• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » NEWS / OPINION: Law Professor Denied Communion Because He Supports Obama

NEWS / OPINION: Law Professor Denied Communion Because He Supports Obama

June 3, 2008 by Michael Peabody

No Religious Tests for Public Office? What about Political Tests to Receive Sacraments?

Pepperdine University School of Law Professor, and former Constitutional law advisor for President Ronald Reagan, Douglas Kmiec was denied communion recently at a mass connected with a gathering of Catholic business people. The priest denounced Kmiec’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama, then refused to give Kmiec communion.

Professor Kmiec describes the situation in his article “The Politics of Apostacy” in The Catholic as follows:

Having been drawn to Senator Obama’s remarkable “love thy neighbor” style of campaigning, his express aim to transcend partisan divide, and specifically, his appreciation for faith (“secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square”), I did not expect to be clobbered by co-religionists.

On the blogs, I have been declared “self-excommunicated,” and recently 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 and then denied my receipt of communion.

National Public Radio also picked up the story and produced audio at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91087067 and Andrew Sullivan provides his take on the story at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-theocon-thr.html

The Catholic Church has distanced itself from the actions of the priest, but it raises an interesting question.  Does the Constitution only disallow religious tests for public office, or does it also disallow political tests for participating in church activities?  For years, the stock response has been that churches jeopardize their tax exempt status when they engage in this type of politicization, and from a practical standpoint, most clergy would do well to avoid engaging in political controversy.

On the other hand, there is a constitutional right of association, which by its terms is also the right to exclude. Typically, churches can exclude on theological grounds, moral grounds, and based on what people express on a number of issues, but they cannot exclude based on politics.  This is probably a good thing as the last thing America needs is for even more of its pulpits become political soapboxes.  We’ve seen enough of that this election year to last a lifetime. From situations involving Barack Obama’s pastor on the left to the actions of a local priest on the right it raises problems.  And, as Professor Kmiec points out, the response of “co-religionists” can indeed have a clobbering effect as their political ideas are powered by omnipotent faith.

But what I’m wondering is whether, from a legal standpoint, aside from jeopardizing their tax exempt status, what prevents churches from engaging in full-blown political activity?  How far can churches go under existing law? What do you think?

Filed Under: Current Events, Politics, Religion Tagged With: 2008 campaign, 501(c)(3), Audio Files, Barack Obama, Catholic, communion, Douglas Kmiec, endorsement, Michael Peabody, Pepperdine, Politics of Apostacy, Religion, religious test, Separation of Church and State, tax exempt

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Kevin James says

    June 4, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    This story clearly shows the dangers of mingling religion with politics at any level in any form. When a church refuses to minister to its own people due to political differences religion has become servant to the state and the church’s character is warped. James Madison said it best, “Religion is not in the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; a connection between them is injurious to both.”

  2. Kevin James says

    June 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

    This story clearly shows the dangers of mingling religion with politics at any level in any form. When a church refuses to minister to its own people due to political differences religion has become servant to the state and the church’s character is warped. James Madison said it best, “Religion is not in the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; a connection between them is injurious to both.”

  3. Owen Bandy says

    June 5, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Again I just have to say that the evidence shows that when a church begins to use coercive methods to enforce it’s ideology it’s most likely an indication of a lack of dependence on the Holy Spirit to take care of things that are under His jurisdiction.

  4. Owen Bandy says

    June 5, 2008 at 9:21 am

    Again I just have to say that the evidence shows that when a church begins to use coercive methods to enforce it’s ideology it’s most likely an indication of a lack of dependence on the Holy Spirit to take care of things that are under His jurisdiction.

  5. Brian Vistaunet says

    June 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Of course they can deny him mass. They are a free to do as they believe. I am also free to do as I believe and have nothing to do with a church that behaved like that.

    From a legal perspective, I think for the state to force churches steer completely clear of any politically based action would have to represent a state infringement on the church. As I see it, the responsibility of staying separate lies with the state. They must be the ones that ensure laws are not being made that infringe on personal consience.

    Now from a church perspective, I believe we must use our freedom wisely. We are to preach the gospel of Jesus, not of partisanship. Christians that know Jesus and understand his life and his ministry will vote accordingly. But when the church starts getting specific about politics, it encourages people to not use the brain that God gave them to educatte themselves on voting issues. It suggests that they should instead rely on the church to make their voting decisions for them. This is a formula for the kind of corruption we have seen over the last several years where churches start aligning themselves with policies that go directly against the teachings of Christ.

  6. Brian Vistaunet says

    June 6, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Of course they can deny him mass. They are a free to do as they believe. I am also free to do as I believe and have nothing to do with a church that behaved like that.

    From a legal perspective, I think for the state to force churches steer completely clear of any politically based action would have to represent a state infringement on the church. As I see it, the responsibility of staying separate lies with the state. They must be the ones that ensure laws are not being made that infringe on personal consience.

    Now from a church perspective, I believe we must use our freedom wisely. We are to preach the gospel of Jesus, not of partisanship. Christians that know Jesus and understand his life and his ministry will vote accordingly. But when the church starts getting specific about politics, it encourages people to not use the brain that God gave them to educatte themselves on voting issues. It suggests that they should instead rely on the church to make their voting decisions for them. This is a formula for the kind of corruption we have seen over the last several years where churches start aligning themselves with policies that go directly against the teachings of Christ.

  7. Fabian Carballo says

    July 2, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    Why am I not surprised? This happens all the time across all faiths. I am glad that revoking tax-exemption is something that can be used to level with this sort of institutional bullying of freedom of speech. But, church members of all of faiths should also scrutinize their leaders and hold their clergy accountable at all times. It is tragic when one cleric ruins the reputation of an entire body of believers because of an outlandish attempt to politicize the pulpit.

  8. Fabian Carballo says

    July 2, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Why am I not surprised? This happens all the time across all faiths. I am glad that revoking tax-exemption is something that can be used to level with this sort of institutional bullying of freedom of speech. But, church members of all of faiths should also scrutinize their leaders and hold their clergy accountable at all times. It is tragic when one cleric ruins the reputation of an entire body of believers because of an outlandish attempt to politicize the pulpit.

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

Random Quote

“Cruelty and wrong are not the greatest forces in the world. There is nothing eternal in them. Only love is eternal.”

— Elisabeth Elliot

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
0
0
0
0