48 Catholic Congressmen Warn Bishops on Bigotry”
I don't even know where to begin on this one.
First of all, I suppose, is the “latent anti-Catholic prejudice” that they are afraid might be awakened by the Catholic church if they deny communion to Catholics who vote in support of “abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, or gay marriage.” While this might strike one as being a legitimate concern, we elected a Catholic President in 1960. Which was before the civil rights movement. So I think it's safe to say that taking that and the fact that denominational fissures are less important in today's society than they used to be, this is not really a major concern.
As far as it impacts on politics… the Catholic church has every right to say who can and cannot participate in the eucharist. If I were a member of, say, a libertarian club and I started publicly supporting totalitarian ideals, the club would be completely in their rights to toss me out and not let me come to their weekly libertarian picnic and yodeling contest. Or, they could simply say that i was ineligable for the yodeling contest, and allow me to show up as a lapsed libertarian. The whole freedom of association thing says that they can DO that, if they want.
The Catholic church is an organization based on the propagation of moral and religious beliefs. If their members are publicly flouting the designated moral beliefs of the organization, they are free to deny any priveledge they deem necessary as a punishment. From the religious standpoint, what they are doing by voting for all of these topics (the most important of which these days are abortion and gay marriage) is supporting sin. According to Catholic dogma, if supporting abortion is condemned as sin by the Pope, it's sin. The Church is to “admonish the undisciplined” (1 Thess. 5:3), and if anyone partakes of the eucharist “in an unworthy manner” “eats and drinks judgement to himself” (1 Cor. 11:27,29). Likewise, “Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.” (Titus 3:10-11) I do not know the official Catholic position on refusal of the eucharist, but this sounds fairly definitely in support of it to me.
As far as the interaction between politics and religion, that's covered as well. “Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” (1 Peter 2:13-14) However, blind subservience to the government is by no means demanded in situations such as in the United States, where the individual can freely participate in government, whether by voting or being elected to make laws, like these congressmen have been. “Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.” (1 Peter 2:16) [The word "bondslave" can be meant literally or figuratively, and indicates voluntary subjection to something or someone. It does NOT mean literal slavery. Just a clarification of the meaning of the original Greek term.]
Overall, I think the position of the Catholic church on this issue is actually correct. While these congressmen may be right to a minor degree about sparking anti-Catholic sentiment (most likely only in those who already dislike the Catholic church for one reason or another), the Catholic church has every right to enforce their own rules. Indeed, they would be hypocrites if they accused people for breaking the rules, and then broke their own rules by not delivering the mandated consequences.
Oh well. This is likely to not go much of anywhere, really. Unless somebody DOES decide to cause a confrontation at the alter rail. That could quickly become intense political theatre.