Priest: It's a sin to vote pro-choice

"They're (priests) actually putting their personal feelings on our religion," she said. "I don't think we should be judged on the personal feelings of a priest."

If this woman is a Christian, these are her personal feelings as well. If she is pro-abortion, etc., then she only professes to be a Christian.

"If this woman is a Christian, these are her personal feelings as well. If she is pro-abortion, etc., then she only professes to be a Christian."

Yes, that's true, but she's wrong about the "personal feelings" stuff, too.

Those are the "official" teachings of the Church.

The Catholic Church likes to leave as much intellectual freedom as possible, but there are some bedrock issues on which it cannot waver...for instance, the Resurrection...and that's what we're dealing with here. A bedrock issue that every Catholic must assent to.

As we found out a couple of weeks ago, this is not the church's official position. It is not a mortal sin to vote for a politician that supports choice. The Vatican clarified this over that lawsuit that was to be filed to excommunicate Kerry. Only having an abortion and helping someone procure an abortion are mortal sins.

"However, it's awfully hard to separate "Christian faith" from a particular denomination once the floodgates are opened."

Come on, what floodgates? There was no wall, there were no gates to open until the God-haters conjured them into existence in the 60s. For most of the country's history we did just fine without those walls.

"When churches participate directly in the political process, specifically endorsing one candidate, then they have entered into a different zone."

I disagree entirely. Churches are voluntary associations of free citizens, and there is no excuse whatever for curtailing their speech. They are not agencies of the government, nor are they funded by the government. Regulating the speech of people just because they are in a church building is the most egregious insult to the First Amendment imaginable.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law (establishing an official church), or prohibiting the free exercise (of religion); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

The only bit your position does not violate is "or of the press."

"In that event, they are acting just like any other campaign source and will eventually be regulated as such."

What in the world is a "campaign source," and where does the Constitution give the Federal Government the right to "regulate" them?

Every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to assemble and discuss politics. That right is not lost by the act of entering a building designated as a church.

Every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to express his political opinions. That right is not lost because one is ordained.

"It should come as no surprise if such politically active churches lose their tax-exempt status."

Not a surprise, but an abhorrent abuse and violation of our God-given rights, as enumerated in the Constitution.

"If, on the other hand, a church limits their voice to opinions on specific issues, instead of a particular candidate, there can be no argument from the government."

The God-haters are already seeking to invoke the violence of Government to suppress just such speech, i.e. that on issues instead of a particular candidate. Articles reporting that have been posted on FR in recent days.

The "middle of the road" is just "halfway to the wrong side." Freedom of speech and religion must be inviolate.

"Voicing a strict opinion on issues of right and wrong is what churches do."

And what they are now being sued and investigated for.

"Endorsing specific candidates is what campaign contributers do."

I reiterate, every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to assemble and discuss politics, and to express his political opinions. That right is not lost by the act of entering a building designated as a church, or because one is ordained.

These efforts to suppress political speech on the grounds that it occurs in buildings designated as churches are nothing more dignified than a thinly veiled attempt to strip churchgoers of important Constitutional protections.

The sleaziest part of it is that leftist legislators, knowing they could never get away with passing a law explicitly depriving citizens of civil rights on the basis of religious affiliation, are using a renegade IRS to do their dirty work.

"As we found out a couple of weeks ago, this is not the church's official position. It is not a mortal sin to vote for a politician that supports choice. The Vatican clarified this over that lawsuit that was to be filed to excommunicate Kerry. Only having an abortion and helping someone procure an abortion are mortal sins."

I fear the Vatican's position was too nuanced to prevent misprision.

It boils down to this: when a Catholic voter is faced with a choice between a politician who is a step better than the opponent on abortion, even if he is less strongly against it than we might hope, the Catholic is not rendered unable to vote for either, but can vote for the better candidate as a step in the right direction.

In no way does the Vatican's statement allow a Catholic to support abortion, which is this woman's position.

And despite how this priest's homily was reported, I'd bet dollars to bellybutton lint that if you asked him, "Can we vote for Bush even though he supports abortion under the 3 circumstances, because he's so much better on the issue than Kerry," the priest would say, "Certainly," and that he never meant to imply otherwise.

In no way does the Vatican's statement permit a Catholic to disregard the issue of abortion in the interest of furthering other, less vital agendas. It says that *if* there were an issue of equal or greater importance, then those issues might offset or even override the issue of abortion.

In this election, however, such an issue does not exist, and it *is* a mortal sin to vote for Kerrey, just as it was to vote for Gore, and for Clinton before him.

I reiterate, every US citizen has an absolute, iron-clad Constitutional right to assemble and discuss politics, and to express his political opinions. That right is not lost by the act of entering a building designated as a church, or because one is ordained.

Everything you wrote is absolutely true. However, it doesn't address the problem of a church, not a person expressly endorsing a particular candidate. The difference is that a citizen isn't a tax-exempt institution, and a church is not a citizen.

The constitution does, absolutely protect the free speech rights of citizens. But there is no constitutional guarantee that a politically active church can remain a tax-exempt institution, while the members of that church can say whatever they like, that's guaranteed.

"Everything you wrote is absolutely true. However, it doesn't address the problem of a church, not a person expressly endorsing a particular candidate."

A church is a voluntary association of people, most of whom are usually citizens. By what argument do those people lose their right to political speech through organizations to which they belong? By what authority do they lose their right to say, "We of the Lutheran (or Baptist, or whatever) Church endorse Alan Keyes"?

"a citizen isn't a tax-exempt institution"

And since when does the tax-exempt status of churches have conditions other than that they are legitimate churches? Their tax-exempt status is not some socialist attempt to encourage them, as it is with non-religious tax-exempt groups. It flows from the First Amendment...a tax is a restriction on freedom of worship. Their tax-exempt status is constitutional, not granted at the whim of IRS reprobates.

"But there is no constitutional guarantee that a politically active church can remain a tax-exempt institution, while the members of that church can say whatever they like, that's guaranteed."

I think my last paragraph dealt adequately with that argument.