. It was a prime example of intellectual falsity that barks a great deal but has no bite - no substance whatsoever.

uncle John at the beginning of that interview as an invocation to the founders' context.

The Bishop never recovered from that for the next 10 and a half minutes.

The Constitution is absolutely clear about the separation of Church and State.

Congressman Kennedy is a public servant in his role on the floor of the 111th Congress. The good Bishop is, in Matthews' surgical term, a transgressor, arrogantly seeking to impose private faith onto public policy.

It seems that the Bishop steered clear of any suggestion that he was in any position to comment on what the laws or penalties regarding abortion should be, as a matter of public policy. So what, pray tell, was the transgression?

by the public attack on Patrick Kennedy.

He is in fact the transgressor onto public policy. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, not one Congressman's opinion of what the law is or is not.

Congress shall make no law -- etc.

But a public discourse isn't disallowed under our constitution. Tobin has every right to participate as any one else. His comments on Roe v Wade were as his position as Bishop for members of the Church. Not public policy.

Catholic Bishops, but as Matthews expertly suggested, the Bishop might himself try re-examination of his moral authority if in fact it criminalizes something that is abjectly and inarguably legal.

Congressman Kennedy is in the right. The Bishop is a transgressor and ought to withdraw. The Bishop is sanctioned to free speech; he is not sanctioned to bully democratically-elected public servants. That is not his role, as Matthews accurately pointed out.

It seems the real transgression is how others are dictating how a religion should deal with its own members. That is not allowed by our constitution. If Kennedy sees a problem with his private faith and public role, than that is an entirely different issue. In that case, the Bishop has the authority to dictate Canon Law.

and finally, hypocritical.

He is, by your invocation of canon law, doctrinally correct, but he may not impose that belief onto a public servant duly elected and expected to serve, as is clearly the case here.

He may not.

A bishop may not punish an elected official. There are liberal Catholics who would in fact grant communion to Patrick Kennedy. The bishop is using "moral authority" to attempt to trump actual law generated by the democratic process.

That is trespassing. And the harsh words you are hearing in this thread about the bishop are tame compared with the degree of his hypocrisy and trespass.

It must have bothered you that a cable news host nailed a big-time bishop to a board.

It bothered me at an intellectual level for I saw the falsity of Matthews argument. However, back to your post, the Bishop in this instance is not punishing a public official, he doesn't have that authority. He is, however, punishing a member of the Catholic Church for being at variance with its teachings. That's a big difference!

cornered him on his hypocrisy, and it didn't go well for the bishop.

Those so inclined may pursue whatever faith they wish, or none at all if they so choose.

It is just too bad for the bishop that Catholics do not agree on doctrinal points, such as stem cell research, such as birth control, such as gay marriage, such as reproductive choice.

Depending on the state or city, those things are legal where they are legal, and where they are not, U.S. citizens are at this hour striving to make them universally legal across the country. This must be of some consternation for the bishop and for doctrinal Catholics.

Too bad. The Constitution that permits them freedom of religion is in part a work in progress. The views the bishop held so high in his interview with Matthews were quite stingy as to points of process. If anything, Matthews went pretty easy on the bishop.

And you are obviously mistaken to believe that the bishop's intent was not to punish Patrick Kennedy. That is an indefensible position.

I made no such statement about the Bishop's intent. He definitely punished Kennedy. But it was as a member of the Church and not as a public policy figure. Whether Catholics agree on all matters of faith might be a legitimate point. But in those instances, the Church has the final say and not the State.

no say at all.

Congressman Kennedy did not seek to impose sanction of any sort or degree against anyone who is a member of that faith or of a given church.

On the other hand and by sharp contrast, this arrogant bishop butted his doctrinal ass onto the role of a publically-elected official -- a man who represents ALL the membes of his districts, including Methodists and RCs and atheists and pagans.

They may vote for his re-election or they may choose someone else, but at the moment Patrick Kennedy is their congressman. He represents all of his constituents.

The bishop does not trump Kennedy's role as a public servant and his invocation of Catholic doctrinal belief to do so was mean-spirited and dead wrong.

I guess my point is that it's only Kennedy membership in the Catholic Church that gives the Bishop any authority to sanction him. But as to matters of Catholic faith, the Church has the last say over its congregation.

Its intent was to punish.

Matthews asked repeatedly what the penalty would be for murder if in fact a young woman has an abortion.

The bishop failed miserably to offer a response, cowardly claiming disengagement from the legal arena.

What a wuss.

You might not like it. But I would say it was the reponsibility of the representative of the Catholic church to do exactly that.
If there has to be any meaning to that whole institution.
(Which I personally have trouble finding in general, but thats beside the issue here)

I do not believe that it is the "right" of any religious organization to sanction a lawmaker for following and/or supporting a valid law. Roe v. Wade is settled law, and if the Church doesn't like it, it has every right to preach to its members that the act of abortion is murder.

But, no, the Church has no "right" to single out one parishoner - Congressman Kennedy - and make public his banning from taking a Sacrament. It's cheap and shoddy and, given the Church's tax-exempt status, 'way out of line.

There are, I am certain, other Roman Catholic members of the House of Representatives. Has the Church forbidden them from taking Communion, too, I wonder?

A shameful display of smug ignorance and delusional power. Sort of like an impotent peacock doing his very best feather display and then falling victim to erectile dysfunction. He needs some Avian ExtenZe.

