Cardinal George's thoughts on the American church
Print Friendly Version| All Things Catholic by John L. Allen, Jr. | |
| Friday, Oct. 5, 2007 - Vol. 7, No. 5 | |
I was in Chicago this week, speaking on Thursday to the Illinois Catholic Health Association on "Trends in Ministry." While in town I arranged an interview with Cardinal Francis George, who marks his 10th anniversary this year at the helm of the one of the largest and wealthiest dioceses in the world. If things hold to form, George will also take over as the new president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at their fall meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12-15, becoming, in effect, the public face of the church just as America plunges into an election cycle.
That combination makes George an important figure indeed in the Catholic firmament.
Widely regarded as the deepest thinker among the American cardinals, George has had his ups and downs in Chicago over the last decade. He acquired an early reputation as "Francis the Corrector," overly given to issuing directives even on minor matters, and has faced more recent accusations of failure to act against a Chicago priest, Daniel McCormack, despite credible reports of sexual abuse. That episode was a special blow, given that George had played a leadership role in the American bishops' response to the sexual abuse crisis. Nonetheless, George has also won considerable admiration for his intellect and personal graciousness, and his battle to recover from cancer in 2006 generated wide sympathy.
Today, Fr. Andrew Greeley, a noted Chicago priest, sociologist and novelist, says his impression is that George is "enormously popular" in the city. Some of that, Greeley concedes, has to do with the simple fact of being a cardinal. Some of it, however, Greeley believes, is also attributable to George's personality - witty, comfortable with the press and the public, and just unpredictable enough to keep people on their toes. (To be fair, Greeley is not exactly an impartial observer when it comes to George; the two men are friends, and the day I had breakfast with Greeley he was taking the cardinal to the opera that afternoon.)
Highlights from my interview with George, which took place in his downtown office on Oct. 2, include:
- George called some moves by the church following the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), such as downplaying fasting and holy days, "sociologically naïve," in the sense that the loss of those practices has eroded Catholic identity;
- He argued that problems of Catholic identity plague both the Catholic right and left, with the right often accepting the faith but not the bishops, and the left sometimes willing to cut the bishops a break but in doubt about the faith;
- George said he does not foresee widespread use of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, despite Pope Benedict XVI's recent decision to permit the old Mass without authorization from local bishops. Most Catholics, he said, instinctively feel, "That's not where we are";
- George said the American bishops have asked for clarification from the Vatican as to whether the pre-Vatican II rite can be used during Holy Week, a question made acute by a controversial Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews;
- If the old rite can be used in Holy Week, George said, a more positive prayer for the Jews from the new liturgy will "probably" be substituted for the old one - though at the same time, George said, this discussion could also be an occasion to ask Jews to renounce unflattering depictions of Jesus in the Talmud;
- George frankly admitted that the bishops are "not of one mind" on the question of refusing communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians, and he doesn't expect a uniform national policy in the 2008 elections;
- For himself, George expressed great reluctance to "manipulate" worship by publicly denying communion in order to make a political point, even in the service of a good cause;
- In general, George defended recent critical notices about theologians put out by the Vatican, such as the 2004 critique of American Jesuit Fr. Roger Haight - though he candidly said that a 2001 notification on Belgian Jesuit Fr. Jacques Dupuis, who wrote on Christianity and other religions, was "not well thought out";
- George confirmed that if elected, he plans to serve as president of the American bishops, a role in which he said he will have the opportunity to "shape conversations" on the national stage.
Excerpts from our interview follow. The full text can be found in the Special Documents section of NCRonline.org: Cardinal George Interview.
* * *
NCR: In March, Cardinal Bertone gave an address to the Ethics and Finance Association in the city of Milan. Asked to express the "main objective" of Benedict's pontificate, he offered this formula: "To recover authentic Christian identity and to explain and confirm the intelligibility of the faith in the context of widespread secularism." Why the concern with identity?
Cardinal George: I think there are two sides to that. One is what John Paul II often said, that there are whole cultures that used to be shaped by the faith but that aren't shaped by the faith any longer. The culture the present Holy Father, Benedict XVI, is most concerned about is that of Western Europe and its cultural colonies, like our own country. In that particular culture, individualism is so embedded that the loss of a collective identity is rampant. Each one feels not only free but obliged to determine his or her own religious identity, so we have a plethora of understandings of what it means to be Catholic as well as what it means to be human and what it means to be anything else. It's hard to bring that all together, because the culture doesn't foster any kind of collective identity … Depending upon whether you're left or right, as we define those terms in the culture today, you have trouble with one [element of Catholic identity] or the other. The right would say, 'I accept all the faith, but I can't stand the bishop,' while on the other hand the left says, 'The faith is goofy, but my bishop's not a bad guy.'
On the subject of religious identity, sociologists Rodney Stark and William Bainbridge talk about the distinction between "high tension" and "low tension" religion, arguing that over time low tension groups tend to dissolve into secularism.
That's right. In the '60s, it was very important to show you could be American and Catholic. Whole magazines were devoted to that. There was a collective sigh of relief at the Second Vatican Council, with human freedom being so much in the forefront of the conciliar concerns, that the tension wasn't there anymore. I think some of the moves of the church in that period now seem sociologically naïve, in their long-term consequences.
What do you have in mind?
Catholicism as a distinctive way of life was defined by eating habits and fasting, and by days especially set aside that weren't part of the general secular calendar. They were reminders that the church is our mediator in our relationship to God, and can enter into the horarium [calendar] that we keep, into the foods that we eat, into all the aspects of daily life, into sexual life. Once you say that all those things can be done individually, as you choose to do penance, for example, you reduce the collective presence of the church in somebody's consciousness. At that point, the church as mediator becomes more an idea for many people. Even if they accept it, it's not a practice. So then when the church turns around and says 'You have to do this,' then resistance is there to say, 'How can you tell me that? I'm deciding on my life for myself, and you even told me I could!'
So what's the answer? Is it rebuilding a subculture?
I suppose it is, though not in a way that's divorced from the culture that we have now, which is ours - what else are we? … Ordinary lay people are to consecrate the world from within the world, as their world, not to be separate from it. If there is a subculture, it would have to be developed naturally in relationship to today's crisis, as earlier institutions were at one point. You can't go back, I think, and imagine that we're in the 19th century, just taking those solutions, good though they were then, to be ours now.
* * *
The Holy Father's recent motu proprio broadening permission for celebration of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass is one focus of identity concerns. Do you anticipate widespread use of the old Mass?
