|
In a message dated 6/14/2004 10:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it has My understanding of Marty's
question was whether it is constitutionally appropriate for the President and
the Pope to talk about what American Bishops should do concerning giving John
Kerry communion, not whether Kerry should take or be given
communion. Discussing that question (of constitutional appropriateness)
does not (cannot) force me (or anyone else) to take a position
concerning the "Kerry-communion" question. And that latter question is
precisely what Mr. Sarwal asked me: "Just so I understand, you approve of
Catholic politicians taking communion against the express wishes of their Church
and you would base your vote on it? " Nothing in my post committed me (or
would I want it to commit me) to an answer to this question. How could I, a
non-Catholic, have a good faith answer to that question?
Further the comment "[t]he
Religion Clauses simply do not impose a filter on the President's communications
with religious believers" is an answer to the question of constitutional
appropriateness not an answer to the Kerry-communion question. And it needs to
be argued for not merely asserted. However, that said, it is an
issue appropriate for the religionlaw list question. In my view, an
answer to the Kerry-communion question is not an appropriate
question for this list, nor should we be asked whether we "approve of Catholic politicians taking communion against the express wishes of their Church. " As indicated earlier, as a non-Catholic, I can have no good faith opinion on this matter. Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
