The Candy Man Can

Hey Candy Man, it's great to hear from you again. Thanks for your terrific post from earlier today, Doug, Jesus and Me. It sets a really positive interfaith tone, and I think helps set the stage for our interfaith dialogue/diablog, one in which our readers are invited to join in on.

It is New Year's Eve, and as we prepare to turn the corner to 2009 I don't have a lot of time tonight to write a full response to your post and share all of the things I've been thinking of regarding our diablog, re: the path to common ground over Jesus for Jews and Christians. However, I did want to address one aspect of all of this, that being my own interest in the subject. I am not a particularly religious person these days, but while I may not be a doctrinaire or regularly practicing Catholic, Jesus as a teacher and religious leader is very important to me. He is, in the words of Thich Naht Hahn, an "ultimate door" to knowledge of God and of the self. My desire find a way for Jews and Christians to be able to talk to one another about Jesus is not inspired by any need on my part to proselytize or convert. Quite the contrary! It simply has to do with my true belief that Jesus was a remarkable person, a dynamic teacher, and that there is much about him that could and should be re-examined, not only by Jews but by his very followers as well. I think that this endeavor has the real potential to completely transform the dynamic that has served to separate, oftentimes violently, Christians and Jews for over a thousand years.

As I said, I plan to post a lengthier response to Candy Man and his comments. I'm very excited about where our diablog will take us. We both have a great deal to learn from each other, and anyhow, it is always great to find a kindred spirit as you journey along life's highway. For now, I'll close by quoting the Preface of a fantastic and highly topical historical novel, When Jesus Became God. Written by George Mason University professor Richard Rubenstein, this book dramatizes the First Council of Nicea (325 CE), at which the Church first formally enunciated the official Church teaching on the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and his co-equal status with God (Nicene Creed). Just consider that for a moment before you being reading: The Church had not officially declared Jesus to be one with God until 300 years after his crucifixion! I agree with Prof. Rubenstein: this is highly significant, vis-à-vis Jewish-Christian relations. I do not think it is even something that most Jews or Christians are even aware of. At any rate, the following passage reflects in no small part my own thoughts and feelings on the subject of Jesus as an interfaith bridge builder. So, enough of my yakkin'...

I told Fr. Joe that my interest (in studying about the Arian controversy) was in exploring the sources of religious conflict and the methods people have used to resolve it. I wanted to examine a dispute familiar enough to westerners to involve them deeply, but distant enough to permit some detached reflection. The Arian controversy, which was probably the most serious struggle between Christians before the Protestant Reformation, seemed to fit the bill perfectly...

Joe nodded, but he knew my account was incomplete. "And?"

"And there's something else," I responded with some hesitation. "I am a Jew born and raised in a Christian country. Jesus has been a part of my mental world since I was old enough to think. On the one hand, I have always found him an enormously attractive figure, challenging and inspiring. On the other... When I was little, growing up in a mixed Jewish-Catholic neighborhood, most of my playmates were Italian-American boys. They were friends, but I learned to stay in my own house on Good Friday, since after hearing the sermon at St. Joseph's Church, some of them would come looking for me to punish me for killing Christ. Once they caught me out on the street and knocked me down. 'But Jesus was a Jew!' I shouted through my tears. That idea, which they had never contemplated, infuriated them. It earned me a few extra kicks and punches."

Joe looked sorrowful, and I hastened to explain. "That's one side of the story. Sometimes it seems that Jesus has meant nothing but trouble for us. But the other side is that he can't be ignored. I don't worship Jesus, who - I'm sorry, Joe - I believe to have been a man, not God's Son. But what a man! I think that if his followers hadn't caused us so much trouble, we would consider him at least a tzaddik, a great sage. Perhaps even a prophet."

"I want to write about this controversy because it tells us so much about where we come from and what divides us. The story may even suggest how violent divisions can be healed. And, somehow, I believe that the figure of Jesus will play an important role in that healing. I think his life teaches us what it really means to be members of the human family."

Happy New Year! Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome, by Dr. Richard E. Rubenstein (Amazon.com)

Jesus in Jewish-Christian-Muslim Dialogue (The Institute of Interfaith Dialog)

In Praise of Christian-Jewish Interfaith Dialogue (JewsOnFirst.org)

Healing the Jewish-Christian Rift: Growing Beyond Our Wounded History, by Ron Miller and Laura Bernstein (Jewish Lights Publishing)

Merry Christmas

Ho, ho, ho and Merry Christmas to one and all. Unkosher Jesus is busy decking the halls with his wife and in-laws, so I'll save any commentary on the season for another post. For now I'll just say enjoy the holiday, whether you actually celebrate Christmas, or if you still get the day off from work while not actually celebrating the holiday. Whatever your faith, I'm sure you can enjoy the following offering from the one and only Beatles doing a really sharp cover of Rocking Around The Christmas Tree...



MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Pope Makes Totally Gay Analogy Between Gays, Trees

Oh. My. GOD! Pope Benedict XVI, did you really say this today? With a straight (Ha ha, get it? Straight!) face??

The Church should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed. The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less.

Um, uh, where to start, where to start?... Is the pope implying that homosexuals are being harvested so that there is more and more land available to grow soy beans which are then processed and fed to the birds that eventually become McDonald's Chicken McNuggets? Or that homosexuals, like lush rain forest fauna, help regulate CO2 emissions and serve as a buffer against global warming?

Or, has the pope actually, simply lost his mind? I pose this question in light of his comments today, as well as in the broader context of Catholic Church priorities that have been brought to the fore under his papacy, including...

• More exorcisms,
• The return of the Latin Mass,
• No abortions ANYWHERE! EVER!, and
  
• Dismissing the need for and the usefulness of interfaith dialogue,
  

...to name a few.

The pope went on to say that we need to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. Apparently, the Church views the intended roles of man and woman is to be available to have sex with each other and make little Catholic babies, the little ones without whom there is no other conceivable (ha ha, get it? Conceivable!) reason to have sex, The End.