Since you have over half the presbyterate who really can't handle Latin, I don't see huge numbers. Among the others who could handle it, they made a decision after the council that they're not going to use Latin again. For them, it's a matter of principle. Therefore, 'widespread' isn't going to happen, I don't think, at least for the next several years … I haven't seen wide demand for it. Nobody's written me letters saying, 'Ah, now at last we can do this.'
Prior to the release of the motu proprio, I wrote an op/ed piece for the New York Times in which I argued that this would be one of those classic Vatican documents which, because of its symbolic importance, generates a lot of debate, but practically changes little on the ground. Does that seem right to you?
We'll see, but it made sense to me when I read it, and it still makes sense to me now. Symbolically, it is important, mostly because the pope wants to insist that there was no rupture [between the pre- and post-Vatican II periods], and it shouldn't have been treated as a rupture. The old Mass is there now, extraordinary but nonetheless present, as a kind of template to draw people into perhaps a more reverential celebration of the Eucharist. It's there, and that's helpful. On the other hand, most of the practicing Catholics I know, including those in my own family, who have always been good Mass-goers and who have nothing against the Tridentine rite, remember it and appreciate it, but they say, 'We're somewhere else now.'
A related issue with the old Missal is the Good Friday liturgy, and specifically the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Where do you think we are with that?
First of all, we have to clarify something, because there are two opinions and we've asked the Holy See to clear this up. During the Triduum [the end of Holy Week] you may not have a private Mass. So the first reaction is, well, that means you can't use the old Missal for the Triduum, so that's the end of that. Others come back and say no, that if you have a parish that is only Tridentine, then they would also have the Holy Week ceremonies from that Missal. I'm not sure that's permitted, and that's what we're asking.
If it is, would your preference be to use the language of new Missal for this prayer on Good Friday, even when people are celebrating the Tridentine rite?
If you're celebrating the 1962 Missal, that would involve changing the text of the prayer.
That can be done, yes?
Of course it can be done, and I suspect it probably will be, because the intention is to be sure that our prayers are not offensive to the Jewish people who are our ancestors in the faith. We can't possibly insult them in our liturgy … Not that any group has a veto on anybody's prayers, because you can go through Jewish texts and find material that is offensive to us. But if we're interested in keeping the dialogue strong, and we have to be, we should be very cautious about any prayer that they find insulting. 'They,' however, is a big tent. What my Jewish rabbi friend down the block finds insulting is different from what Abraham Foxman [national director of the Anti-Defamation League] finds insulting. Also, it does work both ways. Maybe this is an opening to say, 'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?'
* * *
Another arena in which these identity tensions play themselves out is the question of Catholics in public life. Are we going to see a replay in 2008 of the tensions that surrounded the issue of communion for pro-choice Catholic politicians in 2004?
It depends what the media wants to play up. The bishops are not of one mind in approaching this question, and so that division can be played upon, in which case it will be with us. There are some who would say it's a moral theology question about the conscience of the individual.
Meaning that it's their business to make the proper decision?
Yes, [this view holds] that it's our business to instruct them, it's their business to make the decision. Others would say that it's not entirely that, because there's also public scandal, and therefore the public law of the church comes in. You have a canon that says the minister of communion, not the bishop, is to determine if it's a case of public scandal, then someone is to be refused communion. But that's the minister giving communion on the spot. The bishop can either encourage that or discourage that, but in the canon itself it is first of all the minister giving communion at the time who makes that decision … the celebrant, or the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist, or the deacon, or whoever's giving communion.
To take the case of the Catholic seemingly most likely to become a major party nominee, if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican candidate and he shows up for Mass in the Archdiocese of Chicago, would you give him communion?
I don't think he's married in the church, so that's an easy one. We wouldn't even get to the question of his position on abortion.
Would you agree that both the debates over liturgy and over Catholics in public life are rooted in a push for greater clarity about what makes Catholicism distinct - in other words, Catholic identity?
Yes. It is scandalous that after so many years of the church's constant teaching that you have so many Catholic politicians for whom this is a non-issue … The question is, do you use a sacramental moment to address that, and risk politicizing the sacrament? That's my biggest concern. The very sacrament that speaks about our unity becomes the occasion for this kind of fracas and disunity. I think we should think long and hard before we allow the Eucharist to become that … The problem is instrumentalizing the Eucharist and the church, even for a good cause. Worship should never be manipulated by anybody. Worship is worship, even for a good cause. I feel strongly about that.
* * *
One more focus for identity questions is the extent to which traditional Christological doctrines can be pushed to provide space for a positive theological reading of other religions. News that the Vatican is investigating Fr. Peter Phan is the latest case in point. Many critics say that when the Vatican goes after someone like that, it freezes normal academic give-and-take. Do you think there's merit to that criticism?
It would be more credible if, before the Holy See said anything, the academic community did react with anything other than kudos to the most aberrant kind of Christologies that are presented.
To take a concrete case, the notification on [Jesuit Fr. Jacques Dupuis] came out in January 2001. Looking back, would you say it's had a positive effect on theological discussion?
I think that's an intervention that wasn't thought out well enough before it was made. I think the discussion that followed after the intervention should have taken place before the intervention was made … I think that was an unfortunate example, but I don't think it's typical. By the time the process is over, usually there is a careful reading [of the theologian's work]. The initial reaction might be too broad, but that's the purpose of bringing the author, the theologian, into the discussion, to make sure that you're not misrepresenting them.
Is there a move these days to try to handle more of these cases at the local level rather than dealing with them from Rome?
I think that's clear. Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was head of the congregation, asked that the doctrinal committees of the various bishops' conferences do their own work for cases of problematic theological works in their own countries. The present prefect is certainly following that advice, and is going to be asking more and more, 'Would you please attend to this yourself? Why should every case like this become a case for the Holy See?'
* * *
Assuming that your brother bishops elect you as president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, is it your intention to accept?
I think that if you put your name forward, obviously you have to accept if you're elected. The time to make that decision is when they ask if you'll be put on the list.
So if elected, you'll serve?
I put my name forward, so of course.
From a PR point of view, you become the face of the church in the United States.
Yes, and that's scary in a way, because symbol becomes more important than function very often. It is a symbolic post. It's a tremendous responsibility, and you can make mistakes, and that's something to be considered. But you can also shape a conversation sometimes, and say something that would be helpful.
Any particular conversation you're looking forward to shaping?
