[Torie]

Er what are the consequences? It seems to me the consequence is a demand that Daschle comport his speech to the bishop's wishes. It is an empty exercise.

[wideawake]

A bishop has no right to tell a public personality to stop telling lies about his affiliation with the bishop's Church?

If someone started a Communist website and called it "Free Republic" would JimRob have no right to call them on their deception?

[eastsider]

Er what are the consequences?

"[A] declaration that Tom Daschle's religious identification constitutes, in technical Catholic vocabulary, a grave public scandal."

What is not OK is demanding that Daschle retract the claim. That is beyond his pay grade.

It is exactly his bishop's pay grade to say what is Catholic and what is not. In fact, it would be a deriliction of his episcopal duty if he were not to address the "grave public scandal" caused by Daschle's implying that one can be Catholic and support a pro-abortion agenda.

[Bigg Red]

It is an empty exercise.


No, it puts Daschole on the spot. The bishop certainly cannot legally force Daschole to do anything, but he has definitely made a strike in the eyes of many Catholics.