[Torie]

No, not at all. An order to change one's speech annoys me. If the Bishop said that Daschle's claim that he was Catholic was fraudulent in his opinion would be just fine with me (except for the selectivity bit; this should be a universal standard of reading "dissenters" out of the Church, not just done on an ad hoc basis). But he attempts to order someone who he thinks is not Catholic to stop saying he is Catholic. That has the leitmotif of hubris.

The next thing the Bishop might say is to order Torie (not Catholic or even religious at all) to stop posturing himself as a person with good moral values because he thinks protected life from a legal standpoint should begin a bit later than he does.

[GirlShortstop]

The next thing the Bishop might say is to order Torie (not Catholic or even religious at all) to stop posturing himself...

Were you a Catholic, what the Bishop had "ordered" would matter.  Since you're not, what difference should it make to you?  I am not seeing your example as pertinent.

[Terriergal]

But he attempts to order someone who he thinks is not Catholic to stop saying he is Catholic

Doesn't bother me a bit. He's not having the guy arrested. Church leaders are just as free under the first amendment to informally or formally request someone shut up and quit soiling their organization's reputation by purporting to be a member in good standing, as Daschle is to keep verbally crapping on it.

Nothing unamerican about it in the least. We sit around FR telling the democrats to do themselves and us a favor and stop spouting idiocy and making our country look bad, and it's perfectly american to do it.

[edwin hubble]

"But he attempts to order someone who he thinks is not Catholic to stop saying he is Catholic."

Actually you are mistaken here. Of course the church, or any private group, has the power to define the terms of membership and the conditions under which any individual is a member or not.

Daschle does not decide if he is a member. The private association decides his membership.

Suppose I claimed to be a member of a certain private association and showed open contempt for its beliefs.

[Desdemona]

Since you don't claim to be Catholic, unlike Daschle (it's GERMAN, not French), no bishop is going to tell you to quit claiming it.

Tommy claims it but doesn't even attend Mass (at least the Kennedeys go to Mass) let alone following the faith in all other parts of his life - as we are required to do (and are bound by our consciences to do so). Therefore, his brave bishop has told him to quit claiming it. That's all. We don't want any part of him.

[ninenot]

Leaving aside questions of selectivity...

The Bishop of a Diocese is in complete control of the adjective "Catholic" for his Diocese.

EG., in Milwaukee, a group of parents started a new, private, grade school, with a very rigorous academic curriculum and a VERY orthodox Catholic curriculum.

About 10 days after the formation was announced, the Archbishop of Milwaukee sent a letter demanding that the parents no longer use the term "Catholic" in the literature.
We got around that by using the term 'based in Catholicism.'

It is not a matter of "opinion." It is a matter of Canon Law, and this particular exercise of same goes directly to the "justice" issue.