Catholic identity is a good place to start.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Since the most outspoken
Since the most outspoken protector of the Eucharist from debasement by Catholic politicians is the archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, I would like to offer the following facts for people, particularly US bishops, to consider:
- It is estimated that in 2003 there were 292 murders in Missouri, despite the fact that murder was illegal.
- By 2006, the State of Missouri had intentionally killed 66 people.*
- Despite the fact that abortion was legal, in 2003 there were 77,045 births in Missouri versus 539 legal abortions.
- In 2002, 654 infants in Missouri died from medical problems.
This posturing by Archbishop Raymond Burke debases the entire Catholic Church. He may be right to declare it to be a mortal sin to give Communion to someone who is known to be in a state of mortal sin, but who is he to declare that a politician's preferring legal abortion to illegal abortion is a mortal sin?
________________
The individuals intentionally killed by the State of Missouri, despite the fact that incarcerating them would have sufficiently protected society and despite the fact that we, as Christians, are to forgive "seventy times seven", are:
06 January 1989 George (Tiny) Mercer
18 January 1990 Gerald Smith
11 May 1990 Winford Stokes
17 May 1990 Leonard Marvin Laws
31 August 1990 George C. Gilmore
23 August 1991 Maurice Byrd
21 October 1992 Ricky Lee Grubbs
27 January 1993 Martsay Bolder
21 July 1993 Walter Junior Blair
28 July 1993 Frederick Lashley
06 October 1993 Frank Guinan
03 May 1995 Emmitt Foster
21 June 1995 Larry Griffin
26 July 1995 Robert Murray
15 November 1995 Robert Sidebottom
29 November 1995 Anthony Joe LaRette
06 December 1995 Robert O'Neal
21 February 1996 Jeffery Paul Sloan
10 April 1996 Doyle Williams
31 July 1996 Emmet Nave
07 August 1996 Thomas Battle
21 August 1996 Richard Oxford
11 December 1996 Richard Zeitvogel
29 January 1997 Eric Schneider
06 August 1997 Ralph Cecil Feltrop
13 August 1997 Donald E. Reese
20 August 1997 Andrew Six
24 September 1997 Samuel McDonald, Jr.
22 October 1997 Alan Bannister
25 February 1998 Reginald Powell
25 March 1998 Milton Griffin-El
22 April 1998 Glennon Paul Sweet
13 January 1999 Kelvin Malone
24 February 1999 James Rodden
10 March 1999 Roy Michael Roberts
14 April 1999 Roy Ramsey Jr.
28 April 1999 Ralph E. Davis
26 May 1999 Jessie Wise
16 June 1999 Bruce Kilgore
30 June 1999 Robert Walls
01 September 1999 David Leisure
22 March 2000 James Hampton
28 June 2000 Bert Hunter
30 August 2000 Gary Lee Roll
13 September 2000 George Harris
15 November 2000 James Chambers
07 February 2001 Stanley Lingar
28 March 2001 Thomas Ervin
25 April 2001 Mose Young
23 May 2001 Samuel Smith 4
11 July 2001 Jerome Mallet
03 October 2001 Michael Roberts
24 October 2001 Stephen Johns
09 January 2002 James Johnson
06 February 2002 Michael Owsley
06 March 2002 Jeffrey Tokar
10 April 2002 Paul Kreutzer
14 August 2002 Daniel Basile
20 November 2002 William Jones
05 February 2003 Kenneth Kenley
29 October 2003 John Clayton Smith
16 March 2005 Stanley Hall
27 April 2005 Donald Jones
18 May 2005 Vernon Brown
31 August 2005 Timothy Johnston
26 October 2005 Marlin Gray .
292 murders, 66 death
292 murders, 66 death penalty cases = 358 dead, legal abortions "only" 539 dead (if of course none of the mothers died from complications). Almost 200 more lives. This is posturing?
Archbishop Burke, as the title suggests is the head of the Church in St Louis (not the only diocese in Missouri), and has the authority to apply the teachings of the Church in his (arch-)diocese. The FACT is that the Church condemns abortion and all laws that attempt to legitimize it. (see Evangelium Vitae 73.) "In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".98 (Ibid, citing the Declaration on Procured Abortion
In other words, it has been established as a matter of morals (if not of faith) that Catholic politicians cannot support legal abortion in good Faith. Thus those giving the Eucharist are bound to do what these politicians refuse to do (per Canon 916), excuse them from reception of the Eucharist. (per Canon 915)
Your issue is not with me, not with Archbishop Burke, not with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who published a notice from the CDF last election), but with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
**edited to add:** BTW where do those stats come from? Certainly not the CDC, and I doubt AGI would even try to claim abortions that low. **/edit**
The abortion rate for
The abortion rate for Missouri in 2003 published by the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation defined as "the number of reported legal abortions per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44" is given as 7. It reports abortion rates for DC at 36 and New York at 30. The number of births in Missouri in 2003 came from either a State of Missouri website or a US Census website. I do not recall which.
There are a few points to be
There are a few points to be made by and through the statistics I provided, but none of them involve keeping a score.
One point is that we should stop thinking of death imposed by abortion as worse than death imposed by other means. Another point is that deaths imposed by means other than abortion, even presumably natural ones, such as medical conditions, likely provide a disincentive for bearing children in certain environments. Another point is that the deaths of sixty-six individuals can be directly attributed to politicians' votes, but there has never been a threat to deny communion to any such politician.
As to Catholic Church teaching on abortion and reception of communion. My issue is not with it, because I agree that abortion is wrong and those who have had them, done them, or taken people to have them, and have not been reconciled, should not take communion. My issue is with individuals declaring abortion to be the mortal sin of mortal sins such that anything that is presumed to contribute to it is also a mortal sin to be treated with greater severity than other sins designated as mortal sins.
Since no woman has ever attributed her choice of abortion to the opinion of a politician, or solely to the fact that it was legal, and it is only conjecture that had abortion been illegal, a woman would not have sought it out, there is no foundation to the assertion that a politician has a special culpability in abortion. The most frequently given reason for having chosen abortion is poverty. Evangelium Vitae is an opinion.
Archbishop Burke's voice emanates from a diocese in a state that has an infant mortality rate that is higher than its abortion rate. The city of St. Louis--part of Archbishop Burke's diocese and statistically the #1 most crime-ridden city in the US--likely has the highest abortion rate in that state. He clearly is not a significant moral influence locally, and he appears to be a media and political stooge nationally portraying Catholicism as a fundamentalist, coercive religion. In this, he diminishes the moral authority of Catholic teaching.