Oh, Lord, this is just embarrassing. Honestly, the science exists demonstrating that whatever the cause of any person's homosexual orientation may be, it is a natural state of being and is not an elective choice. Jesus himself says nothing- NOTHING- about the subject of homosexuality anywhere in any of the four canonical gospels. Maybe the pope and his Church need to stop and listen more carefully to what Nature is saying about the intended roles of man and woman. If he clears his mind of all of his preconceived notions about what homosexuality is, he might hear Nature calling all people to live in peace, to support equality and justice, and to make room for the wide range of human possibilities that Nature Herself provides for. As such, he might also hear the voices of homosexual members of his own Church, voices that are as filled with the pain caused by the Church's position on homosexuality as with the hope for inclusion as full members of the Church just as they are, just as God made them. Stop this preoccupation with sex and sexual orientation, put an end to the need for special ministries for homosexual Church members, and minister to them as people who have the same spiritual needs as all other people and allow them to enjoy equal standing as Church members among their straight brothers and sisters.

Gay Catholic Youth Forum, Clip 1 of 10 (World Youth Day 2008, Sydney, Australia)


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Is The Pope a Homophobe?, by Damian Thompson (Spectator.co.uk, October 1, 2005)

What the bible says and means about homosexuality (ReligiousTolerance.org, December 13, 2007)

Dignity USA

Gay Catholic Forum

Gay Catholics Implore Pope to Listen and Love, by Jonathan Rubin, Religion News Service (The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, April 10, 2008)

Human Rights Campaign

Rabbi Jesus

I was sitting in a discussion circle at the DC Jewish Community Center over a year ago. The event was a reunion of sorts. Couples who had participated in the JCC's interfaith couples course were invited to come back and share their experiences, to check in and discuss how things were working. The discussion was going pretty well, but I detected a pause when I made a comment about how I hoped that continued interfaith dialogue between Christians and Jews could make it possible to openly discuss Jesus as a person and a teacher without consternation or discomfort on anyone's part, Christian or Jew.

I should mention that the JCC does not support interfaith arrangements like the one I have with my wife, and prefer that if someone who is Jewish marries a non-Jewish partner, that the household still be solely Jewish with regard to religious observance. In that sense, perhaps it was wildly optimistic of me to make that comment it that particular setting and expect that the others would be enthusiastic about discussing it further.

Be that as it may, it was still a disappointing moment for me. As I've written previously, it is a source of sadness and frustration for me that Jesus serves as a confounding rather than a unifying figure for Jews and Christians. And so I was excited to read a post published by fellow blogger Lubab No More, and guest-written by Candy Man, called A Rabbi Named Jesus. It's a great post with some important insights as to the identity and message of Jesus from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. For example, Candy Man cites Jesus' inclination to sit at table with anyone with whose company he chose to share. This inevitably meant breaking bread with tax collectors, prostitutes, and the like, as a means to bringing his ministry directly to those most in need of it, a habit that ensured that Jesus would inevitably, regularly violate Torah codes regulating ritual purity. Candy Man's reference to Jesus' eating habits reminded me of the illustration seen above. It's simply entitled The Lord's Supper, and was sketched for The Catholic Worker newspaper by Fritz Eichenberger during the mid-20th Century. A priest I knew in college used to affectionately refer to this illustration as The Last Supper With Bums. I say affectionately because he was not making a joke about the illustration or being derisive towards the homeless. He was making the same basic point as Candy Man: Jesus was a man who saw as more important the need to be present to others and treat them humanely and compassionately than the need to keep ritually clean by avoiding sinners.

Who was Jesus? I think that there is enough historic evidence to show that he was a rabbi, for starters. I've also heard him described as a religious genius. Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong describes Jesus as "a person of history in whom and through whom Jewish people believed that they had experienced the presence of the holy God." Candy Man commented that Jesus saw himself as a teacher within mainstream Judaism who did not seek to establish a new religion, and sought to fulfill the Torah commandments. I would simply add that while I agree with this, I also agree with Bishop Spong's assessment of Jesus' ministry as one of spiritual liberation for all people, Jew and Gentile alike. As Spong writes in his most recent book, Jesus For the Non-Religious, "When I look at this Jesus, I no longer see God in human form. I rather look at Jesus and see a humanity open to all that God is- open to life, open to love and open to being. So the first barrier, which limits humanity with tribal identity, is broken open and in the process Jesus breaks out of the prison of tribal religion. It is the profoundly human Jesus that enables us to step beyond the tribal limits that so deeply impede our humanity."

This is all to say that I am grateful to Candy Man for posting his thoughts about Jesus. I look forward to promoting a dialogue (diablog?) that helps transform Jesus from a dividing figure between Christians and Jews to one who can unite us. So, Candy Man, let's spread peace via the Internet, as you say, and get this dialogue started.

I'll end tonight's post with the following reflection on Jesus that was written by Abram Leon Sachar, a Jewish-American scholar, the first president of Brandeis University, and the author of A History of the Jews, in which the following passage was published:

"It was a tragedy for Jesus that historic circumstances conspired to make some of the leaders of his people intolerant of his ethical teachings. A revival of the militant prophetic liberalism was sorely needed to revitalize the Judaism of his day. Perhaps if Messianic claims had not been intertwined with his teachings, his own and later generations would have taken him to heart and given him a deserved place among the noblest of the Jewish prophets.

"But a greater tragedy was his acceptance by the Greek Fathers who took his name and made it the sanction for a new theology. The Roman world was indeed made better for the conquering faith which it adopted, but Jesus was not honored by the adulteration of his teachings. Through the thick cloud of religious incense, offered by the piety of countless generations, it is difficult to recognize the magnetic teacher of Galilee, who preached a gospel of love in an era filled with hate, whose simple humanity was a solace to those who lived in darkness."

Jesus Christ Superstar



- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Reclaiming Jesus- The Jewish Standard, 12.09.2005

From Jesus to Christ: He was born, lived, and died as a Jew (Frontline, PBS.org)

Bishop John Shelby Spong Preacher and Teacher Bio Page (BeliefNet.com)

Jewish Voices About Jesus (Jewish-Christian Relations.net)

The Catholic Worker

Jesus Was a Jewish Liberal magnet (AllPosters.com)

What Wouldn't Jesus Do? t-shirt (BustedTees.com)

Unkosher Jesus-dot-net

Hey Readers,

Happy Holidays to y'all out there. I hope that the winter months are treating you well, even as financial instability mounts across the globe, &tc.

As usual, there is no shortage of religious/political/cultural topics to comment on this weekend. However, this post is not intended to address anything particularly pressing, but something much more mundane. Namely, I somehow let my subscription to the domain name www.unkosherjesus.com lapse, and it is since been usurped by an online kosher food retailer. So, the new address for the blog is now www.unkosherjesus.net. My New Year's resolution is to pay an equal amount of attention to the technical maintenance of this site as the actual content. Thanks for reading!

