Bishop who barred Kennedy admits he doesnt understand the Constitution

[ensho]

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Bishop-Tobin-admits-he-doesnt-understand-the-Constitution


Bishop Thomas Tobin, the bishop who barred Patrick Kennedy from receiving communion said in an interview with CNN that he did so because he just cant understand how a catholic, any catholic, even a legislator, can take the stand on abortion as a legal choice for women that Kennedy has taken.

That is a tacit admission on the part of bishop Tobin that he either doesn't have any basic understanding of the establishment clause of the first amendment in the constitution or has no respect for it except when the Catholic church is using it to avoid paying taxes.

It is either arrogance or ignorance on the part of Tobin since he shows he has no understanding nor respect for the fact that its Kennedy's obligation to serve, not Catholics or the church but the vast majority of his constituents regardless of their individual religious beliefs. And Tobin's admission that he can't understand how Kennedy can justify his position on abortion as a legislator just re-enforces the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson and the founders who wrote the establishment clause which was written to specifically deny the church from having any official influence on the affairs of state.

-snip-

If this is the official position of the church then they should make it clear to catholic members of congress that they are either to vote according to catholic church doctrine or resign from congress, since, based on Tobin's point of view, no member of congress can vote for legislation of which the church doesnt approve.. If the church hierarchy has the courage of their convictions they should issue such a proclimation and then they wont have to wonder how a catholic member of congress could vote for a bill that the church is opposed to.
-snip-
---------------------


I could go for that. back the Constitution or leave congress.

[brendan120678]

1. Back the Constitution or leave congress....

Does that mean any legislator in favor of gun control should also leave Congress?

[HopeHoops]

2. If you are going to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment,...

the Gun forum is a better place for that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Make him pay taxes. That would improve his understanding of the

Constitution and the role of government.

[imdjh]

4. I'm as hard on the Roman Church as anyone, but....

Opposing abortion isn't necessarily a religious position.
This also doesn't mean that you don't understand the Constitution or that you are ignorant.
It means you disagree.

However, the issue here, as I see it, is that this bishop works for a foreign government and has no business threatening US lawmakers or trying to influence US policy.

[shraby]

5. The point being made in the op is that regardless of

who opposes abortion, the Catholic church has no business trying to influence the legislation by coercion of its members who are the legislators. Separation of church and state demands just that. The state gives churches exemption from taxes because to tax a church is seen as possible leading to lop-sided taxing pitting one church against another.
The best scenario is absolute separation of church and state..let each tend to their own and not meddle in each others business. The whole law was written by people who were not far removed from the heavy hand of the church in politics and therefore sought to eliminate the influence.
To let it creep back in over the transom is not wise by magnitudes.

[gratuitous]

7. So, where's the line?

If someone opposes abortion, votes for candidates who espouse a similar position, and happens to be Catholic, is that religion meddling in the affairs of government? Or are only atheists allowed to oppose abortion and work for a candidate?

How about someone who, because of deeply held religious belief, thinks that the government has a role in promoting the general welfare by providing healthful, wholesome food for all of the citizens? Allowable or disallowable "meddling"? Is it only people who just think it's a good idea who get to say so? What if an entire congregation, convinced that the government should formulate its farm policy to favor individuals and families over large corporate farm concerns, participate in a postcard program to urge their local and national legislators to work in that direction? Is it okay of someone else comes up with the idea, and they're just tagging along? Or is it impermissible to do so in any way, shape or form?

Please provide an exhaustive list of permitted and non-permitted activities, detail how your list differs from current practice, and provide any justification you might have for making the change. It would really help me and my congregation out when we're "meddling" in government by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and visiting the sick and imprisoned. Because after all, some people make a LOT of money under the current political system by keeping a certain percentage of the population hungry, or homeless, or sick, or in prison. And we wouldn't want to abridge the right of heartless creeps to maximize profits by their interstate commerce, now would we?

[Wildewolfe]

8. It crosses the line when

The bishop refuses religious communion as an act of coersion applied to a legislature member of the US.