"We don't pray that for the
"We don't pray that for the sake of your self-righteous souls abortion is made illegal with no exceptions and that you be the first to experience the ordeal of being suspected murderers when someone close to you suffers the tragedy of miscarriage or stillbirth and has to prove it was not an abortion." ~ Marie
"here today,
I have been reading your comments and find them to be selectively biased, damning and extremely judgmental against others who don't think or believe as you do." ~ Butterfly
"You assume and presume, are thinking too worldly about these things, are too logical and essentially irreligious in your approach to the sacraments in this issue of abortion and on others being denied the Eucharist based on their voting record.
I see a great danger to your approach and how even your approach and discussion towards other Catholics and Christians in your posts is very divisive, does not allow for true discussion to take place because truly, you have closed your mind totally and regard all opinions that are not like your own to be wrong, immoral, hurting even the Eucharist itself." ~Butterfly
Am I the only one who gets the irony here? Because I and a few others make a stand outside the accepted 'dogma' on this site many "assume and presume" the state of our souls.
"People that are like-minded in the Church about this issue of denying Communion are politicizing not only the sacrament,..." ~Butterfly
No, the people insisting that this is about politics are politicizing the issue, those the say that it is about morality and hypocrisy are trying to follow the established standard, nothing more, nothing less.
here today, The established
here today,
The established standard presumes that people do not present themselves for Communion if they know that they are in a state of mortal sin. To argue that a politician, by virtue of his visibility and presumed influence, is in a state of mortal sin for expressing the opinion that it is the woman's "right" to choose abortion fails to defer to common sense.
If the politicians were to rephrase their position to state that it is a woman's responsibility not to choose abortion, society's responsibility to help her not to choose abortion, and the Church's responsibility to provide her with an understanding of why not to choose abortion, but not the government's responsibility to monitor her reproductive activities, would that suffice to absolve them of complicity without their having to vote to make abortion illegal?
By contrast consider that the Church teaches that using contraception is a mortal sin equivalent to abortion. Would the pharmacist/Eucharistic minister be required to deny communion to the woman whose birth control prescription he filled the day before to avoid being guilty of a mortal sin for failing to deny communion? The reasoning of Archbishop Burke tends toward the absurd.
It is Catholic teaching, as
It is Catholic teaching, as demonstrated above from Evangelium Vitae, that opposition to laws attempting to legalize abortion (or euthanasia) is demanded of every Catholic, and that we are not free to vote for those laws. Therefore, a Catholic politician who votes to keep abortion 'legal' is publicly (the bulk of the debates and the voting records are public records) in a state of mortal sin. I urge all in this conversation to take the time to read through Evangelium Vitae.
In addition to the established standard of self-examination of conscience, there is the likewise established standard of withholding communion from those publicly known to be in a state of mortal sin (please take the time to read canons 915 in addition to 916).
Since what perscriptions were filled is not a public matter, the extra-ordinary minister CANNOT refuse them the Eucharist. Nor can the priest who withheld absolution in confession refuse based on what he heard there. (And before anyone starts I know several people who came back to their faith because they were refused absolution because their parents made them go to confession.)
The reasoning of Archbishop Burke is not his own. Please take the time to read some commentary on the application of Canon 915 (such as Archbishop Burke's or Dr. Ed Peters'), the canons themselves, and Evangelium Vitae.
++++++
"Jesus teaches us to not judge..." "If you really care about Evil (that very BIG word), I recommend taking some INCONVENIENT ACTION..."
um Mrs Pot, if I could steal you away from Mr Kettle for a moment, this is Mr Mirror.
{} {} {} {} {}
Gone Tommorow
++++++
I find that it conforms as well as legal prohibitions do, as I have been saying all along it must be a two-fold approach. We cannot tolerate our society being maimed by the acceptance of the slaughter of millions of innocent children, let alone by that blood bath itself.
++++++
Dr McCoy, this is what I was responding to:
"here today,
I have been reading your comments and find them to be selectively biased, damning and extremely judgmental against others who don't think or believe as you do. You quote the scriptures selectively to justify your opinions that make it seem to look like they are based on religion, but they resemble more a political agenda and opinion than on genuine spirituality. You assume and presume, are thinking too worldly about these things, are too logical and essentially irreligious in your approach to the sacraments in this issue of abortion and on others being denied the Eucharist based on their voting record."
And yet no comment on how I should have quoted Scripture which, as I quoted, (in full context, so as to avoid any appearance of proof texting) is useful for teaching, refutation, correction,and training in righteousness. As you must have studied Scripture more than I have, can you show me where I am wrong in quoting Jesus and Paul regarding excommunication and the denial of communion? Can you show me that this is definitely not part of Judaism and Christianity from the beginning?
You must know that I am a rationalist by now. It is obvious that you have a point to make in pointing out the parable that you do ["Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.], perhaps it is that you consider me a Pharisee (and thank God that you are better than that sinner, here today...)? I know that you must be capable of more than such an obtuse attempt at ad hominem, my dear Dr. McCoy.
Should communion be denied
Should communion be denied to those who refuse to fund healthcare for children? or those who use refuse to work for an end to the hastening of global destruction?
Remember when parents
Remember when parents dedicated 18 or more years of their lives to raising male children only to have the government put them in boxes to be buried? Was anyone denied communion for their part in this, especially considering that it made abortion look merciful by comparison?
You are right that declaring people guilty of mortal sin for failing to remedy the situations that make people see abortion as a good choice gets to be ridiculous. After all, who is ultimately responsible for all this imperfection? God.
As a religious Jew and a
As a religious Jew and a scholar of Talmud I have three comments.
1. I found Cardinal George's comments about creating a religious community in a secular America interesting and I think that there are many religious Jews who would empathize with some of his comments.
2. Regarding the Talmud I think that Cardinal George makes an incorrect analogy, and what he actually said and your reporting of it differed on a substantial point. In the interview Cardinal George said, 'Would you care to look at some of the Talmudic literature's description of Jesus as a bastard, and so on, and maybe make a few changes in some of that?', yet in your description of what he said you wrote "George said, this discussion could also be an occasion to ask Jews to renounce unflattering depictions of Jesus in the Talmud". There is a big difference between making "a few changes" and renouncing something that may be found in the Talmud. The Talmud is not a liturgical text, rather it is a vast collections of legal discussions, folk tales, aphorisms, etc. In it one can find far from flattering comments about many groups of people, Jews and non-Jews included. Are these doctrinal statements? Far from it. The historical origins of many of the comments are unclear, despite many attempts to uncover them. Most, if not all, of the Talmudic statements deemed to be offensive to Christians have already been subject to censorship for hundreds of years, with that censorship sometimes coming from an external source (the Church), and sometimes "pre-emptive" internal Jewish self-censorship. I think that the equivalent would be for Jews to start asking that the writings of the Church Fathers be examined and every offensive statement to Jews removed, an act which has never to my knowledge been contemplated, and it would be intellectually dishonest, in essence trying to deny that these opinions ever existed.
