I've seen several articles and posts about John Kerry and Catholicism, highlighting (1.) his taking of communion at various churches, not all of them Catholic, (2.) the Catholic hierarchy telling Kerry not to present himself for communion because of his support for abortion, and (3.) various and sundry bits on who is the "real Catholic."

To take the last one first, Catholicism is a religion determined by adherence to doctrine (time-tested, Heaven-approved), not self-determination by parishes and freelance Catholics. This aspect of Catholicism is its great strength, when matched up and compared to non-hierachical faiths who struggle with various factions and no definitive voice on doctrine (just ask the Episcopalians). It did not begin as a democracy (Jesus did not ask for a show of hands at the Last Supper) and it has not been a democracy throughout history. Nor should it begin now. "Real Catholics" are determined by adherence to doctrine. To deny that doctrine and still call yourself Catholic is akin to calling yourself a bird because you want to fly; it is to be something you cannot, and to privilege your own wishes above the institutional, doctrinal, historical Church. How egotistical can you get?

Second, the hierarchy is perfectly within its authority to decide who can and cannot receive the Eucharist, and does so all the time. I was appalled to read Cardinal McCarrick's remarks on MSNBC: "I would find it hard to use the Eucharist as a sanction," he said gently. You don't know what's in anyone's heart when they come before you. It's important that everyone know what our principles are, but you'd have to be very sure someone had a malicious intent [before denying him communion.]" Considered in its context, the Cardinal is saying the Church would have to know if Kerry's pro-abortion voting record and clear advocacy of abortion is driven by "malicious intent." Apparently, if the Senator was pro-choice and not driven by malicious intent (I guess this means abortion with a happy purpose), that would be fine with the Church?

Third, some have said that considering the priest abuse scandal, the Church should keep its mouth shut, not attempt to discipline prominent Catholics like Kerry who advertise both their liberal views and Church membership, and play the public relations game. Go along and get along. Melinda Henneberger on MSNBC says:

A few Sundays ago, Robert S. Bennett, who chaired the independent lay review board investigating the crisis, came to my parish in Georgetown to field questions about the group's final report, which found that at least 10,000 children had been abused over half a century while bishops consumed by the fear of exactly the kind of scandal they eventually created consistently protected the predators. Of course, the place was packed for that meeting, and Bennett gamely took one hot question after another on celibacy, homosexuality, the role of women in the church. Yet somehow, on Easter morning, I looked around the same space, which was once again completely filled, and saw an Easter people, singing "The Strife is O'er" like they meant it. And after all we've been through, they all looked like "real" Catholics to me.

Yet the Church has every right to regulate and police its leadership and membership. They failed in the priest abuse scandal to adequately do this, and are now beginning (and could do much more) to filter out those priests with self-destructive and socially destructive behavior. The public applauds this and wants the Church to do more, as they should. But when the Church turns to its membership and begins scrutinizing their ideas on Church doctrine, suddenly the equation changes and no one wants to be told what to think and do. On one hand the Church hierarchy was too weak in identifying malevolents, on the other they are too strong in identifying miscreants -- keep out the pedophiles, but don't tell me how to be Catholic. How can one be Catholic and not believe in Catholic doctrine? So I can be Catholic just by saying so?

Somehow it is appropriate that the Paulist Center Kerry attends in Boston was described by (of all papers) the New York Times as a kind of New Age church that describes itself as "a worship community of Christians in the Roman Catholic tradition" and that attracts people drawn to its dedication to "family religious education and social justice." Christians in the RC Tradition? What the heck does that mean? Sort of like saying we don't live in the house but just around the corner.