The act of Communion is Sacred and required to many and denying it is one step shy of ex-communication in the minds of many. It's frankly an act of religious blackmail.

When I was young I remember reading some stuff that people were worried about President Kennedy when he was elected because of just this type of thing. Church blackmail via either denial of sacrement or threat of excommunication if you don't do x.

[gratuitous]

11. How does that interfere with government?

Sounds like a personal matter between the communicant and his or her bishop. And what if the bishop denied communion to a parishioner on the matter of the death penalty? Or support for the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Or non-support of certain social justice measures? And is the line crossed by just the bishop or his bishoprick? The diocese only or the entire denomination? What if the bishop in the adjoining diocese would grant communion to the legislator? What if the bishop four states over would grant communion?

I'm really looking for some hard and fast rules here, so that our teeny tiny congregation doesn't get cross-wise with the oh-so-wise DU Contingent of Mindless Religion Bashers, who are apparently beyond criticism, alerting, post deletion, or banning.

[hfojvt]

6. the author of that piece admits that they don't understand the Constitution

although I am sure a few DUers will agree with him/her.

Their "vote the way I want you to or resign from Congress" is not really what the first Amendment says.

[happyslug]

9. The Author also has no understanding of the US Consitution...

The First Amendment makes NO RESTRICTIONS on religions, in fact FORBIDS such restrictions. The First is quite clearly written it forbids CONGRESS in regard to religions NOT religions in regards to Congress. Just read the amendment and you see it is a restriction on GOVERNMENT not religions.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmenti

Notice the restriction is on CONGRESS, thus the church, any church can interfere with the actions of Congress as the Church sees fit (Provided the action is within the law, i.e. a Church can NOT authorize a takeover of the Government for example).

Now the Courts have extended the first amendment to the states through the 15th amendment's due process clause (as the courts have done for most of the Bill of Rights) but in those decisions no Court ever put restrictions on a Church that was also not a restriction on other subjects of the law (i.e. Citizens).

The writer of the cited article clearly can not see that the First Amendment is NOT a two way street, Congress (and the states) can NOT put restrictions on any religion, but the religions have the right to petition and lobby Congress just like any other group or individual in the US. If the Catholic Church wants to deny Patrick Kennedy Communion for Patrick Kennedy's actions and votes in Congress nothing in the Bill of Rights bans that (In fact the "Free Exercise" clause would make such a ban unconstitutional even if past).

Now, Patrick Kennedy can ask for a Church hearing on this issue and the Catholic Church being a very bureaucratic organization must give him a hearing. The hearing will follow Canon Law since it is an internal Church action, but Patrick Kennedy can ask for a hearing AND ask for an appeal to the Curia in Rome (Who will probably sit on it rather then rule one way or another).

Lets be honest, the action of the Bishop was Political in Nature, it is the Bishop's latest effort to show he opposes Abortion. In reality it will amount to nothing (And thus the Curia will sit on any appeal) but that is internal Catholic Church politics NOT the Politics of Rhode Island.

Lets be honest, this is much ado about nothing. Patrick Kennedy will win re-election in his district no matter what the Bishop does. He can continue to attend mass if he wants to (One of the Rules behind Ex-communication is that it does NOT forbid attendance at mass just taking communion). If an appeal is taken (and I expect it will be) any such ex-communication will be stayed AND lets remember Congress sits in Washington DC and if Patrick Kennedy attends mass in DC, it is up to the DC Bishop to follow the Ex-communication by the Rhode Island Bishop or just to ignore it (i.e. Patrick could take Communion in DC even if the Ex-communication is upheld by the Bishop of Rhode Island). Again, my point this is much ado about nothing, more the Bishops showing he opposes abortion then anything that affects Patrick Kennedy, as a member of Congress or as a Catholic.

[Tippy]

13. In essence the Church is lobbying Kennedy and it's members

This form IRS web site......