3. As to offensive prayers towards Christians in Jewish liturgy, the only possible prayer which has not already been removed from the siddur (prayer book) is found in the amidah prayer. It is unclear to whom this prayer refers. A recent book focusing just on this prayer has been published, and I have yet to be able to see if it attempts to take definitive stance on the question. Until now scholars have been divided over the intended object of this prayer.
BECAUSE MY REPLY TO BRIAN'S
BECAUSE MY REPLY TO BRIAN'S POST OF OCTOBER 18 THAT FOLLOWS HAS NOT BEEN POSTED YET, I AM PROVIDING IT HERE TEMPORARILY:
Is it because these things are illegal that you do not sexually abuse children, abuse your spouse, or rape? Laws don't prevent crimes, they prevent overreactions to them. Otherwise, why not just outlaw evil and be done with it?
******************
THE FOLLOWING WAS POSTED PREVIOUSLY:
donje, kainzh, BrianJ13, here today, and others...
According to the CDC in 2001 there were 3,469,451 live births compared to 853,485 abortions in the US. That means for every birth there were .246 abortions (246 abortions per 1000 births). Clearly we "pro-abortion" people are dismal failures at promoting abortion, but do we try to find ways of punishing you because of our lack of "success"?
No, we don't. We don't pray that for the sake of your self-righteous souls abortion is made illegal with no exceptions and that you be the first to experience the ordeal of being suspected murderers when someone close to you suffers the tragedy of miscarriage or stillbirth and has to prove it was not an abortion.
No, we actually celebrate the fact that there was a reduction in abortion from 2000 to 2001 and lament your inability to see that we are not enemies of the unborn.
Card. Georgr's comment on
Card. Georgr's comment on Pre-Vatican II mass. "That the Old Mass------as a kind of template to draw people into perhaps a more REVERENTIAL celebration of the Eucharist.", is quite interresting. I find it difficult, because of the "music" of the Choir - organ - guitars etc, to concentrate and prepare myself to receive my Lord's Body and Blood and afterward to have a few moments of QUIET to meditate on the AWESOME gift I have just received. I will welcome Pre-Vatican II Mass (the "Old Mass" as per Card. George) if as he stated lead to a more REVERENTIAL reception of the Eucharist.
Geeat interview. Thank you.
Wonderful interview. I feel
Wonderful interview. I feel excited that Cardinal George will be taking a leadership role among bishops. Let's pray he gets his hands dirty like a hard working Chicago guy and builds a strong, righteous identity for our American Church.
Fr. Juan Romero Palm
Fr. Juan Romero
Palm Springs
John Allen re: Cardinal George
Good interview! I feel I came to know the Cardinal of Chicago better, and like him more. He'll make a fine leader of the Catholic Conference of Bishops, but he will certainly need our prayers.
Fr. Juan Romero
It looks like the Church
It looks like the Church might have a good pastor and leader here, so let us pray that it does.
It is good to require Catholics themselves to be responsible for their worthy reception of Communion; needed: more conscience formation on what it takes for worthily receiving Holy communion.
Politicians who publicly support abortion, never attend pro-life rallies nor write in support of pro-life issues should be excommunicated. They can not act thus and still be a member of the Body of Christ. Speaking of Catholic identity, could anything be more confusing than this?
If a Catholic politician promoted white racism he would be excommunicated. When he promotes killing the unborn it seems strange that we are uncertain about what we as Church should do. So step forward, Cardinal George. Is this a Faith issue which bishops decide by vote? What does the Head of the Body of Christ teach?
Abortion is exactly what
Abortion is exactly what John Paul II called it in Evangelium Vitae: an unspeakable act. There are no "differing opinions" on unspeakable acts. I would love to hear people say in 1840, "Well, I don't want to deny Holy Communion to those who promote the spread of slavery to the territories because we live in a democracy and each person can struggle with his or her own conscience." Please. I am not sure when it became OK to countenance evil simply because you live in a pluralistic democracy.
What is your knowledge of
What is your knowledge of the church's position on slavery in 1840? Earlier? Do you believe that we had a mind opposed to slavery throughout our history?
Bravo, Annie! I see that
Bravo, Annie! I see that your inconvenient insight has been *defenders* shield their selective belief system. Nevertheless, your astute connection is much appreciated.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our ancestors?" (Malachi 2:10)
Your comment about slavery
Your comment about slavery is a red herring. I used slavery as an example of countenancing evil simply because it is the product of a pluralistic democracy and how that would logically follow from others' arguments. The Church's positon to slavery then is peripheral to my argument.
What was your point, then?
What was your point, then? That they wouldn't have expressed themselves in those words back then?
You seem unable to grasp that people who actually do and have abortions, or do other things that some people believe are evil, are not recognizing their actions as evil. It is the rare person who chooses to do something he or she recognizes as evil.
Is it not our obligation to inform and convince rather than to prohibit?
"You seem unable to grasp
"You seem unable to grasp that people who actually do and have abortions, or do other things that some people believe are evil, are not recognizing their actions as evil. It is the rare person who chooses to do something he or she recognizes as evil."
After you wrote that, I wonder if you applied it to sexual molestation of children, spousal abuse, and rapists: Let's not outlaw what some do not consider as evil, but merely work to "educate" them. Hmmm.
I notice that this was rated
I notice that this was rated a "2" by 4 users, but I also noticed that no one answered me. So I reiterate: Please explain to me when you may or may not draw the line between 1) what evils should be outlawed, and 2) what evils should remain legal. I am fascinated to see how you could possibly parse this out.
I have a feeling that what your silence and rating implies is not that you are OK with evil, but rather that you don't believe that abortion is really an evil. If so, then at least admit it.
On drawing the Line: what
On drawing the Line: what evils should be outlawed and what evils should be 'legal'? Brian you have fallen into a fallacy of composition. But that is a trivial matter; the greater one is what I seem to see in your zealous writing about the issue of abortion as a CLEVER CONDEMNATION. By 'clever' I mean that you seem to rely on pseudo-logic and the bending of words.