To state that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land is absolutely correct. But to say that it is SETTLED law is not. There have been several Supreme Court cases that have diluted Roe, imposing restrictions on abortions as to a woman's age, the stage of pregnancy, and the public funding of abortions, to name just a few of the issues involved. Matthews' interview amounted to nothing more than taking easy, cheap shots at a man whose position, both morally and spiritually, is tenuous at best. Matthews failed to advance any sort of meaningful dialogue.

It legalizes abortion, utilizing the right to privacy. It's fundamental. Yes, there are variations, bothersome and intrusive laws passed by idiots, but the basic truth, impractical as it may be, is that Roe v. Wade is, in fact, settled law.

I saw Matthews taking no cheap shots, nor did I see the Bishop do much except evade and weasel, without directly responding to some very simple and basic questions. There was much for the Bishop to lament after that interview, the biggest and best probably his gutlessness when confronted with his very own words and beliefs.

He was treated with far more respect than he deserves, but Matthews was raised as a Roman Catholic, and, as far as I know, may still be a practicing Catholic. That's none of my business, since I'm only interested in how he does his job, and his personal religion doesn't interest me.

Your reference to "cheap, easy shots" is wistful thinking, because you are unable to paint Matthews here as any kind of villain. He asked straight, direct, related, and relevant questions of the man to whom he consistently, and reverentially, referred to as "Your Excellency."

I think Matthews accomplished a great deal by showing this man for the fraud and poseur that he is. There will never be any kind of meaningful dialogue with people who think the way Tobin thinks; they refuse to see that there is another perspective on the matter, and their minds are closed. You're being a dreamer - and that's kind of lovely, I must admit - to think that such a meeting of the minds would ever be accomplished between the Roman Catholic Church and anyone with whom they disagree.

It is as fanciful and illusory as our President's view of "bipartisanship," another mirage.

My intent was never to paint Matthews as a villain. Instead, I was describing his performance as a journalist. The real question to the Bishop should have been, as posted by another DUer, will you equally sanction those members of your church who supported the war? Who cheat on their spouses? Who abuse their children? Will you defrock clergy who sexually assault children and assist in their prosecution? And I could come up with a number of other questions of a more revealing character. You see, I suspect that it is because Matthews is a catholic that he chose to put forward the weakest possible questions and allow the Bishop an easy out. In other words, he didn't go for the kill. It seems like weak sauce to me.

As to Roe being settled law, well there are expected challenges to that law that remain to be settled in the Court's next session. We'll see what's settled and what is not.

My mistake. Sorry.

DU is hard werk, I am discovering. No wonder George W. Bush never posted here.

My jet lag is starting to get to me, I think. Sorry.

It legalized a woman's right to choose. That is now the law of the land, hence my use of the term "settled law." Variations in no way change the basic rule of contained within Roe.

I agree with you that there were lots of other, pertinent questions that Matthews could have asked Tobin. But, he had limited time, and I think when he realized that Tobin wouldn't answer, he went for the jugular, outing him as the ill-informed and manipulative hypocrite that he is.

I don't agree that Matthews chose "the weakest questions." The subject, after all, was Tobin's edict that Congressman Kennedy could not receive a Sacrament because he was upholding the established law of the land, a shameful position on the part of the Church. The issue was not pedophilia in the Church, or how is has been covered up and mishandled by the Church. To go into that territory, with a ten-minute (or so) time limit, would not have been appropriate.

There's so much that could have been asked of Tobin, since we all know what a sleazy bunch of dissemblers and liars they are, but it was not the reason why Tobin was there. Patrick Kennedy's shoddy treatment by the Church was the topic.

We do not disagree.

express its views on issues of concern to its flock, but it is not the Church's privilege, IMO, to bully democratically-elected public officials with a view -- very obvioius in this case -- toward pressuring them to abandon their civic responsibility.

It is the Bishop's right to speak his mind but not his perogative to bully his way into public policy, especially as it applies to established law.

A woman's right to choose is Constitutionally sanctioned, and if we are a nation of laws, the Constitution eclipses private belief.

And Rep. Kennedy has to choose. The authority of the Church to discipline its flock is undisputed by logic, common sense and law. They have the right to discipline a church member (not a public official) and refuse them the sacraments. To argue that they don't have that right, infringes upon the freedom of religion, and that's unconstitutional. The right to choose is now Kennedy's. Will he be a compliant catholic, or a devoted public official with secular values? That's the issue.

squarely (in his view) as the summons to one's relationship with God.

The Constitution is not about one's relationship with God. It is, in Lincoln's essential phrase, government of, for and by the people, and at the heart of that gesture are people who do not believe as Tobin believes and who, in significant percentage, believe a woman should control her own body.

Matthews pointed this difficulty out to Tobin and Tobin either lockstep ignored the question (several times, actually) or is too entrenched in his own authority.

Speaking for God does not overlay onto representing the People.

Do you really give a shit what Tobin thinks about spiritual matters, and wouldn't it only matter to you if you chose to be a member of his church?

speak on public airwaves of his privately-held religious belief as justification for bullying a public official to bend to the will of the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that's the point of contention and also the source of hypocrisy Matthews kept bringing up to Tobin and which Tobin either pretended not to get or got and chose to ignore.

Either way, there is no impediment to Tobin's privately held belief but it should not be imposed onto public policy, which as a public official Patrick Kennedy must work to uphold.

IMO Kennedy was targeted by the Church generally and Tobin served as hit-man in the local Rhode Island jurisdiction. Tobin to the Vatican: "Not to worry, Boss -- we can take care of this Kennedy punk, no problem."