Jeopardizing Tax-Exempt Status
All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
■
their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual,
■
they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests,
■
they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation,
■
they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and
■
the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
Inurement and Private Benefit Inurement to Insiders

Substantial Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). An IRC section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.
Churches and religious organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Measuring Lobbying Activity
Substantial part test. Whether a church’s or religious organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial. Churches must use the substantial part test since they are not eligible to use the expenditure test described in the next section.

[happyslug]

19. Under the IRS rules you MUST use the IRS rules for Lobbying

The key wording is as follows (As you cited yourself):

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

The IRS and the courts have long ruled that means a specific piece of legislation i.e. a proposed Abortion Statute as opposed to a general opposition to Abortion. Furthermore this is STATUTORY not CONSTITUTIONALLY Mandated rule i.e. Congress pass this statute to extend the Income Tax exemption to Churches who follows this rule NOT for any constitutionally mandated reason (And lets be honest the Rule, through amended over the years, was written in the late 1920s in response to Williams Jennings Byran's tendency to use Rural Churches to get his progressive message across to Rural Voters, who were the MAJORITY of the Population prior to 1920 when he was at his height of Power within the Democratic Party). The GOP wanted to deny the Democrats as many forums as possible and did so by extending the exemption from the Income Tax to Churches IF the Churches declined to be used as political Forums (The Democrats acted for a similar reason when they supported Prohibition in 1919, more to take away form the GOP inner city saloons which had become the backbone of the GOP in urban areas by the 1880s. People tend to forget that the vast majority of Cities prior to the Great Depression, New York City was the biggest exception, were GOP strongholds, the Democrats main support was the Rural South and West prior to the Great Depression).

Anyway, the GOP opposed Churches being used as Political Outlets (While Permitting Saloons to be so used) do more to the fact most Rural Churches backed the Democratic party (The biggest exception being the Rural North, but that like the "Solid South" reflected the results of the Civil War and manipulated by both parties for the same reason). Lets remember the HISTORY of why this was passed for what we called "Fundamentalist" were the backbone of the Democratic Party till the Great Depression, and afterward remained a major player in the Democratic Party till Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was adopted by the GOP to get Southern Voters for the GOP).

I go into the History so you understand WHY this was passed and what was the intention of Congress when it was passed as part of the IRS Code (The Code, has been re-worded but not in any fundamental except as to rates since the early 1930s). Once you understand WHY it was passed, it quickly become clear what was intended to be stopped. Churches making statements as to what the law should be was NEVER intended to be banned (Such a law would violate the First Amendment Freedom of Speech) but restrict any such speech to generalities NOT specific laws OR candidates. Nor is the intention to prevent a Church from acting within its own organization as to a politician

Now, we do have what Bishop Torbin did write to Patrick Kennedy in the form of a public Letter (Private letters seems also to have been exchanged BUT those have NOT been released):

http://www.thericatholic.com/opinion/detail.html?sub_id=2632

The Letter that started this mess (to which Patrick Kennedy responded below):
http://www.thericatholic.com/pages/healthcare.html

None of this reaches to the level of lobbying for a specific law, but is general enough to get around the prohibition.

The Latest round from the Bishop (11/29/2009):
http://www.thericatholic.com/detail.html?sub_id=2678

This was in response to an Interview Kennedy gave on 11/22/2009:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/22/kennedy.abortion/index.html?eref=onion

Further reading clearly show the Bishop has NOT ex-communicated Patrick Kennedy (for the reason I previously) but ask that Patrick Kennedy "Refrain" from Communion. i.e. Kennedy should NOT take Communion, but no Priest can refuse him any Communion (and none will for such a refusal is AUTOMATIC excommunication).

But given the above, it appears to be more the Bishop warning a parishioner then anything more. That can be viewed as lobbying, but again what is being asked? The present proposed law is NOT being lobbied for or against (For the simple reason it is NOT even an agreed bill, through something passed the house) all the Bishop was asking that no abortions be permitted under the bill. No specific bill was opposed or supported and the letters from the Bishop sounds more in Theology then lobbying (Through the difference can be minor).