Here: Evil never to be parsed. You know that. Flippancy regarding evil is a dangerous practice: it confuses and obfuscates that which we all fear. Yours is a dangerous gambit.
The issue is not whether abortion is Evil. Why not call it what it really is: a heart-breaking Sin of Refusal by a culture that denies social, political, and RELIGIOUS support to Life as Covenant. [Please don't tell me that pious condemnation twice-removed is ‘support’.] Mere words of offended ethical posture are not enough; talk is very cheap when compared to ACTUAL care.
If you really care about Evil (that very BIG word), I recommend taking some INCONVENIENT ACTION that is personally transformative, like taking a poor young mother into your OWN home and helping her raise her child FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. This is what my Mennonite friends, in fact, do. Or, with lesser risk, take in children for instruction and meals in your own neighborhood who need help WITHOUT RELYING ON A ONCE-REMOVED INSTITUTIONAL ACTOR TO 'DO SOMETHING'. This is what we, in my neighborhood, are doing.
The point, Brian, is to live into the hardship and struggle we see in the world FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF OUR OWN SOULS. Jesus teaches us to not judge because He comes for our salvation (not because He adopts a liberal agenda ...duh ... let’s not fall into that idiocy.)
The problem with zealous judgment, Brian, is that it clouds the REAL ISSUE: our own sin and our own culpability when we confront the pain of the world. We ALWAYS chose the lesser "evil" to ascribe to ourselves when we act out judgment of others.
Be careful.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Jesus said, "You are the light of the world. ... let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:15-16)
BrianJ13, here is your
BrianJ13, here is your reply:
Is it because these things are illegal that you do not sexually abuse children, abuse your spouse, or rape? Laws don't prevent crimes, they prevent overreactions to them. Otherwise, why not just outlaw evil and be done with it?
If your goal is to be right
If your goal is to be right based on principle, then please feel free to call it evil and condemn it. If you feel that it needs to change, then you need to question why it has not changed despite your pointing out the obvious.
This topic actually makes me roll my eyes because of how the emotion of people so adamantly opposed to abortion makes it impossible for them to change that which so troubles them. I have this one question that I would ask of you and anyone else who is so passionate about being right on this matter: would it satisfy you if women were to have abortions without your becoming aware of them? (you know, like in the good, old days)
Actually, I made no comment.
Actually, I made no comment. I just asked you questions about your knowledge base, and you didn't respond to those questions. Guess you were throwing out a red herring?
I do know the history of the
I do know the history of the Church on slavery. Please read my comment again and notice the *purpose* of my example.
Since when does favoring
Since when does favoring legal abortion amount to promoting killing the unborn? Does this mean that favoring legal alcohol production, sales, and consumption amounts to promoting alcoholism? Does this mean that favoring legal cigarrettes amounts to promoting smoking? Does this mean that favoring legal pornography amounts to being a pornographer?
Is it not remotely possible that favoring legal abortion means preferring that there not be underground trafficking in abortion? Is it not remotely possible that favoring legal abortion means preferring that there not be two victims from every abortion? Is it not remotely possible that favoring legal abortion means preferring that women in relationships with men who would oppress them be given the upper hand?
Preferring legal abortion does not mean preferring abortion, it means preferring it to illegal abortion and preferring it to giving a government authority that it can just as easily use to require abortion.
Quite frankly, if you live in a democracy, then there is no difference between you and the politician. If you decide to exclude the politician for preferring one approach over another in this imperfect world, then you should exclude anyone who shares that preference. Just consider, though, that while you might be in agreement with the excluders today, you could be the outcast tomorrow should you see an issue in a broader or more complex way.
Favoring legalizing, or
Favoring legalizing, or keeping legal, anything is promoting its use (but not its abuse), so I agree will all your examples but the alcohol, that favors being able to have a drink.
There are two victims to every abortion, one dead, one wounded (in soul, in mind, and too often in body). Legal abortion has not stopped women from being taken advantage of, it has made it easier, as all "evidence" can be disposed of.
++++++
Friends of OLGC
I agree with you that legal
I agree with you that legal abortion has not stopped women from being taken advantage of in individual cases, but it makes it clear that women as a group cannot be made victims of their biology. In the US, employers used to use the rationale that women, particularly married women, did not deserve opportunities and good pay because they were so likely to get pregnant and leave work. A lot has changed since that was used as the excuse for underemploying and underpaying women in this country, and even though it was not the result of large numbers of women actually choosing to end pregnancies in order to get and keep jobs, things changed because it could no longer be assumed that women would become mothers.
_________________
I should have said two deaths instead of two victims. In either case, as disgusting as it is to think of someone invading a woman's body and removing a developing baby, it is even more disgusting to think of this being done in unsanitary conditions by people who have limited medical qualifications. Beyond that, at this point, it seems far more likely that illegal trafficking in the abortion pill would become typical. In which case abortions would still happen, but our awareness of them would be reduced to the point that we might think the problem has been solved and so we would fail to address the circumstances that exist in society that cause women to see abortion as the better choice.
(I might also have said that favoring legal tobacco could be seen as favoring the development of cancer or emphysema, to make a better analogy.)
_________________
Legal anything, especially abortion, is taken as a reflection of what we as a society believe, and the reason most people want it made illegal is because they do not wish to be identified as supporting something they oppose. It's all about them and not about the problem. This is not the proper thing upon which to focus in order to end abortion.
Accusing people of supporting abortion because they do not want it made illegal alienates a lot of people who support all other anti-abortion efforts. Extorting their support for approaches with which they disagree by interfering with their practice of their faith would backfire except for the Christian virtue of these people who are being unjustly accused and assaulted by the self-righteous.
I think that overall, while
I think that overall, while the sexual revolution and its offspring (widely accepted contraception and legalized abortion) have result in more opportunities for women, they have also objectified women more than ever.
---
Would you say than that we should legalize female circumcision, after all, as disgusting as it is to think of, its even worse to think of it being done in unsanitary conditions. (This is already a problem throughout Europe, including England, so this is not a mere hypothetical question.) Since we live in a democracy we are responsible for the laws our government passes, and they are a reflection of our society. We therefore have the responsibility to end immoral laws.
You are correct that we need to seek to end the difficulties that lead women to abortion, but at the same time we can act to end legal abortion. Otherwise the blood of the innocents is on our hands.
