SC priest: Voted for Obama? No Eucharist for you…
Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary Catholic Church in Greenville, SC, wasn’t waiting for the bishops to figure out what they should do. He sent a letter to his parishioners telling them that if they voted for Obama (“Barack Hussein Obama,” as he makes sure to note) they should not receive communion. In his letter to his “Dear Friends in Christ,” Newman (good name) says:
Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.
Father Newman of course also notes that Obama was duly elected, and we should pray for him. But he has some pretty strong culture war rhetoric as well, about the unbridgeable gap between pro-choicers and pro-lifers:
Between these two visions of the use of lethal violence against the unborn there can be no negotiation or conciliation, and now our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president. We must also take note of the fact that this election was effectively decided by the votes of self-described (but not practicing) Catholics, the majority of whom cast their ballots for President-elect Obama.
Isolated instance? Or predictable collateral damage from the church’s war within? Either way, it seems grossly unjust if only because there is so much confusion over who can take communion, and you have individual pastors freelancing all over the place.
The original Greenville News story is here (paper of the hometown of my alma mater–not BJU), the AP version here. H/T to Michael Paulson’s “Articles of Faith.”
This is my brother’s parish. I have been to Mass there and I doubt anyone at St. Mary’s even voted for Obama!
Nmlhats: Thanks for the inside intel. Is this your brother, by chance?
“I don’t understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who’s a pro-abortion candidate,” said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. “You’re talking about the murder of innocent beings.”
That’s from the AP story. I also see that the Diocese of Charleston (which covers the entire state) is between bishops. (http://www.catholic-doc.org/) Seems like a kind of “mavericky” thing for a pastor to do to the Administrator, though Newman clearly believes the stakes are worth it.
This is another outrageous example of a badly educated prophet using casuistical categories to disastrous effect.
He writes as if the fact that material cooperation with evil makes the vote wrong –full stop. But it’s only formal cooperation with evil that’s always wrong. Even formal cooperation with evil is not always a mortal sin (depends on gravity).
In the case of voting, we’re talking about material cooperation with evil, and remote material cooperation with evil at that.
I met Fr. Newman at a conference a few years ago. We had a brief, not entirely friendly conversation, but he seemed like a sensible guy. Apparently not, at least in this case. He should be reprimanded.
Also reported today was a priest in California telling a parishoner to remove her car from the parking lot because it had a pro -Obama sticker(s).
When folks focus on one issue alone, they deserve (as I’ve said before) to be called “kooks.”
The new America issue on line today has a far different take on te new president.
I thought, as a whole, the USCCB meeting was a failure because it overemphasized one point, continued the division that leads to the kind of craziness here and doesn’t inght into the unitive joy felt by so many after the election.
I think people in general and Catholics among them are in numbers looking to move ahead, work together and promote the values they’ve seen as lost in battles over nreuralgic isues.They look for leaders who can unite, not divide, who can listen not just say, and who will not themselves be seen as hypocrites on values.
I’m sure the beat will go on here on how we respond to life isues.
Keeping life of infants in the wound as the major issue surpassing all others is still and will be a division line in the Church and, I think, impede rather than aid progress.
Keeping life of infants in the wound as the major issue surpassing all others is still and will be a division line in the Church and, I think, impede rather than aid progress.
I think you must have meant ‘womb,’ not ‘wound,’ but the implications of that error are intriguing. As for the substance of these remarks, are you saying we should stop talking about the little bastards and let them fend for themselves? Is not the “life of infants’ in the womb not a major issue surpassing all others? I thought the debate was about how to save the lives of those infants, not whether we should be attempting to do so.
Sory for the spelling error.
It is one of a number of life issues and your comment, Mark, about “the little bastards” shows the kind of one sided kookiness I was talking about and which continues to divide the Church.
Set up a straw man to say that anyone who doesn’t see your way doesn’t care.
That approach just turns off any discussion.
I can’t see how these “life issues” (abortion, stem-cell research, human cloning, IVF, euthanasia) will ever be resolved to the Catholic Church’s satisfaction through the political process (not to mention some of the other “nonnegotiable” issues such as same-sex marriage).
As long as there are differences between the two parties and their presidential candidates on these issues, it looks to me like the American bishops will believe they can tell Catholics whom to vote for and whom to vote against.