Tobin was not speaking as a private individual expressing his private beliefs. He was speaking as a Bishop in the Catholic Church about a member of that church whose public position on several issues led to his denial of a Church sacrament. And if we can't agree as to that set of facts, then that might explain the communication problem. Do you really believe that Tobin was invited as a private citizen to discuss his private views? I mean, who would even care to hear that? He was invited as a church authority who was laying down church law. In other words, it's not Tobin's personal, private belief at issue here, it's the Church's belief and the requisite compliance expected from its members.

made by individual citizens.

The tenets of one's privately-held religious beliefs are not acceptable as public policy, especially when they overtly defy established written law.

The Bishop may speak for his flock, or at least a large percentage of his flock, but in essence Matthews was calling him out on the impulse to bully / persuade / pressure a publically-elected official who after all was doing his job.

You would not deny, would you, that Patrick Kennedy was targeted? It seems blatant to me and I find that objectionable on a variety of grounds.

We come full circle. The Bishop was asked his opinion and offered it, but could not answer Matthews' questions, and appeared to me to openly defy the context in which the questions were asked.

I'll assume there is a long list of the members of his church that he has singled out in such a public manner for their public practices, or is this the first? I'll assume this has never happened in 'his church' (I assumed it belonged to someone higher up the food chain), so why make a fuss here at this point. For the politics, not for the religious aspect. The act of denying this catholic the body of christ, or a cracker as I call it, is specific and pointed and chosen to make a statement.

On Tobin, I believe he acts in accordance with his instructions from The Vatican.

They hate Kennedy enough to get the church to do their bidding. Tobin is a front man for the GOP Mafia.

What Tobin wants is to do his superiors' bidding, which results in Republican takeover of liberal Democratic congressional seats.

There's really no way to disguise the obvious intent of a public attack on Patrick Kennedy on "moral" grounds.

is that Matthews did a poor job of determining the very points you raise. Has this been consistently applied in the past to members of the Church whose public roles conflict with their catholic faith (etc...)? Sadly, the questions were not asked.

influence sought by religious entities proportional to various public officials over a long period.

I'd like to see break-downs between Catholic and Protestant entities as a specific point of emphasis.

Who gains from that kind of influence-peddling?

Not the citizenry, IMO.

If I am not mistaken.

But I take that does not prevent the Catholic Church from chucking you out of you declare yourself a Jew?

particular set of religious beliefs. The Founders were quite clear and drew up provisions to protect theists and non-theists and this and that and the other thing.

The secular State, which deliberately sanctions disagreement among those it collectively protects, is superior in every respect and function to organized private religion in that the secular State is democratic. It is the wider, taller umrella.

Tobin is arguing from the limited seating as if he owned the arena.

to minister those of us who do not support the Catholic church. The rights of all Americans come first. Where does it say that those of us who support the right to choose are corrupt in some way? Abortion is personal, you have a right to speak for the church only, not for members of other religions, not for those Americans who do not follow any religion.

Whether we practice any religion or no religion, choice is ours to make, not the Catholic church.
We are equally moral and equally capable of deciding what we feel is right.

For what it is worth, I happen to agree with you.

which serves to divide people. If the catholic church were sincere on any such platform, it would apply to war and a multitude of other moral problems we find the fed gov embroiled in. But no such 'punishment' is doled out for anything but this issue. Too obvious?

Where I state: "My intent was never to paint Matthews as a villain. Instead, I was describing his performance as a journalist. The real question to the Bishop should have been, as posted by another DUer, will you equally sanction those members of your church who supported the war? Who cheat on their spouses? Who abuse their children? Will you defrock clergy who sexually assault children and assist in their prosecution? And I could come up with a number of other questions of a more revealing character. You see, I suspect that it is because Matthews is a catholic that he chose to put forward the weakest possible questions and allow the Bishop an easy out. In other words, he didn't go for the kill. It seems like weak sauce to me."

This one issue is the original topic covered by the video in this thread. It is you, among others, that wish to keep expanding the context to suit your own purposes. THAT is weak.

"It is just too bad for the bishop that Catholics do not agree on doctrinal points, such as stem cell research, such as birth control, such as gay marriage, such as reproductive choice."

But then they are not Catholics. The Catholic church sets the rules for what a Catholic is. And in this case they said "Sorry, that disqualifies you for membership".
This is what bugs me so much about many "religious" people.
They want to shop around in the rules. Claim membership to the golf club and then be miffed when asked not to play tennis on the 10th hole.

The logic of the Bishop is consistent. Tweety is not even logical. Thats whats wrong with that interview.

his belief, he is not persuasive in his defense of a targeted attack of a public official.

Matthews' questions were more convincing in their calling-out of Tobin's hypocrisy.

I think Matthews won the day on this one, hands-down.

Sound like extortion to you?

--imm

But he was trying to extort a vote. That is illegal. Just like if he were threatening to kill his children if he didn't vote right.

Like the Republicans, the RCC doesn't know how to make friends.

--imm

the state, its inquisitions and crusades, and the wiping out of any religious community that challenged its authority. Is that the religion you are referring to?

And the RCC is the vestige of a large state. It would be nice if we could end their crime spree.

--imm

. . . and lawmaking ain't it!

exact provision of law he would make if he felt so strongly about it that he had to attack a democratically-elected law-maker.

Tobin purred and mewed and cuddled up in the corner when Matthews demanded specifics.

at least IMO, is the idea that, at the communion rail, every communicant is equal. In most churches nowadays, communion is distributed by lay persons and not priests. The person handing out communion is in no position whatsoever to refuse anyone who walks up. Sin is between the penitent and the confessor, or better yet, between the sinner and God. If I am a Eucharistic Minister, must I check with the priest before offering communion to anyone? If a communicant is standing there "in good faith," the bishop his excellency or anyone else for that matter, has no standing to refuse.