Since it is a matter of morals on which the pope has definitively spoken, Catholics are bound to uphold the right to life of all unborn children. Catholic politicians who claim to be personally opposed to abortion whose records say otherwise are, quite frankly, hypocrites. (Why this is a major issue with Giuliani is beyond be though, he is already barred from receiving communion due to the divorce-remarriage (re-divorce - remarriage) issue.) Their practice of the faith demands that these CINO politicians ether distance themselves from the Church or from the pro-abortion money and voted they seek.
The situation with these
The situation with these politicians would be scandalous for them if they were the ones calling attention to the fact that they are Catholic and trying to use that to get votes. However, since they are not the ones doing this, it is scandalous for the Church, because the Church's teaching has become the tool of political operatives who exploit it to defeat Catholic candidates.
You write "Catholics are bound to uphold the right to life of all unborn children". This makes it seem as though the reason we should uphold the right to life of all unborn children is because the Catholic Church says so and we want to do what it says because otherwise we will not be allowed to be Catholic. This is meaningless to people who are not Catholic.
The fact of the matter is that everyone should uphold the right to life of all unborn children for higher reasons that even an atheist could postulate. Seeing it as only a Catholic issue works against anti-abortion efforts even more when it is not enough to agree that abortion is wrong and agreement on the solution is the standard for calling oneself Catholic.
The pro-abortion money contributes less to abortion than pro-war and other self-interested money that makes life so hopeless that abortion becomes an act of mercy toward the unborn and a necessity to avoid personal economic disaster.
In many cases (ie John
In many cases (ie John Kerry) they do call attention the fact that they are Catholic, and in other cases the press does, because they are public figures. Ideally, they should be denied communion quietly. The problem is that it combines two struggles, over how we view the Church and the nation.
In the case of "Catholic" public figures who are not opposed to abortion (by their deeds, I have no faith in their words) they should, if for no other reason than to avoid giving scandal and out of obedience to the Church, amend their actions. (The issue is Catholic politicians after all.)
I agree that the pro-life issue needs to be debated on other than religious terms, but this debate is not primarily about the pro-life issue, but about whether anyone should be denied communion for any reason.
---
An act of aggression (and what is more aggressive than murder) is never an act of mercy, nor is personal economy a justification for murder (although that is one more argument in common for abortion and for slavery). An evil act, no matter how justified, remains evil of itself. Yes we need to fight all these evils at once, lets tie funding for crisis pregnancy centers, hotlines and homes for battered women, financial assistance for the victims of race and incest to bills restricting abortion. It has to be both, won't you agree?
---
Despite my suspicion towards politicians, the more I hear about and from Ron Paul the more interested I am in him. He is pro-life, including anti-death penalty (not needed in America), anti-war (we really shouldn't be policing the world).
You are right that this is
You are right that this is not really about abortion, but about finding ways of excluding people from communion. If the goal is to exclude people from communion in the Catholic Church, then there is no better premise than their opinion on how to address the abortion situation.
On the other hand, if the point is to address the abortion situation, excluding people from communion in the Catholic Church is worse than useless. Let me put it this way, being told that I would not be allowed communion if I converted to Catholicism, I took it upon myself to determine whether this was the only reason that I would have found that would prevent me from becoming Catholic. Since it was not, I changed nothing in my relationship with the Church and my children's school. However, if it should happen that this particular approach to fighting abortion becomes mandatory for my Catholic family members, then I would likely withdraw my financial support and move my children to public school. If the anti-abortion antagonism under the auspices of the Catholic Church were to be even more energized after this point, I would take the money that I stopped donating and actively seek out an oppositional charity to which to donate.
People who have no love for the people who have chosen abortion will never see these people as anything but evil (i.e. murder). So long as that attitude dominates their approach to the situation, they will fail to accomplish their goal.
Having had relatives in politics and knowing other politicians as persons, I see no distinction between them and any of us. They are not dictators. John Kerry's campaign did not call attention to his being Catholic. That was definitely a Republican move.
"It is not about preventing
"It is not about preventing people from having and performing abortions, although if it is a deterrent than that is all well and good. It is about protecting them from compounding their sin, protecting Our Savior from abuse, and protecting others from being scandalized (in the theological sense, of course)."
"An evil act, no matter how justified, remains evil of itself. Yes we need to fight all these evils at once, lets tie funding for crisis pregnancy centers, hotlines and homes for battered women, financial assistance for the victims of race and incest to bills restricting abortion. It has to be both, won't you agree?"
++++++
Friends of OLGC
I believe the church has
I believe the church has objectified women AND men more than anyone. Women and men both have been reduced to their sexual function and ability to have children as the entire focus of their human sexuality. As a matter of fact, we are further objectified by our sex when it comes to the vocation of the priesthood or marriage.
Donje writes: "It is good to
Donje writes: "It is good to require Catholics themselves to be responsible for their worthy reception of Communion; needed: more conscience formation on what it takes for worthily receiving Holy communion. Politicians who publicly support abortion, never attend pro-life rallies nor write in support of pro-life issues should be excommunicated. They can not act thus and still be a member of the Body of Christ."
What about politicians that are against abortion, but are pro-War? Do you think they should worthily receive Holy Communion? Since they are for killing people already outside the womb, do you think that makes it ok to receive and not be excommunicated?
Just wondering what you really think about killing anyone in general and if you think it is justifiable to kill children and adults outside the womb?
And, do you think that people who are politicians that vote for sanctions against countries should be excommunicated too, because after all, their vote causes many people, including children, to die a premature death?
And what about people that are for the death penalty? Do you think they can worthily receive Communion and be considered the Body of Christ?
And what about politicians that vote against health care reform and prevent people from getting the medical attention they need by their policies? Should they also be excommunicated too, because after all, they are directly causing people to not get the medical care they need and are causing their early death.
How about the politicians and voters that vote for tax cuts for the wealthy, against raising the minimum wage: should they be prevented from receiving the Eucharist and/or excommunicated too? Because, after all, aren't they contributing to numerous hardships which can lead people to an early death?
How about the bishops and clerics that hid the sexual abuse from their parishoners for years and years and essentially let it go on and on for years and years? Do you think that they should be allowed to receive communion or be excommunicated too?
Just where do you stand and just where is your conscience formation from? And where do you get the idea that you can judge others using your own conscience as the sole guide to determining who else can receive or not or who belongs to the Body of Christ?!!
In the Catholic Mass we say before receiving: "Lord, I am NOT WORTHY to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." Doesn't the Mass you go to say that as well?
Your comment suggests to me that you wrongly believe that Jesus came to save the righteous, not sinners, which we all are. If you hold a position that starts saying who can and who cannot receive, who is and who is not of the Body of Christ, you are saying that you are a judge and know better than Jesus knows His own.