Shalom,

Unkosher Jesus

Mormon Baptism of the Dead Is Fatally Flawed Salvation Strategy

As if the bad PR related to its direct support of California's Proposition 8 isn't enough trouble, the Mormon Church has also found itself defending its actions with regard to deceased Holocaust victims. It seems that church members have been posthumously baptizing non-Mormons by proxy, including victims of the Nazi Holocaust. This in spite of the fact that the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) signed an agreement with a consortium of Jewish groups in May 1995 agreeing to cease this practice with regard to Holocaust victims unless the surviving family members provided consent.

In publicly denouncing this betrayal of what was thought to be a good-faith agreement, Ernest Michel, honorary chair of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors stated, "We ask you (Church of LDS) to respect us and our Judaism just as we respect your religion, We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough." In response, Church of LDS elder Lance B. Wickman casually brushed aside Jewish concerns, ignored his own Church's violation of an agreement that it had signed, and stated, "We don't think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines. If our work for the dead is properly understood ... it should not be a source of friction to anyone. It's merely a freewill offering."

Well, chutzpah may be a Jewish (specifically Yiddish) term for audacity, but it more than certainly applies to Mr. Wickman and his fellow Church of LDS adherents. First of all, no one from Mr. Michel's organization is asking the Church of LDS to "changes its doctrines." As Mr. Wickman's grasp of English appears to be as shaky as his ability to honor signed agreements, let me kindly point out to him that a "doctrine" is something that is taught, whereas a "practice" is an act that is carried out customarily. It is the PRACTICE of Baptism of the Dead that is offending Jews and others.

As for Wickman's comment that Jews who are offended by this practice are at fault for not receiving it in the generous spirit in which it is offered, well, that is just bullshit. The intention clearly doesn't matter here. Various Jewish groups made it clear to the Church of LDS thirteen years ago that they do not wish for the Church to continue the practice of baptizing deceased Jews, and the Church of LDS signed an agreement stating that the practice would indeed cease. Who cares what the intention is when LDS is in clear violation of this agreement?

The Church of LDS has been furtively baptizing deceased Jews, among other deceased non-Mormons, for years. This practice is grounded in a selective reading of Paul (1 Corinthians, Ch. 15, v. 29), a passage that the Mormon Church is apparently exploiting to swell its numbers. Why? Because the constellation of Christian churches do not view Mormonism as a legitimate expression of Christianity. It's possible that the increased numbers gained through proxy baptisms for the dead are a way of demonstrating that there is wider acceptance of Mormon theology than actually exists.

In reading about this topic, I found one Jewish writer whose family has been directly affected by this very issue. Manya Brachear writes a religion blog for the Chicago Tribune called "The Seeker", and in her November 11 entry she describes how her Jewish great-uncle had converted to Mormonism and had arranged for her great-grandfather, a devout and observant Jew, to be posthumously baptized in the Mormon faith. She reflects upon how religion had served as an agent of separation and division in her family's past, and decides to accept this gesture in the spirit in which it was intended.

"We have the freedom to choose whether religion will unite us or divide us. In the past, my family chose to let it divide. Faced with this revelation, I now realize how torn they must have been. Still, I choose to learn from that mistake and appreciate my cousins' gesture."

I'm of two minds on this one. One the one hand, I applaud her reaction from an interfaith perspective. As a member of an interfaith marriage, I have great appreciation for any attempts made to maintain family ties and allowing room for different expression of religious faith. Further, I appreciate the particular difficulties inherent in such a choice for a member of the Jewish faith.

On the other hand, she is speaking in the context of her own family, where certain members actually belong to the Mormon Church and who did not hide their actions. This is not the case with regard to thousands of other Holocaust victims whom Church of LDS baptized in secret without the permission of their surviving family members.

From almost any perspective, and certainly from the perspective of constructive interfaith dialogue and relations, the Mormon practice of Baptism of the Dead is insensitive, invasive, and quite plainly, odd. The recent response on the part of Church leaders to the protests of Jewish leaders has been arrogant and condescending. This practice blithely disregards the painful history of the forced conversion of Jews by Christians throughout the centuries. It also perverts the doctrine of free will, which presumes that each person is free to make his or her own choices on the condition that they must also live with the consequences. It is preposterous to even suggest that someone who is deceased can still concern himself or herself with the question of whether or not to be baptized here on earth. Whatever choices we make in this life having to do with our religious faith is a deeply personal matter that is between each individual, his or her God, and any other people that this decision is shared with. Under this formulation, the Mormon Church is the missing participant for any such deliberation that does not involve someone's embracing the Mormon faith.

My message to the members of the Mormon Church: keep your hands off the dead, and concern yourselves with the living. Oh, wait. On second thought...

- Doug L.

Yad Vashem: The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Shoah group halts talks with Mormons on posthumous baptisms of Jews, by Ben Harris (The Jewish Journal, November 19, 2008)

Mormons, Jews Contend for Souls of Dead, by David Waters (WashingtonPost.com, On Faith, November 11, 2008)

Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews (CNN.com, November 11, 2008)

Vatican Warns of Mormon 'Baptism of the Dead' (Catholic.org, May 3, 2008)

Pope Questions Interfaith Dialogue, Favors Interfaith Monologue

Pope Benedict the XVI is on a roll, but more in the way that a broken record is than a body which is picking up momentum. Since ascending to the Papacy in April of 2005, Benedict has been busy...

• Recruiting exorcists;
• Dissing other Christian churches;
• Reinstating the Latin Mass for the first time since Vatican II;
• Dissing Islam (inadvertently or otherwise).

His most recent comments on the subject of interfaith dialogue indicate that he does not think much of this type of exercise, since "a true dialogue is not possible without putting one’s faith in parentheses.” In other words, when you engage in a dialogue with someone from a different faith, you might actually have to accept their belifs as completely valid, even if it is counter to what your own faith holds to be true. Um, yes, Your Holiness, I am sorry to have to inform you that that is actually what the price of admission is for holding a dialogue, at least the type where you are actually open to learning something new or gaining deeper insights into something you thought you already did know.

He's making a list.
Your religion's not on it.