Years ago when I was still a practicing Catholic (I don't practice anymore because I've gotten it down perfectly), a fellow usher is a Catholic friend's wedding took communion with us all, and afterward I mentioned to him that I didn't know he was Catholic. He said, "I'm not, but I didn't want to look stupid!"

...this is Democratic Underground, not Rapture Ready. Matthews was dead on in exposing the hypocrisy of a theocratic freak like Tobin, in that he wants it both ways.

Substance over characterizations please.

Give it another listen.

He wants to be a Catholic, except when the church actually reminds people what they are not supposed to do as Catholics.

Now, the bishop avoided answering some of the questions, to which the logical answers would alienate even some of his own members. I would call him a coward for that.

I was not aware that Patrick Kennedy had HAD an abortion.

Patrick Kennedy is charged with creating legislation for
ALL, not with turning America into a theocracy.

This Bishop is WAY out of line, but he should keep up
the "good work", as people are turning to secular thinking
in droves.

Correction: Force (not remind) OTHERS to do through the RULE of LAW and the point of the gun.

That's what you don't get. The Bishop is seeking to bully a law maker to IMPOSE their belief on ALL OTHERS (not only Catholics) through legislation.

But I can only see a problem if Kennedy is bullied by it. But that would be a problem with Kennedy then.

The Catholic church is not doing anything that does not fit within their dogma. If you support policies that goes against the teachings of your church, I don't see anything wrong with the church saying: "Then you cannot play with us."

What is the difference be between that and those who just do not support such policies for the same reason - ie. without forcing the church to enact the same measure?

and not only can a Catholic not be president, they really shouldn't hold public office at all if there is any possibility that they will put the Catechism ahead of their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution.

When I see things like this, I'm so glad I woke up and left the Church.

time the good father tries to bullshit his way around the question, Mathews stops him and tries to get him on the question. The good father never does answer the question. Seems like that annoys you. KEEP THE DAMN CHURCH OUT OF OUR LIVES.

What question are you referring to that the Bishop had a problem answering? Like I've already said, Kennedy is a member of the Catholic Church, and that seems to be the central issue to me.

in this role represents ALL the people of his district, not just Roman Catholics.

The bishop trespasses by imposing a privately-held belief onto the role of a publically-elected official. Not least, the bishop's position, doctrinal for Catholics though it be, defies actual, current law. Roe v. Wade is an acutal, current, law.

The Bishop trespasses on Kennedy's privately held belief as a Catholic...and as a Catholic, the Bishop has the religious authority to correct him when he is at variance with his church.

penalty for a woman of child-bearing age who in fact undertakes an abortion?

If in fact the RC church calls abortion murder, and it does, then is that young woman not guilty of murder as defined?

And if that is in fact a moral authority the Church claims, against Kennedy or anyone else, then give me the exact penalty for murder in such a case.

Matthews pressed the good bishop on this point and the good bishop failed to answer him, although he had more than one opportunity.

It would seem to me that the bishop is in fact imposing private belief onto the public realm by assailing a public servant of that realm, and IMO that is shitwork.

Shame on the bishop.

The Bishop stated his views on abortions as a matter of Catholic faith, not law. He seemed to go out of his way to make that point. He framed it as the taking of innocent life and not murder. As a matter of Catholic faith, within the Church only, the consequence for such action would be forgiveness.

I heard not one drop of forgiveness from that smug authoritarian prick spewing his "moral authority" on the public airwaves.

Not one ounce.

And again, the bishop failed to answer the question he was asked. If he did not wish to discuss reproductive freedom with a news host, he could have stayed home. He showed up, and ought to have behaved with more respect for the process.

Well I am only going on the video posted in this thread. As to forgiveness, that too is a matter of Cannon Law for members of the Church.

then it is immoral to make them feel guilty for having one in the first place.

The bishop does not speak for the Creator of the Universe. He may think he does. But he does not.

He doesn't know even if there WAS a Creator of the Universe.

And he certainly could use a refresher course in Constitutional law.

The Constitution trumps private religious affiliation. It says so, in fact. Congresspersons serve the public, not just the Roman Catholic public. Congressman Kennedy is not only Constitutionally protected to be pro-choice but would be whether he was Catholic or Methodist or atheist. He has that right, and that right he has speaks to the universality of the Constitution.

He is not, in his role as public servant, beholden to a private religious authority which seeks control over the Constitution. He may not, in this context, punish a U.S. Congressman for that Congressman's participation in the rights and privileges of national law. The bishop may believe what he wishes. No one's stopping him. But he TRANSGRESSES onto the public arena wielding the blunted sword of his private doctrinal beliefs, and in this action he sins. He sins against the public interest, as the public interest protects HIS individual right to practice his faith; it does not grant him authority over others' rights under the Constitution, which as a member of the Congress, Patrick Kennedy dutifully serves.

It seems to me that it boils down to a Bishop admonishing a member of his congregation on compliance with articles of FAITH and not public policy. He doesn't have the authority to admonish public figures, but he does when it comes to members of his congregation.

He is a trespasser to imagine that it is.

boy bush* killed over a million Iraqis. Was it because bush* said he loved Jesus? or because Iraqi's are not Christians?

