April 06, 2004

When John Kerry made his latest campaign stop at a church on Sunday , the reverend there heaped praise on the senator, calling him "the next president of the United States." Kerry, a Catholic, was attending that Sunday service in a Methodist church. It's no secret that Catholic leaders aren't happy with Kerry, but even if he was in good standing with them, politicians are barred from making campaign stops in Catholic churches. Catholic leaders are also forbidden from issuing anything even close to an endorsement of any politician unless they want to invite trouble from the IRS. Why the double standard?

Whatever the reason, this is not lost on Catholics: The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, noting another Kerry campaign stop at a St. Louis Baptist Church, wants all churches to be "campaign-free zones".

posted by de Carabas 20 years ago
  • First, This is a well researched and well written post. Second, are all places of worship tax exempt? Perhaps the churches Kerry speaks at do not have tax exempt status for whatever reason... Third, disagreement by Catholic laypeople and the clergy is nothing new. At least, in my experience as a Catholic layman, it is par for the course. Hell, I even know priests who disagree with some of the RCC's dictums. Thankfully I haven't heard anything about Kerry being nothing but a papal puppet if elected.
  • Are you kidding? If a Catholic senator is elected, it will put the Pope right in the White House! *looks at calendar* Oh, it's not 1960 any more? Never mind...
  • languagehat - the pope can't be president, he's not a natural born US citizen (or an austrian movie star / body bulder). sciurus - if disagreement between catholic laypeople and the Church™ wasn't kinda the norm these days, i don't think there'd be many people going to mass. i don't go any more, and until they start letting women be priests, allowing priests to marry (and thus have someone to molest other than their altarboys*), and lighten up on the whole homosexual thing, i doubt i'll start going again, either. (although the pope admitting that evolution was more than a theory, and apologizing for galileo, that did put him up quite a few notches in my book. for the catholic church, that's a big step.) *sarcasm, people. i know not all priests are child molesters. but there are quite a few, apparently...
  • CLF - Yeah, I'm with you there. I think the RCC is making a mistake to be so publicly unhappy with Kerry's views when it has so much work to do for itself. Refusing him a sacrament because he has well reasoned disagreements with the Church is overreacting, especially compared to the rather bland reaction the Church had directed toward the molesting priests.
  • caution live frogs: good list of reasons to stay away from Catholic churches - I'd add another couple: 1) contraception - it's a good thing 2) pre-marital sex - also a good thing 3) getting rid of the "one and only true Apostolic church" line - it would help if they acknowleged other religions ... might help stop sectarian violence especially in Northern Ireland. Get those through and I might just go back ...
  • The geeks over at The Corner are all over John Kerry for not being a good Catholic.
  • On a side note: this post from The Corner is hysterical.
    I just couldn't bring myself to read the cover story of the New York Times Magazine yesterday. It's about how Bush is poisoning the air for his corporate friends. So here's a request to Jonathan Adler or Steve Hayward: Can you go through what's wrong with the article so I--and NRO readers everywhere--don't have to read it?
    What's the matter, Ponnuru. Afraid reading the article would be something an actual journalist would do.
  • How dare the heathen defy the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist! Gods Woundikins! Does the fellow also disrespect the holy prepuce?
  • Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Quit throwin' things Malacai!
  • sciurus: Much thanks. This was my first post, so it looks like lurking on MeFi for two years has had some benefits. But I have to ask -- why has this turned into a (somewhat) Catholic-bashing thread? The issue is not Catholic theology or the child abuse scandal or the Vatican's policies, it is separation of church and state. For the way folks howl at the slightest mention of faith-based charities or Falwell being chummy with the president, I would think this would be something of concern to most people. The Crisis Magazine article I linked mentioned the ACLU makes regular complaints against Catholic churches for even the slightest hint of political content in sermons, church flyers, etc. Yet the ACLU (and everyone else, including the IRS) has remained suspiciously quiet when it comes to politicians collecting endorsements from Baptists, Methodists, Muslims and others. So why is it okay for churches, imams and non-Catholic clergy to outright endorse political candidates while Catholics are specifically forbidden from doing so? Isn't this a basic violation of the revered separation of church and state clause? It's also worth mentioning that I'm on the daily mailing list for CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). A few weeks back, CAIR issued a voter's guide, breaking down the positives and negatives (in CAIR's view) of each candidate. Not a peep has been heard from the ACLU or the IRS. From where I'm standing, this looks like blatant hypocrisy at the least, and at most outright religious discrimination. I think the underlying message is clear -- church and state must be clearly separated, except in cases where church institutions support a left-of-center ideology. Then, of course, it's not only okay to break the line between church and state, it's encouraged. That's sad.
  • why is it okay for churches, imams and non-Catholic clergy to outright endorse political candidates while Catholics are specifically forbidden from doing so? Hi, de Carabas! IANAA, so you're going to have to help me out here. I don't see anything in your posts which suggest that the IRS are singling out Catholic institutions specifically