The Pope went on to stress the importance of "intercultural dialogue which deepens the cultural consequences of basic religious ideas," and called for confronting "in a public forum the cultural consequences of basic religious decisions." Um... I have an English degree, but I can't really make a whole lot of sense out of that statement. Intercultural dialogue is important, interrelgious dialogue not so much? Don't you run the same risk with intercultural dialogue, e.g., having to put your own cultural beliefs in "parentheses"?

OK, I'm getting lost in the weeds here. Whatever else Benedict might have meant by his recent comments, they appear to be of a piece with the stance that he, and by extension the entire Catholic Church, currently take in relation to the other religions of the world. That is to say: You've Tried the Rest, Now Try the Best. If the Pope truly believes that the entire truth of who God is and what God wants starts and ends with Christ and His Church, why bother even speaking with our faiths or cultures who do not acknowledge or accept this? Even if you want to maintain dialogue for the sake of appearances, why come out with a public comment making it clear that you don't actually believe much good comes from the dialogue in the first place? Why make the comments to an atheist author (Marcello Pera) with a Christo-centric view of European history and who takes an antagonistic stance towards Islam?

It's too bad, really. Pope Benedict is a highly educated man who is clearly at home in the academic realm. But his insistence on absolutes blinds him to the fact that the world is not static, and that everything is dynamic. Including religious faith. This dynamism is fueled in large part by the revelations that emerge when different faiths interact with each other, when beliefs are challenged and reexamined, shared and studied. As I wrote in an earlier post:

"Last year, an Israeli friend of ours asked me about my Christian faith and why I loved Jesus. I thought for a moment, and then replied that I held Jesus in deep respect and reverence for his teachings and his sacrifice on the cross. I added that when I die someday, if I discover that Jesus was not in fact the literal Son of God and was not resurrected from the dead, I would not love or revere him any less. The example of his life is strong enough reason for me to believe in and appreciate Jesus, to borrow Hanh's phrase, as an ultimate door. From this point of view, the teachings and living example of Jesus Christ can be made much more accessible to non-Christians, which in turn furthers dialogue and understanding between different people. Is this not the aim of any faith that preaches 'stability, joy, peace, understanding and love'? How does exclusivity advance this aim?"

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Pope Calls for Greater Understanding Between Catholic, Hellbound (The Onion, January 14, 1998)

What is the point of interfaith dialogue? (dotCommonweal, November 24, 2008)

Pope Questions Interfaith Dialogue, by Rachel Donadio (The New York Times, November 23, 2008)

Obama-Nation = Abortion-Nation?!?

Did you know that President-Elect Barack Obama is the "most radical pro-abortion presidential candidate ever"? Don't believe me? Just Google search that term, and your resulting hits will reveal the dregs of the American Right Wing universe, the members of which spent the better part of this past summer and fall braying about how Barack Obama is not just pro-choice on the question of abortion, he is actually pro-abortion. This is probably news to anyone who was paying attention to any of Mr. Obama's comments on the issue of abortion during the very long presidential campaign.

Regardless of these facts, they haven't stopped various extremists from making the claim. Mr. Obama's candidacy, and now his impending presidency, have worked many people in the pro-life community into a lather. Within this community, the Catholic Church regards itself as First among equals, and continues to lead the charge in tagging anyone who is pro-choice as being pro-abortion. In a rehash of the 2004 presidential campaign, when certain American bishops refused to serve Holy Communion to pro-choice Democratic nominee John Kerry (D-MA), additional Catholic leaders have issued stern warnings to parishioners not to support Obama on the sole basis of his pro-choice stance, and to either skip communion or go to confession if any of them actually voted for him.

I continue to find it saddening, as well as more than a little insulting, to be categorized as pro-abortion by virtue of the fact that I am pro-choice. As I've written before, I don't know anybody who is pro-choice who actively and enthusiastically promotes abortions no matter the circumstances. For the majority of pro-choice citizens, the circumstances matter big time. Even those who are ardently pro-choice can find their level of support for this right challenged in the face of how different individuals choose to have an abortion, as this recent Washington Post Magazine article illustrates.

You know, opponents of the landmark Civil Rights Act were led by Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued that "you can't legislate morality." Yet these same right-wing types who opposed legislating civil rights-based morality are more than happy to support legislation that enforces their own moral code, namely the outlawing of any and all forms of abortion, no matter the circumstances. This is the very position taken by the Catholic Church, a position that has led more than one member of the U.S. Catholic priesthood to come out with outrageous edicts such as the prohibition against serving communion to Obama supporters, or demanding that parishioners who did vote for Mr. Obama go to confession in order to be absolved of this supposed sin. But honestly, would a vote for the supposedly pro-life ticket of McCain/Palin have been a vote for a reduction in the number of abortions, if not the outright elimination of this practice. I truly don't think so. In fact, since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, the greatest drop in the annual number of abortions performed in the United States occurred during the administration of one William Jefferson Clinton, a pro-choice Democrat whose stated position on abortion is that it should be "safe, legal and rare." It seems that abortion is most likely to be safe, legal and rare in a country that provides for shared prosperity and a robust social safety net, progressive sex education, makes contraception and other family planning services available to all people regardless of means, and concedes that legal abortion is a medical procedure that is in fact sometimes necessary for health issues relating to the fetus, the mother, or both. The current pro-life strategy that is championed by the Catholic Church does not allow for any such circumstantial consideration. It is an approach to a highly complex social issue that is wholly lacking in nuance, and one that some Catholic leaders are finally suggesting needs to be replaced by a strategy designed to effectively address the reality of this issue as it is, not as how the Church wishes that it would be.

Where is the Gospel message of Jesus Christ in the Church's singular fixation on abortion? Does the Church really intend to mortgage the richness of its vast body of social and ethical teaching for the sake of pursuing this one particular end? It is not a reasonable, and therefore not a tenable, position for the Church to be taking. As then-candidate Obama remarked in response to a debate question on abortion,
"But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, 'We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.' Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation."

My final question: Does the Church intend to be counted among the reasonable participants in that search for common ground?

- Doug L.