The letter from Father Newman probably goes farther than most of the bishops would take things, but unless somebody with real authority speaks out about the issue of the Church telling people how to vote, the clear impression from the American bishops is that Catholics have to vote the way the bishops tell them. This is, of course, unprecedented, at least in my lifetime.
No, Bob, what turns off any discussion is hurling terms like “kooky” at anyone who disagrees with you. I’m not asking about straw men, Bob. I’m asking about the very real “infants in the womb,” that you cited. I can understand the approach of folks like Professor Kaveny, who believe that shifting our focus to abortion reduction through non-legal means is the best way to actually do something about abortion. I cannot understand those who wish to so contextualize abortion within a long laundry list of other issues that it loses any priority at all. So, are you suggesting we purchase ‘unity’ at the expense of the unborn, Bob?
Two points. First, David’s summary and some similar media reports are not incorrect on their face, but it needs to be said clearly that Fr. Newman is explicitly not denying anyone communion on these grounds, because he admits that the situation generally lacks manifestness and possibly obstinance. Instead he is strongly asking that they voluntarily refrain from communion. I think critics of Fr. Newman will still criticize him for this, and should feel free do so, but it is important to be clear about the situation first.
Second, Prof. Kaveny is correct that some of the votes to which Fr. Newman’s rule applies were examples of remote material cooperation in evil. But that does not mean such votes could not have been gravely sinful, even in the absence of intending the evil. Fr. Newman’s position is precisely that the evil cooperated-in here was so great, in itself and in magnitude, that the cooperation was gravely evil and that this situation clearly carried no proportionate reason. You may disagree with him on those conclusions, but they cannot be ruled out in principle.
David Nickol,
You can’t see how these life issues (sneer quotes omitted) can be resolved through the political process, but I suspect you don’t feel the same way about other “life issues,” such as war, poverty and the death penalty. I’m guessing you think these issues can indeed be resolved through the political process. Am I wrong?
Matt, I haven’t seen anything saying Fr. Newman is denying communion, or has done so, though he does come close, to the point that it is almost a distinction without a difference. He wasn’t asking people to refrain from communion; he told them if they voted for Obama they should not do so. There is none of the nuance you impute to him. You and Father Newman seem to be arguing two different things here.
Back on point for a moment: Is it right and good for a pastor to go solo on these things? This seemed to be the position set out by Archbishop Burke before his assumption into the Roman empyrean. On the other hand, there is much concern on this blog, often among “conservatives” (pre-apologies” for the labels), for unity above all. This seems like the opposite of said unity.
I do think Fr. Newman is out of line.
As a possible “teaching moment”, it might be useful to compare and contrast three approaches.
From Fr. Newman’s letter: “Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law.”
From the Greenville News: “[Diocesan spokesperson Stephen] Gajdosik said that for someone to be guilty of cooperating with evil, a person would have to know what’s at stake and purposefully vote anyway for the candidate who supports legalized abortion.
From “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”, issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” (no. 34)
I submit that all three statements purport to be saying the same thing, but in fact say three different things. Very confusing!
(FWIW: I strongly support the formula from “Faithful Citizenship”)
“Is it right and good for a pastor to go solo on these things? ”
Certainly not in this case. Btw, I agree that it’s pertinent that the diocese is “between bishops”.
Otoh, there seems to be some support in this forum for Fr. Bourgeois “going solo”. So maybe it depends. (Or not).
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the parish protested by having nobody come forward for communion next Sunday. I can just picture the scene.
Mark,
You are wrong on all counts. I used quotes for “life issues” because the term has taken on a special meaning because of the way it is used in “Faithful Citizenship” (paragraph 25), and a somewhat narrower meaning because of all the discussions about how Catholics may vote. You mentioned poverty as if it were a life issue, and I would argue that it is, but it hasn’t been considered a life issue in discussions about voting.
I voted for Barack Obama, and he does not oppose the death penalty, but I do. I hope that some day the death penalty will be abolished in the United States, but I doubt that I will live to see it. There will always be disagreement about how to handle poverty, and I doubt that poverty will ever be eliminated. The American bishops, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI have all been highly critical of the war in Iraq, but there has never been a hint that Catholics should vote a certain way on the war.
So I don’t see any of these issues being resolved. But the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, human cloning, IVF, and euthanasia are issues that apparently the American bishops believe they can justifiably point to as issues that permit them to tell Catholics for whom and against whom to vote. This has never happend before, to my knowledge, but since I don’t think these issues will ever go away, it looks like from now on the bishops will feel entitled tell people how to vote based on candidates’ positions on these issues (with all other issues combined having no weight at all).