Careful there friend, I've been trying to be respectful of differing viewpoints and I have not presumed to criticize people's faith or beliefs. We can disagree without being disagreeable or personal in our criticism. I am not a member of the Catholic church nor am I an expert on its Canon, my observation was as to Matthews inability to distinguish the Bishop's authority to deal with a member of the Church and the important public policy issues. And as far as I know, Bush isn't catholic.

just wanted to chastise a member of the church for not bowing down to the Pope.

The Bishop stated that he had no interest in deciding what the law or penalties concerning abortions should be, going so far as to state that he had no role in deciding what our public policy should be. He was addressing the issue of a member of his church that had publicly disclosed the dispute and he was there to respond to that issue.

He is doing exactly what Jack Kennedy said you can't do in America: a Church can't give orders to its adherents telling them what laws are passed.
50,000 to 100,000 are died killed each year because they don't have health insurance. The Bishop is saying if his orders aren't followed: the KILL THESE PEOPLE, the definition of Situational Ethics that Ronald Reagan was famous for. Right and Wrong aren't right and wrong, the right people are right when they're wrong and other people are always wrong.
I, unlike the Archbishop and Ronald Reagan, know the difference between right and wrong. It is always wrong to kill people.

I'm not sure how you got to where you are, but the issue I've been trying hard to define, with varying degrees of success, is Tobin's authority as a leader in the Catholic Church to admonish a parishioner who is defiant of its teachings. That is the issue. That is the situation. Your post seems to attempt to contrast an unrelated issue with a different circumstance, a different situation. It is you that is engaging in situational ethics, not me.

but don't you think the Bishop would've been better served by writing a letter to Kennedy? Or maybe talking to him personally? Does he think that going to the media is respectful? Shouldn't the business of the church and its parishioners' 'failings' be kept within the church? Isn't that what they tried to do with the "scandals"?

I fully understand admonishment from a church leader... and i don't think Kennedy should be immune because he is a legislator. If you're gonna be a member of a church, you better damn well know its doctrine... otherwise what the hell is the point?


Thanks, btw, for the valiant attempt at getting DUers to understand what's going on here. I don't entirely agree with you in that i don't think Tobin is justified in speaking publicly about it... but i do see that church leaders do need to be able to talk to their members when they are in a position of power and advocating a stance that is contrary to church doctrine.

:shrug:

My understanding is that the Bishop admonished Kennedy back in 2007 with a private letter instructing him not to partake in communion. Earlier this year Kennedy began to speak out publicly about this and this rest is now history. Thanks again for your post.

That's a different issue. We must separate articles of faith and issues of public policy. Something Matthews was unable to do.

law. Matthews asked him repeatedly what the law should be. The other guy criticized a member of Congress re. law but failed to explain how he thought the law should read. KEEP RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS.

the hapless bishop on his motives.

And very effectively, at that.

I've rarely seen Chris Matthews do such a good job at nailing someone down.

I have the notion that he thought his public admonishment of Patrick Kennedy was the end of the deal.

Turns out, it wasn't.

The Catholic Church loses a lot of ground when it attacks public officials like John Kerry and now Patrick Kennedy.

Funny, I heard the Bishop state that he had no authority or legitimate voice to express what the law should be. He could only admonish a member of his Church. That is all.

through inadvertence.

And it was merely happenstance that he objected to Kennedy's support of reproductive freedoms for women.

It's funny, isn't it, how all the public figures the Catholic Church objects to on moral grounds are liberal Democrats.

Not happenstance but the invitation to appear. Besides, Kennedy had gone public before the Bishop did, or am I wrong on that too? He objects to his stance on that issue because, again, it is at variance with Church teachings.

He's made no secret of it.

His constituents, by a healthy majority, are also pro-choice.

The bishop did appear by invitation on Matthews' show but could have opted out. Imagine how confused he must have been to have a fierce interrogator like Matthews, himself a Catholic by the way, conduct an actual interview for quite a long period without commercial interruption.

It would not be the view of a majority of Kennedy's constitutents that women should not be considered equal under law. That viewpoint is deeply held and long-standing. The Church is entirely on the wrong side of history here, sadly so, and pathetically so, and perhaps mean-spiritedly so. There is absolutely no reason why women should not be ordained as priests, including apostolic succession, but for the no-dick cowardice of the authoritarian higher-ups in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, no incidentally all male.

The bishop got his clock cleaned tonight by Chris Matthews.

Perhaps, but he cannot be a pro-choice catholic who wishes to partake communion with the Church.

MUST be able to set aside his own religious beliefs to follow the laws of the people he was elected to serve. The most rabid rightwinger understands this. They absolutely know they do not want an elected Muslim to try to impose his religious beliefs. Kennedy is a devout Catholic, from all appearances, and would not personally approve of abortion. Anyone who is an elected official must (at least should) support law. In other words Kennedy is a Catholic who represents many thousands of non-Catholics and is unwilling to inflict his own religious beliefs on his constituents. He is "pro choice" not "pro abortion." His bishop is totally out of line - he is publically punishing him for being ethical (keeping his religion separate from the state). Kennedy has done nothing against his church to justify refusing him communion as he has not advocated abortion nor has he, as far as we know, aided any acquaintance or family member or other person in obtaining one.

That Kennedy would not personally sanction an abortion is not the issue. His advocacy for a woman's right to choose puts him at odds with the Catholic Church, and as a member of that Church he must be willing, if his belief in pro-choice is that strong, to face the sanctions that are imposed by his church. BTW, it's my understanding that Kennedy was the first one to go public on this issue, not the Bishop. If he believes that the carrying out of his faith would be an imposition to his constituents, then perhaps he should reconsider his faith or his role as a lawmaker.

uphold the law of the land but on the religious 'authority' whose belief is sanctioned by the Constitution.