PS- I usually try and limit the number of reference links to ten. However, because of the gravity of this particular issue, my thinking is that the more information that is available, the better. Please avail yourself of the resources I've assembled below. Shalom.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, December 7, 2008):

Nursing Grudges, by Dahlia Lithwick (Slate.com, December 6, 2008)

Barack Obama on Abortion (On The Issues.org)

A Hard Choice: Online Discussion with Lesley Wojcik and Patricia Meisol (WashingtonPost.com, November 24, 2008)

Maria Shriver: Pro-Choice, not pro-abortion (WashingtonPost.com, OnFaith, November 2008)

Will the Pope and Obama Clash Over Abortion? (Time.com, November 18, 2008)

Pope Says Catholics in Politics Must Follow Faith (Christianpost.com, November 16, 2008)

Obama's Promise to Pro-Lifers, by E.J. Dionne Jr. (The Washington Post, November 15, 2008)

Catholics for Obama.org

A Catholic Shift to Obama?, by E.J. Dionne Jr. (The Washington Post, October 21, 2008)

Can Democrats Reduce Abortions More Than Republicans??, by Steven Waldman (BeliefNet Blog, October 7, 2008)

Born Alive Baloney, by Jess Henig (Newsweek.com, September 24, 2008)

Obama and Infanticide (FactCheck.org, August 25, 2008)

Obama Statement on the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision (BarackObama.com, January 22, 2008)

Freedom of Choice Act would Guarantee Roe Protections in U.S. Statutes (National Organization for Women, April 30, 2007)

Why do women seek abortions? (ReligiousTolerance.org, April 27, 2007)

Freedom of Choice Act (U.S. Senate Version, S. 2020)

Freedom of Choice Act (U.S. House Version, H.R. 1964)

Fetal Viability, by Franklin Foer (Slate.com, May 25, 1997)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, America! Eat yer turkey and giblets, then get yer gun out from the front hall closet and load'er up. The annual War on Christmas begins in 3..... 2.... 1...

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

A Colbert Christmas: Toby Keith Sings

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Catholics and Mormons Tag-Team CA Gays

Hooray! Catholics and Mormons have made common cause in the Great State of California to (pop quiz)...

1. Help the homeless find safe, decent, affordable housing?
2. Open up a statewide network of food pantries and health clinics for the poor?
3. Lobby the state government for greater state assistance to California's burgeoning immigrant population?
4. Engage in a Constitution-based version of Smear the Queer?
   

For all of you who answered Number 4, DING, DING, DING, you win!

So, the Catholic Church is perfectly comfortable making common cause with the Mormon Church against the right of gay people to enter into a civil marriage, the same Mormon Church whose teachings are otherwise rejected lock, stock and barrel by the self-same Catholic Church. Given the important Constitutional ramifications of this particular Proposition and related court challenges, and given the faith-based nature of this blog, I think it's important to point out the blatant hypocrisy and cynical opportunism represented by these two religions teaming up for the express purpose of codifying discrimination against an embattled minority. I mean, excuse me, but it's not as if Catholics or Mormons have never experienced state-sponsored discrimination at any time in American history. Given the respective histories of these two faiths, you would think that their leaders (and their followers) might be more empathetic and open-minded to the issue of the legal rights of homosexuals. Oh, well. Never mind. So much for, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I don't know how any Catholic can blithely ignore this command which cuts to the heart of the Gospel message of Jesus. Does this edict not count for Mormons since Jesus wasn't in North America when he said it? (Publisher's Note: That last comment is nothing but pure sarcasm.)

While the Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco (o, irony of ironies!) worked directly with the Mormon Church to campaign in favor of Proposition 8, other faith-based buttinski's also sounded off in favor of state-sponsored discrimination, including:

• The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America;
• The American Family Association; and (of course)
• Focus on the Family

Do we need any MORE reminders of why the 1st Amendment wall that separates the workings of the United States government from the whims of any one religion is so important? It is one thing for various religions to prohibit same-sex marriage and to otherwise condemn homosexuality per the precepts of their respective beliefs and teachings. Fine, that is their right to enforce their beliefs within the confines of their respective faiths and places of worship. What isn't fine, what isn't right, is for a religion, any religion, to impose on civil society the beliefs and practices that it imposes on its own members. The right of gay couples to enter into a civil marriage is of NO concern to the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, or any other such religious institution. If you are looking for a way to help push back against this effort to discriminate against and marginalize homosexuals, please take your pick from the following advocacy organizations:

• Let California Ring
• Facebook: California Against the Gay Marriage Ban
• Freedom To Marry

As a nice post-script to this whole mess, James Dobson's Focus on the Family has had to lay off over 200 employees as a result of dumping almost three-quarters-of-a-million dollars in organization funds into the pro-Prop. 8 campaign. Talk about instant karma! Let's hope- no, let's pray- that the good karma keeps on rolling, as the California Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments challenging the validity of Proposition 8. Shalom.

- Doug L.

"Prop 8 - The Musical" (Funny or Die)

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, November 24, 2008):

California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8 (San Francisco Chronicle, November 24, 2008)

Mormons' Uneasy Victory, by Stephen Stromberg (The Washington Post, November 24, 2008)

Bigotry on the Bus, by Dan Wentzel (The Washington Post, November 24, 2008)

Proposition 8 (2008 Voter Guide, California Secretary of State)

Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8 (San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2008)

Human Rights Campaign

Advocate.com

Newt Gingrich, Divorced Lover of Family Values, Warns America of "Gay Fascism" (Gay.com, November 17, 2008)

Christian Group Lays Off Hundreds After Spending All Money on Prop 8 Passage (Wonkette.com, November 17, 2008)

Ted Haggard Opens New Business Blocks from Old Church (PageOneQ.com, November 23, 2008)

GOP leader: Rebuild party on 'sanctity of marriage' (RawStory.com, November 9, 2008)

Vatican Absolves Lennon: Former Beatle Immediately Released from Hell

"Are you there, God?
It's me, Lennon."

I don't know whether it's true or not that the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano actually did this- I haven't been able to find the article online- but apparently, in a 40th anniversary retrospective of the Beatles' 1968 release entitled The Beatles (aka "The White Album"), the paper reportedly described
Lennon's "the Beatles are bigger than Jesus" comments from 1966 as little more than a joke made by "a young English working-class musician who had grown up in the age of Elvis Presley and rock and roll and had enjoyed unexpected success."