"What about politicians that
"What about politicians that are against abortion, but are pro-War? Do you think they should worthily receive Holy Communion? Since they are for killing people already outside the womb, do you think that makes it ok to receive and not be excommunicated?
Just wondering what you really think about killing anyone in general and if you think it is justifiable to kill children and adults outside the womb?
And, do you think that people who are politicians that vote for sanctions against countries should be excommunicated too, because after all, their vote causes many people, including children, to die a premature death?..............."
The point of these comments seems to be that since there are so many injustices in the world, why should we care about 1.2 million unborn humans being exterminated at will every year in the United States (which, unlike European countries, has no restrictions on abortion.) Our approach to injustice should be a "seamless garment," and to ignore the right of innocent unborn children to live is the most fundamental, seminal type of injustice.
Kainzh, unfortunately you
Kainzh, unfortunately you have totally missed the point. You are dodging the issue and questions at hand and then claiming some form of injustice on my part. My comment was in response to Donje’s stance to deny some politicians Communion and/or Excommunicate politicians who vote in favor of legalized abortion. It appears from your comment that you agree with Donje that only those select few politicians on the abortion issue alone should be targeted for denial of Communion and/or Church Excommunication, while other politicians who promote and put into law other deadly components that are in support of the Culture of Death are entirely overlooked and exonerated.
The logic of promoting the denial of Communion or to excommunicate on the basis of someone’s political voting record regarding the "rights of the unborn" might logically follow to warrant the same sort of "justice" for denial of Communion or Excommunication based on someone’s political voting record regarding the "rights of the born." Those rights of the born are the right to live with the basic necessities of medicine, food, shelter, and clothing, and a life without war or poverty or ignorance.
It seems to me from your comment that you are saying, why should we care about anything else but the abortion issue and should have an inadequate prerequisite of understanding. If our approach to injustice should be a “seamless garment� it seems the garment you are insisting we all wear is full of loopholes. And if our approach to injustice be the way that is for true justice for all, shouldn’t our idea of justice be a “seamless garment�?
The other point I made was that Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous. The righteous historically condemn others and judge others based on their laws, like the group who brought the prostitute to Jesus to judge under their law, but who overlook judging their own actions and laws which are sinful and full of injustices, duplicity and hypocrisy. Jesus answered them with a new judgment and a new law which reveals God’s justice, without condemning the prostitute to the death of their unjust law and by pointing out to us all that none of us is without sin.
Denial of Communion or Excommunication to a select few pertaining to their political view on abortion being legal or illegal would be an unjust law for anyone in the Church to pursue or allow based on what Jesus has revealed to us in the Gospels about God’s justice and supreme righteousness. It politicizes the sacrament and makes those who condemn others and judge others the supreme arbiter of righteousness and worthiness, like the group who brought the prostitute to Jesus to judge under their law.
To hopefully make the point clearer if it is not already, Jesus did not preach for us to become zealots to make unjust laws that were on the books illegal, or try to make us believe that was the way to our salvation. He did not defend or promote the sin of the prostitute by not having her stoned to death under the law. Nor did He defend or promote the law that made it justifiable in their way of seeing for them to kill the prostitute by preventing them or condemning them. His approach to injustice was in forgiveness and mercy. He did not come to judge at all or to make us judges or to form a Church to judge against others. He teaches us how to have and to give right judgment by His example, not to be the judges.
Very well said, butterfly.
Very well said, butterfly.
Coincidentally, I happened to be browsing the TV channels yesterday during lunch and came across EWTN during the Daily Mass homily. The priest was teaching about how Jesus is hurt when people abuse the Eucharist. He stated plainly, without even alluding to any possibility of nuance, that Catholic politicians should not get communion. Now, probably in his own mind he was thinking of politicians who do or don't vote certain ways, but he did not qualify it. It would be an interesting development, would it not, if all of a sudden the "Catholic politician" were judged unworthy just because he engages in politics?
1. Why do you think people
1. Why do you think people do not have abortions even though it is legal for them to do so?
2. Do you think preventing Catholic people from receiving communion based on their opinion about how to stop abortion does something to stop people who actually have and do abortions from having and doing them?
3. Where do you get 1.2 million?
It is not about preventing
It is not about preventing people from having and performing abortions, although if it is a deterrent than that is all well and good. It is about protecting them from compounding their sin, protecting Our Savior from abuse, and protecting others from being scandalized (in the theological sense, of course).
Excommunication was taught by the Apostles, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." (I Cor 5:11).
Likewise the care not to receive unworthily: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1Cor 11,27-29)
[This comment belongs under this one above.
What a fascinating exchange
What a fascinating exchange on this thread! Well, the difficulty with ethical issues that become litmus tests for righteousness is two fold:
1/ the struggle to comprehend God's justice is subordinated to an undeserved and dangerous role of Judge, wherein the judgers both presume the wisdom of God and forget the purpose of God's Justice which is NOT to condemn but to save; and
2/ the self-assumed Role of Judge becomes a pretext for faithfulness when it is, in fact, the opposite of faith and mere presumption.
Somewhat different from the usual plea for toleration within the community of faith that is Christ's Body, my response to those who claim judgment for themselves (... in defense of the Faith; ... in the zeal to confront evil;… in the fear of colluding with an unrighteous world ...), is a warning. Lest you fall into a greater sin than that which you condemn, do not appoint yourself as Judge.
Remember the many similar warnings within scripture. For example, in Matthew's wonderful 12th chapter we hear Jesus responding to those who are confused and want a LEGAL sign (this is for you, Brian):
"38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.’ 39But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For just as Jonah was for three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. 41The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! 42The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here! " (and also consider Luke 11:31)
We have the sign of Judgment in Jesus and it is the sign of RESERVED judgment: judgment is reserved for the SON. We hear over and over again, "Do NOT judge ..." (Lk 6:37; Mt 7:1;John 7:24)
Of all Jesus' warnings against possession, is it not the possession of Judgment that He is most concerned about? Judgment is RESERVED FOR GOD Who is merciful and compassionate.
What doctrine has replaced this simple scriptural lesson?
Be careful. Just because you think you have an unassailable right in the defense of "the unborn" - and for many this is just a rhetorical idea. How many of you who judge actually have confronted the agony of such a choice? How many of you suffer in the agony of an unfulfilled possibility of Life?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
Jesus said, "You are the light of the world. ... let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:15-16)