The Bishop's job is the easier task, is it not? He only has to adhere to rules which govern his flock. Kennedy's is the broader, more complex, more difficult role: his constituents are not monolithic.

The sanctioned religious leader who serves only the like-minded does not trump the democratically-elected representative who serves all.

of their flock.

faith even as it equally protects any other person or persons in their belief system, or absence of same.

You are holding that Catholicism is equal to democracy. It is not.

I can be totally against getting or performing an abortion yet not wish to impose my RELIGIOUS beliefs on my fellow citizen who doesn't share my moral convections. This is exactly what the bishops are attempting by restricting access to the procedure. I believe that in reality you are troll that is attempting to create dissension and not doing a very good job of it.

But it appears that you are more interested in spouting your views even though there is no one arguing about what you are saying. Try to stay relevant please.

Thank you FlaGranny for putting it so succinctly.

. . . and I did not think I was joining the National Right to Life by participating in Communion. I think that the Bishops need to get off their bloody power trip. What I heard from Tobin last night was that Catholic politicians are required to follow Church edicts in office. Jack Kennedy rolled over in his grave!

Perhaps because so few of the republicans are catholic.

suggesting that his read on their views on reproductive freedom and not the Church's, should hold sway in the arena of the U.S. Congress.

Kennedy is right politically in that women should in fact have control over their own bodies, and he is right Constitutionally, as Roe v. Wade establishes.

It is the arrogant bishop who seeks to build walls.

Well that's up to his constituents and they should judge him in his role as a legislator and not as a catholic.

constituents judged him as a whole person, a complete person, a considerable person across many settings, which in fact I believe they do, just as I do when I support my Congresswoman, just as many voters do when they consider and weigh and cross-reference their support for their representatives.

It is the Bishop's loss that he attempted to short-circuit that context in his public attack on a public official.

I'll just wrap it up by restating what seemed obvious to me. That Tobin was speaking as a Bishop in the Catholic Church addressing the problem of Kennedy's views on several issues that are at variance with the Church. In his role as Bishop, he decided to admonish Kennedy by denying him the sacrament of communion. He stated that he had no interest in deciding public policy and that his purview was only as to Church dogma. The more important question to me is why Kennedy and other politicians choose to remain Catholics if they disagree with the basic tenets of the Church? What is the point? If such matters are that important to them, then they must be willing to submit to the religious authorities they themselves have chosen. So who is participating in hypocrisy? And for what reason?

addressing the problem of Kennedy's views on several issues that are at variance with the Church".

I've enjoyed the "give and take" in this thread. As I pondered over the posts, I felt that each of the contributors had valid points but that the premise was different for each. I just couldn't clearly identify it until you "wrapped it up". Thank you very kindly for doing so.

The problem? The variance of premise? Very simply, as you've just stated, you feel that the Bishop was responding to "...the problem of Kennedy's views...". But, the object of Tobin's response has not been established; the chances are very good, as some posters have suggested, that Kennedy's views are in compliance with basic tenets of his faith. Kennedy's political stance may or may not reflect his personal views. Unless you can provide some definitive proof that Kennedy sanctions the practice of abortion, others of us must make the logical assumption that the good Bishop knows something of Kennedy's personal views that we do not ~ which is possible but unlikely ~ or that Tobin was clearly punishing Kennedy for his political stance of upholding the law in its present form.

Of course, if Tobin's pronouncement is based upon the latter scenario, he is definitely outside his jurisdiction and wrong in his punishment. Regardless of his views, he, like Kennedy, must act within the law.

The only thing I have to go by is what Tobin stated in the video, that Kennedy's advocacy of a women's right to choose, and his voting record would reveal if this is so, puts him at odds with catholic teachings. But as far as I know, this fact is undisputed by anyone here, or by Kennedy for that matter. That being the case, Tobin has the authority, as a Bishop of the Church, to sanction a parishioner who is defiant of its teachings.

video...".

While there may be more evidence than just Tobin's word relative to the issue, I'll happily accept your position that you have come to your conclusion(s) based upon Tobin's declarations contained within the video. Yet, even Kennedy's advocacy of women's rights resulting in his voting record cannot be construed as his personal view. Do you remember the occasion when President Clinton stated (paraphrased), "I should hope that there will never be another abortion carried out in this Country. Yet, I can't deny women the right to make their own choices."?

Thus, Tobin is required to make an assumption of Kennedy's personal views based upon his political history unless Kennedy made a personal pronouncement of his approval for abortion. The only thing that any of us has to go by to determine the basis of Tobin's decision in the matter is what he stated in the video. Since Tobin never mentioned a private declaration by Kennedy of personal advocacy of abortion, neither of us can assume that such a declaration was made nor held by Kennedy. Nor can we state unequivocally that Kennedy's voting history reflects his personal views. We have the luxury of the knowledge of Vice-President Joe Biden's disapproval of abortion and his political position of supporting women's right of choice. Though neither of us can say, it remains within the realm of possibility that Kennedy's views and political stance, like Biden's, are at opposite ends.

Consequently, it must remain as speculation that Tobin's action was acceptable. If he has personal knowledge of Kennedy's advocacy of abortion, then he has the right to exclude Kennedy from taking communion. (As a Secular Humanist, I have a very different opinion upon the rights of any clergy to punish anyone for anything based upon theology rather than law.) But, if his opinion is based upon Kennedy's political stance and voting record, he has no right to refuse Kennedy's taking communion. In the absence of definitive proof of Tobin's basis, relying merely upon what he stated in the video, I'm persuaded that Tobin was not within his rights to punish Kennedy.