I suppose that the paper is right. Although he made it pretty clear in his 1970 song God, and his 1971 release Imagine, that he was not a religious man in any traditional sense of the word, and may well have been an atheist, the following quote from 1969 makes it clear that Lennon had some appreciation for the Gospel message of Jesus as a force for good in the world:

"We're all Christ and we're all Hitler. We are trying to make Christ's message contemporary. We want Christ to win. What would he have done if he had advertisements, T.V., records, films and newspapers? The miracle today is communication. So Let's use it."

God, by John Lennon



So, we're left with two questions: did the Vatican actually absolve Lennon of his so-called sin? What did John Lennon actually believe with regard to who or what God is or isn't? Of these two questions, we can only ever truly know the answer to one, that of course being whether the Vatican actually wrote the article in question. As for Lennon's beliefs, well, he may not have been a religious man, but he clearly believed there are forces at work in this life of a spiritual nature, and that the energy we put out into the world always comes right back to each of us. So just be sure to keep putting the good stuff out there. We all shine on, baby.

- Doug L.

Instant Karma, by John Lennon


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

John Lennon.com

L'Osservatore Romano

Vatican 'forgives' John Lennon (BBC News Europe, November 22, 2008)

Mother Superior, jump the gun (dotCommonweal, November 23, 2008)

What, me worry about you?

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. Can you guess which one?

• Quote #1: He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? (The Gospel According to Mark, Ch. 8, v. 34-37 )
• Quote #2: "The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?' But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'" (Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr.)
• Quote #3: "...but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good (emphasis added)." (Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801)
• Quote #4: "There is a belief now that individuals, especially young people, should essentially ... 'devote themselves' to something greater than themselves -- sacrifice their own wants, their own interests, to serve the common good, whatever they happen to believe it is at the time. To me, that's very un-American. I just don't think it's the role of the government to have me tutoring young kids if I don't want to or digging latrines if I don't want to or cleaning up trash at housing projects. People who serve in the military do so voluntarily, and I think they do so out of their own self-interest. They do so because they want to attack and kill a militant Islam [sic]. They do it very selfishly." (Jonathan Hoenig, Fox "News" Commentator and Managing Partner of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC.)
  

So, did you guess which quote stands out like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl? If you guessed Quote #4, you are one smart reader! I presume that you've heard of Jesus Christ, Dr. Martin Luther King and Thomas Jefferson. But Jonathan Hoenig? If you're scratching your head trying to figure out who this guy is, you're likely not alone (unless you're in a room full of people who only watch Fox, in which case Unkosher Jesus will pray for you). The best I can figure is, if Ben Stiller ever procreated with Alfred E. Newman, and then they gave their love child a lobotomy, the result would basically be Jonathan Hoenig.

Separated at birth?

It is the stock in trade of the Fox Network to go beyond the pale on any number of issues and topics. Nothing is sacred at Fox except for crisp dollar bills and the opinions of any of the braying jackasses it employs to squawk at the teevee camera. I do feel, though, that in denigrating the notion of the common good, of a nation whose citizens work together for shared prosperity and security, Fox has literally out-Foxed itself in debasing an ideal that is as old as the Republic. What's more, the timing of this ill-advised slime attack against the idea of the common good comes when Americans are reeling from growing economic instability . Banks are failing, wages are stagnant, prices are rising, new foreclosures are reported every day. Do Hoenig and Fox think that the answer to this dire situation is "every man, woman and child for him or her self"? Talk about un-American. For the one network bent on promoting Intelligent Design over Evolution, you sure are keen on Social Darwinism. And this is the same network that would have us believe that it is the sole defender of the sanctity of Christian values and, by God, of the most holy of all holy holidays, Christmas? Puh-LEAZE.

Finally, a political movement that speaks Jonathan Hoenig's language...



Look, Hoenig and all of your fellow nihilists at Fox, I just have one question for you all: why do you hate America?

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

MAD Magazine

The Impassive Bystander, by DeNeen L. Brown (The Washington Post, July 16, 2008)

Is the Common Good "Good"? (The American Prospect, June 18, 2006)

Jonah Goldberg: Why is Ex-Slave Barack Obama Tying to Reinstitute Slavery? (Wonkette.com, July 8, 2008)

Points of Light Institute

Peace Corps

AmeriCorps

City Year

Idealist.org

Ahead of the Interfaith Curve: Rabbi Michael P. Sternfield

Unkosher Jesus is a site that I launched for the purpose of discussing and exploring interfaith relationships, marriage and child rearing, among other topics. I've devoted at least a couple of posts specifically to topics of interfaith families and child rearing, and one of the obvious challenges I've described is the lack of religious clergy and institutions that specifically support couples and families who choose to structure a dual-faith household for themselves (as my wife and I have).

Enter Rabbi Michael Sternfield of the Chicago Sinai Congregation. I discovered the text of a sermon he delivered during Rosh Hoshanna in 2002 entitled, And The Two of Them Went Together. It is a beautiful piece of writing that escapes the bounds of mere prose and approaches poetic sublimity. In this one sermon Rabbi Sternfield succeeds in both defining and defending the notion of couples sharing a dual-faith household (specifically, Jewish-Christian in his example, but which can apply to any such dual-faith arrangement). It is also a miraculous statement, as it represents an enormous amount of bravery on the part of Rabbi Sternfield, who delivered this sound defense of interfaith marriage publicly, before his entire congregation at the outset of the High Holidays. I honestly cannot do sufficient justice to the beauty of Rabbi Sternfield's sermon, and would simply like to share an excerpt here.

Every year, many more Jews marry non-Jews than marry other Jews. The preponderance of interfaith marriages constitutes nothing less than a silent revolution, and Jewish life will never be the same. Most of the attention has centered on the belief that interfaith marriage is a threat to Jewish survival. I am in complete disagreement with this prognosis. My contention is that Judaism will not only survive; it will flourish if we learn how to deal with the phenomenon of interfaith marriage more creatively. However, we must not expect the nature of Jewish life to remain the same because it will not. A new Jewish/Christian amalgam has come into existence. It is being created by those born Jewish and those Christians who are married to Jews and who are bringing their own sensitivities and mind-set with them.

The conventional wisdom has it that one cannot be both Jewish and Christian. But, I must tell you that the conventional wisdom is at least partially in error. As much as the formal institutions of Jewish life push for a single resolution concerning religious identity, more and more interfaith couples are creating their own path. Dissatisfied with the answers they are receiving from the institutions of religion, there are many couples who are making a serious attempt to blend their heritages, some with remarkable success.