You say you understand Cathy Kaveny’s position on emphasizing other ways than criminalization to prevent abortions, but it seems clear to me the bishops demand that the primary emphasis be on overturning Roe v Wade and fighting abortion state by state. So the bishops are not merely telling people that they must vote against abortion. They’re telling them how.
I have just been arguing with some “pro-life” people who claim that criminalizing abortion is the primary goal, and preventing abortion is secondary. They have said that if they had to choose between having a smaller number of legal abortions and having a greater number of illegal abortions, they would opt for the latter, because justice demands that the law “protect” the unborn, and whether the laws actually work is not of primary importance. I can’t see how that can be called pro-life.
Otoh, there seems to be some support in this forum for Fr. Bourgeois “going solo”. So maybe it depends. (Or not).
Maybe we should lock Frs. Bourgeois and Newman in a room together and see who emerges victorius. My money in on Bourgeois, since he’s ex-military.
“You can’t see how these life issues (sneer quotes omitted) can be resolved through the political process, but I suspect you don’t feel the same way about other “life issues,” such as war, poverty and the death penalty.”
Actually, I do not think the death penalty was really an issue this year for most supporters of Obama/Biden. Based on their votes and statements, they actually have advocated for much greater expansion of the death penalty to include, in particular, non-capital murder offenses for American citizens and assassination without habeas corpus for certain non-uniformed alien combatants outside the United States. Also, I think you are confusing income distribution with poverty.
I refuse to get into protracted arguments -I do think “a long laundry list of items” is another straw man.
The import of both FC and the seamless garment approach to help appreciate the Gospel of Life is what’s crucial to teaching.
Ann Oliver’s post of 10/13 on the Bishops focus on FOCA points up the problem of spreading this Gospel and doing it convincingly.
Finally, as to “unity” your voice is far more powerful if you have a united front behind you; speaking from one side and maybe a minority side is less effective.
John Allen’s report on the meeting shows that division still exists on how to approach the agreed on issue of the unborn and how to underscore its import.
That division is even more evident in the Church, along with other issues.
The point also is that those further divisions make healing this one harder as well.
And then, there’s also the problem of credibility of leadership…
Michael Sean Winters article in the current Tablet shows how opinion pieces can be so wrong. Oh sure people voted for Obama because he is going to take the bitterness out of politics. And the environment is the vote getter. Owning a house is a moral issue? It is the economy stupid.
Not one citation in the whole article. Nice, easy work if you can get it. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/12271
Bill, not sure what you are saying, but why do youn think Winters’ analysis is wrong? It seems pretty obvious to me, and one that is supported by numerous others.
DavidG–thanks for clarifying. I think the relevant nuance is in this local story:
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130314/1001/NEWS01
The later national stories omitted this nuance, and that’s precisely why I thought it an important point to make. A statement in a sermon “You should not receive communion if” is not the same as the statement “Ministers will refuse specific people communion if.”
Again, I think the criticisms by you and others still have their force (I disagree with them, but I think you can still make the criticism) because you are arguing whether the vote can indeed be called gravely sinful. But it is important to point out what Fr. Newman is and is not doing. This is not an application of Canon 915.
I have a question about Fr. Newman’s description of “self-described (but not practicing) Catholics.” The discussion in an earlier post of David Gibson’s pointed out the difference between the network polls, which showed weekly Mass attenders as almost evenly split between McCain and Obama (50-49), and Phil Lawler’s contention that the split among weekly Mass attenders was 54/45. Does anyone know the source of Lawler’s numbers?
Why isn’t that nuance in Fr. Newman’s letter?
Grant–you will have to ask Fr. Newman. I don’t know him from Adam, but maybe he would say something like this (I am completely making this up–he did not say this): His letter talks only about what the prospective comminicant should do–it doesn’t say anything about whether ministers will deny people communion. It says the comminicant should not receive communion if he has committed grave sin, and this grave sin in particular. Standard Church teaching says that people in grave sin should not receive communion, and he was applying that teaching to this particular act. People in his parish already know that it is rare (nonexistent?) for him to deny people communion, especially publicly. It just never or almost never happens there. But he does frequently preach on the importance of not receiving communion if one is in grave sin. Of course the letter is intended to deter people who voted for Obama from receiving communion–that’s the point, because he believes they have committed grave sin and he doesn’t want to see them add sacrilege to their soul. But the letter does not suggest that he will refuse people communion. The basis for their deterrence is solely in describing what they have done as grave sin. If anyone is confused on the point they already know they can ask him, and he hopes they do because his goal is to get them to work out what he thinks is a grave problem in their lives.