The issue of whether Kennedy's private view on abortion conforms to his public stance would seem immaterial as to the question of compliance with Church doctrine. There isn't a difference as to whether you personally sanction abortions or help facilitate by the passage of laws other to have them. In the Church's view, it is a distinction without a meaningful difference. So the substantive question remains, does Tobin have the authority to admonish a member of his flock? Given what we know, the answer must be in the affirmative.

How in the world would you suggest that Kennedy's private view on abortion would seem immaterial as to the compliance with Church doctrine, particularly if it is at odds with the public stance he feels compelled to take? There could exist a huge difference between supporting the views of one's constituency through legislation and one's personal views relative to an issue. Further, how could you be privy to the Church's view? How can you state the Church's opinion with regard to public stance contrary to private view? How do you know that the Church holds the at-odds position as "a distinction without a meaningful difference."? I suspect that these statements represent your opinions and not directives of Church positions.

In any event, the question has never been, "...does Tobin have the authority to admonish a member of his flock?" I feel certain that he does have the authority to do so. This whole thread has developed around the question, "Does Bishop Tobin have a right to punish (not admonish)Kennedy for his public stance despite his (Kennedy's) private views?" Given that we don't know Kennedy's private views, the answer must hang in the balance.

I've enjoyed sparring with you. I'm afraid we've reached an impasse. Perhaps we can share some thoughts on another thread one day soon. Thank you.

Because we are speaking in terms of what the consequences are for a catholic, hence the Church's action, and not what his role as a lawmaker is. The Church would limit itself to considering the vows Kennedy took when he became a catholic and the promise to advocate and uphold the teachings of the Church. All other considerations do not factor in their decision. Besides, what is the fundamental difference between holding one view privately, when your public action promotes a conflicting view? How is that relevant to his conduct as a catholic, in the Church's view? Punish or admonish, this is simply a matter of nomenclature, the issue is whether the Bishop can punish Kennedy for his public advocacy of abortion irrespective of his privately held view. As a member of that church, he certainly subjects himself to that authority under those circumstances.

In any event, it was a pleasure exchanging our ideas about this James, and I wish you and yours a great holiday.

KEEP THE CHURCH OUT OF POLITICS.

is all I can say.

so the church can wage a hate war against the gay community. The Catholic church is a white, male dominated aristocracy with gold, riches, idols, and huge cathedrals. Jesus would be ashamed.

Francis of Assissi as opposed to the Holy Father in the Vatican.

Rich man poor man, etc.

A non-Christian myself, I think Jesus could have a conversation with any ol' Pope there is, but I think he'd want to pal around with Francis and actually help others, especially poor others, and destitute others, and exiled others.

It's selfish to say so but the more socialist Jesus is perceived to be, the better I like his ministry, even if I'm not a member of his tribe.

Jesus, as a non-Christian himself, would probably agree.

What in the hell do you think the legislation that is being proposed is? Are you so dense that you can't understand the simple fact that the bishops are attempting to impose their RELIGOUS beliefs on the entirity of the citzens by telling an elected representative that if he doesn't enshrine the church's doctrine into law they will blackmail him with the threat of cutting him off from communion.

catholic that gives the Church its leverage.

He has signed up to their teachings by proclaiming himself a Catholic. If he cannot live without access to the churchs services and his policies goes against its teachings, he should:
a) resign from office
b) leave the church

As little use I see for religion, I still cannot understand why the Catholic church and the bishop is attacked for this in particular.

You can attack them for their positions/views and a lot of other things. Easily.
But for enforcing the rules that people have signed up to - that I cannot understand. That must rest squarely on the people that choose to act by them.

It seems to me the entire argument against the bishop in this thread is "Religion should stay out of politics".

On which we could not agree more.

But that is not the case in point here. The case in point is whether a church can enforce its rules on a member that is a politician.
Until its ruled that a church cannot have a public position on abortion, I can't see why they can not.

If you allow them to say that they are against abortion and keep their tax excempt status, then they must by consequence be allowed to withhold service to people who support policies that goes against it and keep it still.

The Catholic Church is attempting to influence legislation. I don't give a fuck what the Catholic Church teaches or what their brain dead memebers believe in and don't want what they believe imposed on the Republic of which I am a citizen. Go back to freeperville.

I don't chill out when I am confronted with blatant stupidity.

carries a penalty of automatic excommunication. No forgiveness here, thank you very much.

he asked the same question, I think four times. And you dont even remember. I suggest you watch again and try to be unbiased. Try.

Okay.

was just a few rungs under listening to a lecture on why one looks to fairies for their ultimate moral authority.

Matthews took the guy apart. I can't recall a discussion that exposed the emptiness of religious belief and that demonstrated so clearly that religion draws its "authority" from nothing but lies and childish myths.

His excellency and his church's supposedly authority were left without clothes.

'Twas a thing of beauty.

Moonies asking the clergy if for job approval, lovely -- so glad I'm out of that cult!

especially in regard to birth control and abortion --

Additionally, you're highest privilege in a democracy is freedom of thought, free

conscience and free will --- and the Catholic Church/Vatican embrace anti-democractic positions.

You might recall Vatican II -- Pope John XXII acknowledged members' right to personal conscience

and free thought and told them to decide for themselves whether or not to use birth control!