Could we say that this is a new religion in the making? I am not sure. What I do know is that there is a new religious community in the making, one that is increasingly diverse, wherein the old boundaries no longer exist. As in the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes, almost all of the Judaism wants to go on pretending that these kind of phenomena do not exist; that reconciling Christianity and Judaism is not possible. If we care to look, we will discover that this is not the case. They absolutely do exist, and we had better open our eyes.


I have never read, nor have I myself even written, anything that comes closer than this wonderful sermon to describing my own vision of how interfaith relationships can and should work. Rabbi Sternfield’s willingness to acknowledge and accept change as a given and as a good thing is very heartening. Rare is the member of the clergy from either Judaism or Christianity who is willing to state simply and clearly that there is nothing inherently unchangeable or “eternal” about religious observance and tradition. Between God and religious traditions, God is the only One that is eternal and unchanging. The rest… well, suffice it to say that I believe that it is good and proper for us to reexamine what we believe and how we practice, regardless of whether these have been represented as nothing less than decrees from God Himself. Judaism teaches that to be born a Jew is to inherit the faith heritage of your Jewish ancestors, which you are then obligated to uphold. Christianity proclaims the divine authority of Jesus Christ, simultaneously God and Man, through whom all of humanity must be saved in order to inherit eternal life. And so on. All absolutes. Worship Jesus, follow the Gospel and practice the rituals of Christianity-exclusively-in order to follow God’s will and inherit the Kingdom. Worship God, follow the Torah and practice the rituals and teachings of Judaism-exclusively-in order to follow God’s law (and maybe or maybe not inherit the Kingdom, but that’s not really the point of Judaism).


Making room for combined ways of expressing belief and practicing faith traditions means being open to re-examining these beliefs, to changing these very traditions, if not what they stand for. As challenging as this is for most people to do, in the end I feel that the interfaith approach does more to affirm our humanity than restricting belief and practice to one religion. I know that the approach I advocate will strike many as relativist, but I am a believer in few absolutes. That God is One is one of these. That human beings are created to love and serve one another in justice and mercy is another. I don't see how interfaith relationships and religious observances and practices violate either of these. I'm glad to know that Rabbi Sternfield feels the same way, and moreover has the courage to say so out loud. In the simple and profound words of his colleague Rabbi Harold Schulweis, “Things change. People change... Institutions change. Doctrines change.” Amen, Rabbi. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Taking "Yes" For an Answer, by Rabbi Michael Sternfield (InterfaithUnion.org)

The Interfaith Union (Chicago, IL)

The Best Gift for Your Unborn Children, by Rabbi Julie Greenberg (InterfaithFamily.com, July 24, 2007)

Rabbi Arthur Blecher, The Unorthodox Rabbi

Interfaith Approach to Forgiving Trespass, by Julie Galambush (The New York Times, January 1, 2007)

Interfaith Marriage and Families (UnkosherJesus.com, May 20, 2007)

Religious Americans: My Faith Isn't the Only Way (MSNBC.com, June 23, 2008)

Bishop John Shelby Spong (Beliefnet.com)

The New Seminary (New York, NY)

The Chaplaincy Institute (Berkeley, CA)

Expiration Date for Right Wing Religious Gruel

Ever since the Democrats swept back into control of Congress after the 2006 elections, pundits across the country have been confidently predicting the demise of the Evangelical Christian Right as a political force in America. Me, I need a little more convincing. Every time I hear someone say that Right Wing Christianity is toast, I think back to the horror movies I used to watch when I was a kid. The monster/creature/killer was supposedly dispatched, the weary and terrified protagonists breathe a sigh of relief and wipe the sweat from their brows, and just when I'd let my own guard down, BAM, the monster/creature/killer would lurch back to life to take down yet another victim. I ain't about to let down my guard when it comes to Right Wing Evangelicals, assurances of their demise notwithstanding.

Then again... maybe it is twilight hour for the "Religious" Right. I mean, it's one thing when the shaggy, wild-eyed radical hippie members of the MSM say so, but it is quite another when actual Evangelical Christians publish a document that basically says, hey, we've been exploiting our Christian faith and using it as an excuse to act like narrow-minded assholes for years and years. And this is advancing Christianity how?


I'm referring, of course, to the Evangelical Manifesto, a document that was published this past May and which dares to call out members of the faithful on both the Right and the Left for politicizing religion. To wit:

The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology. Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions. Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, or nationality. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness (emphasis added).

OK, so it's one thing for the Conservative hijacking of Christianity to have run its course. However, it also appears as though Progressive Evangelicals have literally been waiting in the wings for this moment and are poised to retake the good name of their Christian faith and remake American Evangelical Christianity as a force for positive social change. Just ask Amy Sullivan, proud Evangelical Christian and contributing editor for The Washington Monthly:

"Not long after the 2004 election, a congressional aide identified himself as an evangelical during a public Q&A. He told me afterward that it was the first time he'd 'outed' himself in front of fellow Democrats. 'How did it feel?' I asked. He paused. 'A little scary,' he said. 'But good.' Now he's one of a growing class of consultants who advise Democratic candidates about how to court religious voters."

I am not here to dance on the grave of any one's right to the public expression of religious faith, or to say that religious beliefs do not/should not play an important role in informing the values and convictions of those who profess them. I AM here to rejoice in the demise of a movement that is not religious, but which represents a co-opting of the language and trappings of religion to advance a narrow, plutocratic, anti-democratic agenda. Specifically, the Gospel message of Jesus Christ has never been visible to me in the words and actions of people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others who have amassed power and wealth by exploiting the name of the man whom they claim to worship. Not that there aren't people on the Left who exploit the political process for their own ends, but at least they typically don't claim to do so in the name of Jesus. It goes without saying that there is a place for religious faith in American society- authentic religious faith. Dobson, Falwell, et al. had their day in the sun on Jesus' dime. It's time for the social justice, preferential option for the poor Gospel to displace the "prosperity gospel," and for progressive Christians to retake the good name of the faith that they hold dear. Shalom.

- Doug L.