Just a guess–he may respond differently. He was very forthright when the reporter asked him about it, and I suspect that is his posture at the parish too.
I hear what Matt Bowman is saying — I saw this story elsewhere first, and the link/headline said something like, “Priest denies communion to Obama voters.” My first thought was that he’d actually turned people away at the altar. So I was relieved to see he hadn’t taken it quite that far… On the other hand, the content of his letter is actually worse — more polarizing, less nuanced — than I had imagined. Not only is he distributing garbled political talking points as moral teaching; he’s making it that much more difficult for other bishops, priests and catechists to teach accurately about the significance of preparing oneself to receive Communion. Sigh.
David,
What he is saying is that these other issues trumped the economy. All the data I see is the economy was number one.
Bill, I don’t see him saying that at all. He is saying the economy trumped all, as well as the war. I think he is simply framing these issues as “moral” ones (rightly, I’d say), and that abortion is not the only moral issue out there.
“Is not the “life of infants’ in the womb not a major issue surpassing all others?”
No, and I’ve explained why I think it is arrogant beyond belief for anyone else to set my political priorities. You don’t know my life or other people’s lives and you don’t know what I and other people live with.
He also mentions immigration and health care, as well as the moral dimensions surrounding the perception that many people are losing their homes as a result of the overreaching of a greedy investor class.
BTW, no one has mentioned this, but because I have lived in the South, I wonder about the racial dimensions of this kind of statement. African Americans are not by and large Catholic, but I think the priest might have at least paid lip service to the aspirations of the significant population of African Americans living in South Carolina. Indeed, it is striking and frankly depressing that the Bishops have failed to express any kind of sympathy, empathy, or whatever with the many people who, literally, feel like their lives are falling apart and who have very little hope for their future well-being. I sort of feel like all of these people are playing the role of the non-prodigal son: but what about me? Do I not matter at all?
Gina Cattalini–I just checked with Phil Lawler, and he isn’t sure of the source of the 54-45 McCain-Obama split on weekly attenders among Catholics that he cited, but believes it may have been an early exit poll since revised. So I think the 50-49 split–essentially a dead heat–pertains.
“Posted by Claire
on November 14th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the parish protested by having nobody come forward for communion next Sunday. I can just picture the scene”.
I wonder if you have thought about what you posted? Communion is not just “a nice sort of thing. a commemorative ritual”. It is the acknowledgment of the presence of Our Savior.
I am reminded of those who suggest not contributing to a parish when they are upset with something in the Church. It sounds like trying to blackmail God.
Anon wrote:
“Is not the “life of infants’ in the womb not a major issue surpassing all others?”
“No, and I’ve explained why I think it is arrogant beyond belief for anyone else to set my political priorities. You don’t know my life or other people’s lives and you don’t know what I and other people live with”.
Is it not the reason we have a Church, so that it may set priorities? Are we not fortunate to have such a Church? To me it also seems plain common sense to give an absolute priority to stop the ongoing killing of infants in the womb. Nobody has to make babies. But once done they become a priority. During the postings in these discussions, some 4,000 have been killed.
Mr. Nickol writes [14 Nov]
“There will always be disagreement about how to handle poverty, and I doubt that poverty will ever be eliminated”.
The matter was mentioned by Our Lord:
“The poor you will always have with you” Matthew 26:11
It seems to me that the issue is not whether we can devise government programs to alleviate poverty; it is rather more personal. What does each of us do personally. We are nor out to save the souls of the poor; we are meant to save our own.
So I think the 50-49 split–essentially a dead heat–pertains.
Thanks David! I’ve seen Fr. Newman’s contention that the Catholic vote for Obama wasn’t based on “real” Catholics in other sources as well, and wondered if there was any basis for it.
italics off — sorry!
“Is it not the reason we have a Church, so that it may set priorities?”
Nope. You also hit the abortion nail on the head, too. I agree with this:
“It seems to me that the issue is not whether we can devise government programs to alleviate poverty; it is rather more personal. What does each of us do personally. We are not out to save the souls of the poor; we are meant to save our own.”
Replace “poverty” with “abortion” and your statement is just as true.