Sorry about the rambling, I am at work and answering phones while researching the above. A quick read shows this whole paper needs re-written but I do not have the time so I am using it as it is. The deeper I go into the subject, the less there appear to be to it. A request that someone NOT take Communion is NOT an ORDER forbidding someone from taking Communion. The difference, as far as the Catholic Church is Concerned, is like someone saying "I have money if a I rob a bank" to becoming someone saying he robbed a bank'

[Tippy]

22. I appreciate your research....As a Catholic I do believe a Woman has the right to make

decisions regarding her body, I don't agree with abortion. I firmly believe it is between her and God. But I do feel Health Care is most important, We have people dying needlessly....I ask myself is this what God wants....Again thanks for the info...

[happyslug]

23. You hit the dilemma of both the Bishop and Patrick Kennedy

Polls have consistently shown the Vast Majority of Americans want two things:
1. No Abortions
2. Abortion to be legal

On the surface these sound contradictory, but once you see how most people look at the subject understandable. People have seen people who suffered do to an unwanted pregnancy and thus should have had an abortion, at the same time that Fetus can be viewed a person who had rights independent of its parents. Both the Bishop and Patrick Kennedy are responding to these in conflict wants of most people.

At the same time, both the Bishop and Patrick Kennedy want Health Reform and neither really liked that abortion came up in the debate for both saw it more as an effort to kill Health Care then anything to do with abortion (But then both sides had to revert to their previous stands on abortion which both sides had ignored prior to this abortion blow up).

[Tippy]

24. I'm not sure but I believe most Catholics feel the same as I do....

Policy makers can help reduce the need for abortion. By promoting the use of safe, reliable and affordable contraception, by promoting responsible sex education and provideing accurate facts guaranteeing that parents have access to information. We need health care for all, whether individuals are employed or not.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Tobin is a tin-plated hypocrite

He claims holy Righteousness when he condemns Catholics who defend GLBT citizens, yet he has no trouble going to bat for child-molesting priests.

Here's a http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2009/2009-ohio-415.pdf">legal brief from July, before his anti-gay crusade. It refers to a case going back to 2002, in which Tobin shielded and defended a pedophile priest named Robert Reidy from litigation. They also spread their poison http://www.google.com/search?&q=tobin+reidy+catholic+molester&aq=f&oq=&aqi=">in the military. And here is http://www.vindy.com/news/2002/jun/12/survey-abusers-deserve-no-mercy/">a local newspaper's blog about it.

A Google search with "http://www.google.com/search?&q=tobin+reidy+catholic+molester&aq=f&oq=&aqi=">tobin reidy catholic molester" will bring up much news of the whole affair.

Pat Kennedy, at the very least, is following Jesus' command to help the oppressed: "Whatsoever you do to the least of these, you also do to me." (Matthew 25:40)

--d!

[patrice]

12. I simply do not understand how this is possible over an issue that is NOT Dogma!

Answer: It's possible, because some people think they ARE God.

[Chemical Bill]

14. What if someone demanded the Bishop's coat...

and he neglected to give his cloak as well? Would that be grounds for punishment?

Bill

[emsimon33]

18. He needs the cloak to hide what he's doing to little boys.

[Arugula Latte]

15. I don't understand why people keep supporting churches like the Catholic Church

The Kennedy family should tell that corrupt medieval institution to take a flying leap. Problem solved.

[starroute]

16. John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1960

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/2000/09/I-Believe-In-An-America-Where-The-Separation-Of-Church-And-State-Is-Absolute.aspx

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.

[emsimon33]

17. The Catholic Church wants to end separation of church and state

and take public money for their schools when they designate them as charter schools. Great! Pay taxes! Let's tax them right out of existence. Fine by me. I am sick and tired of them dictating public policy. I am not Catholic. Stay out of my vagina!

[Lord Helmet]

20. Does he understand he's violating the requirements of the church's tax-exempt status?

He should either shut is pie hole or the church needs to start paying taxes.

[Odin2005]

21. BWAHAHAHA!!! What a moran.