Hardball?

I have never been a huge fan of the Survivors' Network of Those Abused By Priests (SNAP).  Like many organizations that started out with good intentions, SNAP now seems more interested in generating publicity for itself and its leaders than in assisting victims of priest abuse and seeking effective ways to minimize priest abuse.  However, one of their recent publicity-seeking missives got me thinking. (By the way, the comments about the story are fairly amusing and misguided).

SNAP is alleging that a lobbyist with some connection (but not an lobbyist registered by the organization) to the Wisconsin Catholic Conference put pressure on Wisconsin State Senator Jim Sullivan to oppose legisation that would extend the time window in which abuse allegations could be brought against Catholic priests (my guess it that the window would have applied to allegations of abuse by a broader group, but the target was Catholic priests).  In its statement, SNAP suggests that the lobbyist and Senator Sullivan discussed the legislator's desire to continue to receive Holly Communion.  Of course, SNAP representatives saw an implied threat to withhold Holy Communion if the legislator did not oppose the bill.

While I have grave reservations about withholding Holy Communion from individual Catholics, I feel that any Bishop must have the ability to do so within his diocese in cases where individuals publicly oppose basic Catholic theological doctrines and will not stop their public opposition.  In the case of Senator Sullivan, the issue was NOT his possible opposition to a theological doctrine of the Catholic Church.  The issue was a matter of civil and criminal judicial procedures.  So, if what SNAP implies is accurate (and that is questionable) about the Senator Sulivan situation, I would be terribly disappointed.