In other words, he kicked Papal "infallibility" in the ass --

Pope John XXII made the church a democracy.

What you're seeing now in Tobin and other Nazi like religious hierarchy is the right wing coup

on Vatican II -- and likely on a few Popes who came after Pope John XXII and ready to walk in his

footsteps!

Everyone has the right to free thought and personal conscience -- and Catholics who stay in the

church have the right to CHANGE the church rather than the other way round.

Meanwhile . . . Catholics largely ignore the Vatican re birth control --

AND, just as many Catholic women as any other women have abortions!!!


The RCC is moving even further to right as this Pope plans to make the church EVANGELICAL!

They're fairly well finished in Canada, USA, Western Europe --

and now find their fortunes $$$$$$$$$$$$ rising in Africa and Asia --


PS: You also have this part wrong . .

his role is to instruct members of the Catholic faith on the Church's stance on the matter and of the necessity for each member to conform to their teachings.

The Stupak amendment which the Bishops pushed is an effort to control all of society --

NOT simply Catholics!!

You raise several issues that do not address my comments on the video. Again, I believe that Matthews was wrong to continually prod Tobin after his concession that he had no role in determining what public policy should be. His action against Kennedy was in his role as Bishop of a Church that Kennedy professes faith in. All I have to go on is the ten minute video on this thread and I was not looking to insult or question anyone's faith or freedom or whatever else people "believe" in. But it seems that a personal statement beyond the scope of my original comment is necessary. I do not share the Catholic world-view and the problems that this Church is now experiencing is rooted in its actions that have justified its continuing free-fall. I shed no tears. As to what catholics do within or from without their church is no concern of mine, and that goes for the purpose and intent that this church has for its members and society at large. I have no faith in them, or in democrats or republicans, or those who call themselves progressives or independents, or those clamoring for freedom or rights, and anyone who imposes their beliefs on others for any reason. Am I clear? I simply posted my view on this video. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know if anyone knows the true extent of it, but certainly there were meetings between
Pelosi and Catholic Bishops -- and telephone call from Rome to Pelosi!

The RCC has had a role in using tax-exempt dollars to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment
in America --

The RCC and the Mormons have been involved in financing opposition to homosexuality in
California in Prop 8 -- and currently in Maine --

What concession?

The "pro-life" movement is certainly a creature of the RCC ---


And as for the SPECIFIC action against Kennedy, it is certainly a political action intended
to threaten other politicians who may stand against the church in support of birth control and
abortion --

and a threat to parishioners who vote for Kennedy and for "Choice" that they too may be
publicly humiliated --

Again, Catholics have a right to free thought, free conscience and free will -- that is acknowledged in Vatican II -- but has always been true despite the hierarchy of the Vatican acting as Dictator.

Kennedy -- and every other Catholic politician -- and every other member of the church is simply
exercising their free will when they embrace "choice." Kennedy is not "submitting" himself to anyone.
Nor is any other Catholic "submitting" themselves.

And that is where you repeatedly get it wrong --

Least of all, should any human being, politician, or government be seeking the advice or counsel of
this corrupted church!

I certainly appreciate the context of your argument and I would not defend the motivations behind the Church's action. But the issue to me has always been whether the Church can sanction its members for violating the precepts of their faith. But as to Kennedy's freedom of choice and the exercise of his free will, it would certainly apply to his decision to be a catholic, would it not? And after having duly considered the responsibilities and obligations of such a decision, after all, he is by all intent and purposes, an intelligent, mature man, isn't he then submitting himself to Church authority? No one has forced him to be a catholic and nothing impels him to remain one. That is the freedom of choice that is at issue here. In the interest of fairness, the Bishop privately sent Kennedy a letter admonishing him to not take communion back in 2007. Kennedy is the one who went public earlier this year inviting a public response by Tobin.

Unless you want to argue that religion per default is political(which you can certainly, do I think, but that opens another can of tax worms), it was indeed nonsensical discussion.

It stands to reason that the Catholic church should, if it has to have some measure of integrity(which again can be argued in general), refuse to service those who work against its teachings.

To tell the Catholic church that it should separate the man from the politician is a moronic argument.

A woman who has an abortion and goes to her priest will probably be in a heap of trouble with her church. HER behavior would be the question. What Matthews was saying was that the church has no right to effect laws. Legislation is not their business - actions of their church members is.

This is the point. Kennedy has been sanctioned because of
his position as a LAWMAKER.

Tweety had every right to corner "his excellency" on what
the law SHOULD be.

Every statistic I've ever seen shows that Catholics, with
their proscriptions against birth control, have HIGHER
abortion rates than Protestant populations.

This guy want to publicly shame politicians?
It's his right, but it's not going to earn him
any points with the thinking population of the planet.

he lands several blows.

The Bishop appeared unafraid of the onslaught but at the same time, completely unprepared to answer Matthews' points.

A nicely done interview.

So will Chris be the next addition to the wafer ban list?

He really lit that guys butt on fire. It's nice to see Matthews make the points he does, especially given he is Catholic himself. I'd love to see Matthews invite him back and talk about whether churches should be able to influence legislation yet be tax-exempt.

needs in order to avoid self-destruction as a group. The law is about how to live together, not Morality.

Be that as it may, it is up to the person whether to adhere to the teachings of any given religion, in this case abortion.
To make it simple, if one is against abortion, don't have one, or don't cause someone to have one.
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Matthew 22:21

Even though I am no longer a Catholic (I converted to Pastafarianism) I understand Chris' point here.

Amen.

God made me type that.