George W. Bush vs. Jesus of Nazareth



FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Evangelical Manifesto

Dobson Rails Against Fruitcake Constitution (Wonkette.com, June 24,2008)

Murky Manifesto: Evangelical Statement Repudiates Theocracy- Sort Of, by Joseph L. Conn (Americans United for Separation of Church and State, May 7, 2008)

Why The "Evangelical Manifesto" Wasn't Written For You - & Why That Means You Should Read It, by Pastor Dan Schulz (StreetProphets.com, May 7, 2008)

When Would Jesus Bolt?, by Amy Sullivan (The Washington Monthly, April 2006)

How Would Jesus Vote? (I'm an Evangelical--And a Liberal. Really.) by Amy Sullivan. (The Washington Post, February 24, 2008)

Progressive Evangelicals Look to Reshape Political Image (ChristianPost.com, March 28, 2008)

Ascension: Amy Sullivan says that the era of the religious left has begun, by Paul Baumann (The Washington Monthly, January - March 2008)

Jesus: The Guantanamo Years (ReligiousRight.com, July 24, 2007)

Left Behind: The Right Loves the Poor Until They're Born (Wonkette.com, December 14, 2005)

Modern-Day Pharisees and the Politics of Abortion

Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.

Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She replied, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more." (The Gospel of John, Chapter 8, v. 3 - 11)

There is something particularly striking about this Gospel passage. It’s not the first time that Jesus is challenged by his Pharisaic colleagues, not even the first time that he is challenged to condemn someone’s behavior per the precepts of Mosaic law. What is most noteworthy is that he not only refuses to obey the law of Moses, he does so in defense of a woman, someone with limited legal status in ancient Hebraic society. (Notice that her presumably male partner is not also brought to Jesus for condemnation and punishment). Jesus’ refusal to capitulate to the authority of Mosaic law is no small deal among religious Jews, either then or now.

I bring this up in light of a recent event involving a neoconservative Republican, Douglas Kmiec. He happens to be a lifelong Catholic, is a professor at conservative Pepperdine University, a one-time member of the Reagan Administration, and a long-time critic of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. Therefore, naturally, he was denied the right to receive Holy Communion at a recent gathering of Catholic business people.

Come again? That's right. What became something of a fad during the 2004 presidential campaign, when certain Catholic bishops threatened to withhold communion from pro-choice candidate John Kerry, Catholic clerics apparently have their sights on ANYONE who does not toe the Vatican line on abortion 110%. And what was Professor Kmiec's sin? He, to the shock and surprise of his conservative friends and colleagues, endorsed the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL). The logic here is that, in supporting someone who is pro-choice, Kmiec is essentially supporting abortion, which, according to Catholic teaching, is never, ever permissible, even when it is necessary to save the life of the mother.

Kmiec has made his own statement on the matter. For myself, I would simply like to point out that this incident highlights certain aspects of Catholic teaching and orthodox Catholic (Pharisaic?) behavior that I find to be troubling and that sadden me personally.

• Jesus was a sworn enemy of public hypocrites, as any good Catholic ought to know. Therefore, the cleric who denied communion to Prof. Kmiec should be very, very nervous right about now. He singled out Kmiec for his support of the Democratic candidate for president in a room full of Republicans who presumably have supported anti-Christian Republican policies and the politicians who crafted these. Who among these did this grandstanding (as as yet seemingly unnamed) cleric deny communion to? Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery; he did not condemn her or allow others to. Jesus broke bread at the Last Supper with his disciples, men he knew to be flawed and whom he knew would abandon him in his hour of need. Exactly which of these was denied communion by Jesus himself? In my opinion, this cleric needed to stop and ask himself, What would Jesus do?
  
• The Vatican's worldwide campaign to stamp out abortion, and with it adequate reproductive health services for women, lends aid and comfort to those cultures who also use religion to subjugate women. Particularly, women living in societies where Sharia law is strictly interpreted and enforced and who are subjected to atrocities such as genital mutilation, stoning and other forms of "honor" killing for transgressing strict codes of conduct and morality that apply to women, but not to men. Is the Vatican truly comfortable sharing any level of association with any culture or society that would treat its women so cruelly? If the Church wants the world to take it seriously when it waxes philosophic on the "woman as masterpiece of God's creation", it needs to back up these words with actions and policies that truly reflect the sentiment they espouse.
  

Senator Obama is not pro-abortion, and is on record as stating that abortion is an issue that saddens him, that has a deeply moral component, but that is something that is intensely personal to the woman who must weigh whether or not abortion is the appropriate choice for her to make, given her individual circumstances. Jesus did not defend the woman in the gospel story because he thought that adultery is A-OK. He refused to condemn her because he understood that there is more to explaining a person's behavior than to say yes she did, or no she didn't, and that understanding the circumstances of someone's behavior can make the crucial difference in evaluating its moral component. He understood that a woman without power or standing before God and the law was at the mercy of men, men who wrote and kept the rules of conduct. In like fashion, Senator Obama is choosing to place his trust in women to make informed decisions about this serious matter with health care professionals who are in the best position to judge what the best health options are. To choose to condemn abortion and the women who have them out of hand is to side with the Pharisees who are uninterested in taking into consideration the possibly painful circumstances of the woman they stand in judgment over.

It is my true wish that Catholics and others among the Pro Life movement could bring themselves to understand that Pro Choice does not equal Pro Abortion. No one that I know or that I am aware of who supports abortion rights does so because they are pleased to see embryos and fetuses destroyed. They do so because they recognize the hard truth that under certain circumstances the painful decision to abort a pregnancy is the best decision for the mother in question. I can't excuse any woman from the obligation to carefully weigh this particular decision, its moral component and its consequences. However, neither will I join modern-day Pharisees who refuse to consider the circumstances under which a women would make this decision and condemn her. Jesus would do likewise, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Senator Obama and Douglas Kmiec have thankfully gotten the message. Shalom.

- Doug L.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

Why the Christian Right fears Obama, by Daniel Gilgoff (USATODAY.com, June 16, 2008)

When faith is front and center, by Douglas W. Kmiec (The Chicago Tribune, June 16, 2008)

For an "Obamacon," Communion Denied, by E.J. Dionne (The Washington Post, June 3, 2008)

Abortion rights lawmakers to receive communion (Brietbart.com, April 16, 2008)

Evolution of Church Teaching on Abortion (ReligiousTolerance.org)

Catholics For Choice

Teachings of the Magisterium on Abortion (PriestsForLife.org)

ThirdWay.org

The Ethics of Abortion, by John Hoad (EthicalManifold.net, February 11, 2003)

How to Decide Whether or Not to Get an Abortion (wikiHow.com)