When the definitive history of the collapse of the prolife movement is written, there will need to be a chapter about the Jay Scott Newmans and Charles Chaputs that practically pushed centrist Catholics away from prolife identification. Unwittingly, they are essentially Catholics for a Free Choice ground soldiers.
Another chapter will need to focus on the delight with which prochoice Catholics seized upon every prolife misstep and unwise alliance to make the case that the prolifers were single issue zealots concerned only with fetal life and hostile to life post-birth. These prochoice Catholics sold us on their prolife hypocrisy trope. Time will tell who were the real hypocrites.
Friends in the Charlotte area tell me that Greenville is becoming heavily dominated by theocratic Christians, many of them associated with the Christian Exodus movement, whose motto is “Forsake the Empire, Seek the Kingdom!”
If you check that group’s website for the state of South Carolina at http://christianexodus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=67, you’ll find the statement, “The primary recommended area of resettlement is the State of South Carolina, especially the Upcountry outside of Greenville.”
I am not suggesting any affiliation of Father Newman with that movement. I’m noting, though, that the region is dominated by a religiosity that is, to say the least, highly politicized–and in a certain direction.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified Christian Exodus as a hate group, perhaps due to its close association in the past with the League of the South.
The following statement was released today by Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston (as posted on the diocesan website):
“This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”
Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.
The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.
We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.
I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.”
Gabriel: I was suggesting that in general a good way to protest, if you feel someone else is being mistreated, is to express your sympathy by sharing their lot even though you don’t have to. (In that case I was not entirely serious, and it was irrelevant since no one was denied communion in that parish anyway.)
The priest’s moral theology is crude — he could be enlightened by an article in this month’s Furrow by Fr Patrick Hannon.
My first thought on hearing this story was wondering about the consequences if ALL the Church’s moral teachings against grave moral evil were followed. Specifically, I also identify torture and unjust wars that kill civilians as grave moral evils. Doesn’t that prevent me from voting for Republicans (and many Democrats) until they repudiate these policies and start to hold those who tortured and killed in the name of Jesus (a torture victim himself) accountable?
I think that it’s absolutely reasonable, like Faithful Citizenship and Pope Benedict’s (at the time Cardenal Ratzinger’s) guidance indicate, to require that Catholics engage in particularly careful examination of conscience on these issues. But we really can’t vote for ANYONE without going to confession afterwords according to this priest. (Maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing, but I digress…)
I was reminded of Gaudium et Spes, where some strong abortion language comes from. Here’s the full chapter to remind us of what Catholic Social Teaching (i.e., what Jesus said in Matthew 25) can be:
27. Coming down to practical and particularly urgent consequences, this council lays stress on reverence for man; everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all His life and the means necessary to living it with dignity,(8) so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus.(9)
In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception. and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, “As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me” (Matt. 25:40).
Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.
BXVI in speaking on pastoral care of sick children, noted that care of the born as well as the unborn is “urgent” and in particular noted the deaths of so many in their earliest months and years.
He urged those with more to do more.
Here in this well off country, another report at NCR today indicates, half of our families live from paycheck to paycheck and feeding their children is becoming more and more problematic.
Hunger advocates are asking the Obama team to think about creating a “hunger czr;” given the pressing state of the issue.
Well. “the poor you alaways have with you.” but that can become an easy ideological sop for not facing as an individual or as part of society the need to put into practice the full message of the Gospel.
Gabriel, you contend that “we are meant to save our own souls.” In fact, we have already been saved. Ultimately our salvation will hang on the mercy of God, nothing more, nothing less.
You also wrote that “Communion…is the acknowledgement of the presence of Our Savior.” In fact, the assembly itself is the acknowledgement of the Lord’s presence. Communion, for lack of a better way to put it right now, symbolizes the union of the community in and under Christ. I have suggested elsewhere that maybe in light of the actions of certain U.S. hierarchs, it might be good for Catholics to refrain from eucharistic reception since the institutional church is very much fractured, not just over abortion but also over liturgy, ecclesiology, theology, etc. We’re not talkin’ simple differences of opinion on peripheral matters but, rather, substantive disagreement on fundamentals. Bishops teling the laity et al that anyone voting for Obama is jeopardizing his/her eternal soul is, indeed, “the last straw.”
As for people not contributing to their parish, I must say it all depends. Even discussion of this approach to frustration/disagreement with church authorities suggests a very real lack of communion in the Catholic Church.