Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Remember a few weeks ago when prominent conservative legal scholar Doug Kmiec endorsed Barack Obama? In a really odd turn of events Kmiec, a devout Catholic, was denied the right to take communion by a university chaplain after the chaplain excoriated him for supporting Obama. Not that I really have any stake in who is eating who's flesh and blood as long as it isn't mine, but this strikes me as bizarre and unjustified. Even Ed Peters, an expert in church law who has long encouraged withholding communion from certain people, says Kmiec deserves an apology for this and claims that the chaplain's actions violate canon law.
Comments
As a Catholic and super bowl winning quarterback, I find this contemptible. Are members of the church who have very conservative beliefs also denied communion? The death penalty, anti-immigration sentiments, the war and the disregard for poor don't jive with the church's teachings either. Neither party's platforms fit the church's teachings perfectly, so in theory, according to this priest, almost nobody would be able to participate in communion.
Posted by: Ben Roethlisberger | May 20, 2008 9:25 AM
The death penalty, anti-immigration sentiments, the war and the disregard for poor don't jive with the church's teachings either.
Yeah really, all those people can still get stuck in torture forever for not "believing" in invisible stuff. Feel the love, dude!
Posted by: 386sx | May 20, 2008 9:34 AM
Doesn't that sort of thing seriously endanger the church's tax exempt status? Tax exempt organizations aren't supposed to make statements or act in support or opposition to particular political candidates. I'm pretty sure refusing a sacrament to someone because they support a particular candidate is acting in opposition to said candidate. I'd hope the higher church officials are rapidly reining this guy in or they'll probably be getting some sharp phone calls from the IRS.
Posted by: KevinS | May 20, 2008 9:43 AM
The denial of communion is a common practice. There is a group here that is frequently denied communion because they hold that gays (gasp!) should get married or women should be ordained as priests. Of course they wear arm bands to point this out so it makes it easy for the priest, deacon, usher to say move along.
Posted by: yoshi | May 20, 2008 9:46 AM
"at a Mass before a dinner speech to Catholic business leaders, a very angry college chaplain excoriated my Obama-heresy from the pulpit at length."
Time to challenge their tax exempt status.
Posted by: Dr X | May 20, 2008 9:47 AM
Hey, if Catholic pharmacists don't have to give out birth control pills, why should we worry about Chaplains not giving out wafers?
Besides, the Chaplain is just doing God's work. The Bible is very explicit about the evils of abortion, right? I can't remember the exact passage, but I think it is just before that section about God drowning every single person on Earth because they displeased him.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 20, 2008 9:57 AM
but I think it is just before that section about God drowning every single person on Earth because they displeased him
Do you think it's perhaps time that we suggest to God to get some therapy? It really seems to me that he/she/it has some major anger issues. These should really probably be dealt with in the presence of a professional before something terrible like a hurricane happens.
Posted by: Josh | May 20, 2008 10:17 AM
Good to see the clergy taking their responsibility seriously and not attempting to use their position of religious authority to influence politics or further their own political opinions, because that would be unethical.
Posted by: Julian | May 20, 2008 11:06 AM
Kmiec should have refused communion anyways, seeing as his chaplain is a sinner who supports John McCain, and the war in Iraq. Right?
Posted by: Michael | May 20, 2008 11:37 AM
Question: Have any of the Kennedy's been denied the Sacrament?
Didn't think so. Cue music.
BTW as an ELCA Lutheran, my view is that it is not up to me to decide who is worthy or unworthy to receive the sacrament. It is up to the individual to search their soul and determine if they can rightly receive the sacrament on that day. A have communed people I know are adulterers, alcoholics, thiefs, etc. I feel they need the sacrament just as much as the little old lady who has not even gotten so much as a speeding ticket; which BTW I have.
And the only thing I have said election-wise this year, in the role of pastor, was reminding my members a few weeks ago of the importance to vote in the Indiana primary this year. I told them I really didn't care how they voted; just that they did exercise their right to vote. Very few people in the congregation even have a clue who I supported; and those people are friends I talked to "off the record." And I didn't tell them they were evil or going to hell if they felt differently than I did.
Can I keep my tax-exempt status, please?
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 20, 2008 11:53 AM
Ummm. Didn't the American Council of Bishops say that pastors and chaplains couldn't deny communion based on political statements made by individuals?? The vote was like 200-odd to 3 IIRC. Kmiec needs to report this guy to his Bishop. Totally a violation of church policy.
Posted by: Geeno | May 20, 2008 12:21 PM
I don't think being an alcoholic should be equated with thievery although I guess in the religious mindset anything goes.
Posted by: Che-Taylor | May 20, 2008 2:18 PM
Just saying I've communed (and will continue to commune) people who are wrestling with all kinds of personal issues/demons/sins without prejudice. I certainly will not withhold communion because they vote red or blue.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 20, 2008 3:03 PM
Guess to answer your statement further; no I do not equate theivery with alcoholism personally. Alcoholism is an illness and a life-long struggle. However there are those in the religious world who would hold the same to be true. But to get back to my primary point in saying that; I do not view my job as pastor as also being one of judge.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | May 20, 2008 3:05 PM
I can't remember the exact passage, but I think it is just before that section about God drowning every single person on Earth because they displeased him.
Yeah but, to be fair, the flood story wasn't meant to be taken literally as a real historical event. It was a metaphorical type deal meant for teaching lessons and stuff.
The drowning is the common biblcal metaphor for puppies and flowers. And the every single person on Earth was the metaphor for candy canes and lollips.
And God was not displeased at all. God was really very happy joyful stuff!
Posted by: 386sx | May 20, 2008 3:09 PM
I believe that the whole notion of denying someone communion is completely insane. When Jesus first introduced the tradition at the Last Supper he offered the bread and wine freely to everyone present...which included.....wait for it......Judas.
Posted by: Cheddar | May 20, 2008 6:36 PM
I wasn't aware that there was anything in the Church's teachings about Obama, pro or con. I have a feeling that priest was way out of line. And somebody should tell him so.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | May 20, 2008 7:26 PM
"Yeah but, to be fair, the flood story wasn't meant to be taken literally as a real historical event. It was a metaphorical type deal meant for teaching lessons and stuff. "
OH BOY NO wafer for you! Is the bible god's word or not? If god perfect or not? then his word is also perfect and so the bible is perfect. therefor it is true...
time for you to go to hell!
Posted by: Kevin | May 20, 2008 8:55 PM
Sean Hannity has indisputable photographic evidence that Obama met with Judas before the NC primary. He's saving it for closer to the general election.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 20, 2008 9:26 PM
Hey, Reverend AJB:
"Question: Have any of the Kennedy's been denied the Sacrament?
Didn't think so. Cue music."
That's sardonic, right? If not, fuck you very much.
Posted by: democommie | May 20, 2008 9:54 PM
On a side note, can the New York Times sue Catholic.org for stealing their website design? It's almost indistinguishable.
Posted by: Calton Bolick | May 21, 2008 3:04 AM
That's sardonic, right? If not, fuck you very much.
You DID read the words that followed, right?
Posted by: Calton Bolick | May 21, 2008 3:06 AM
Calton Bolick:
Indeed I did--they do not in any way change the comment about the Kennedy's. If he had given equal time to Huckabee, Bush, McCain and every other KKKristian hypocrite not being denied "communion" by their respective "faiths" I would have no comment to make. If he wants to take a swipe at the Kennedy's and not qualify it, then he can take his lumps.
Posted by: democommie | May 21, 2008 7:41 AM