Unkosher Jesus- Red Meat Commentary With a Side of Cheese: June 2008

Monday, June 16, 2008

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)

Friday, June 6, 2008

The Real Dream Ticket: Martin and Bobby for Sainthood

This week's Washington Post reports that the Catholic Church is moving with great speed to beatify the late Karol Józef Wojty, better known as Pope John Paul II. John Paul presided as pope for 27 years, second in duration only to the papacy of Pius IX. For those unfamiliar with Church terminology, beatification is a necessary step in a candidate's journey to sainthood, or canonization. Some candidates stall out at the state of beatification, while others make it all the way to sainthood.

Beatification is tough, but Canonization is even tougher. To be beatified, a candidate must be judged to have lived a life worth emulating by others, AND there must be proof that he or she committed at least one miraculous act. In order to be canonized, a second, posthumous miracle must be documented. Typically what the Vatican is looking for is solid proof that the deceased candidate is in God's good graces in Heaven, and has the power to literally respond to prayers of people on earth. No small feat!

The waiting period that is typically required before any of these proceedings can begin is five years after the death of the candidate in question. The pope reserves the authority to waive this requirement, as Pope Benedict the XVI has obviously done for his predecessor. I have no personal beef with this, but would like to suggest that if we are going to pull out all the stops for someone who has been dead for only three years, can we give some serious consideration for two men who have been dead for 40 years? I am referring to both Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Please stay with me, because I am not kidding and I don't mean for this suggestion to be taken lightly. Apply the Church criteria to the life and actions of each man, and tell me that they don't sail to sainthood:

Lives worthy of emulation of others: King and Kennedy lived lives of intense passion and courage, which they, in their own fashion, dedicated to peace and social justice for all Americans. Their shared commitment to these causes continue to serve as touchstones for those of us who have come after them, living guideposts for those who aspire to realize the dream of a just and prosperous world for which they lived and died.
Miracle #1: Dr. King harnessed a movement that would come to define the history of the second half of 20th Century America. He transformed the legal, political and social landscape for African Americans and White Americans alike. The descendant of slaves, he reshaped American history and made it more possible for America as a nation to be more true to its constitutional heritage than ever before.
Miracle #1: Senator Kennedy was born a son of privilege, wealthy before he ever needed to earn his own living. He attended the finest schools in the country and saw more of the world as a young boy and young man than most adult Americans. Yet he made common cause with the poor, the dispossessed and the voiceless of our nation.
Miracle #2: The Church stresses that the second miracle needs to be performed posthumously, providing evidence that the deceased lives with God in Heaven and has been granted power by God to intercede in the lives of people here on earth. I don't personally know of anyone who prays or has prayed to either Dr. King or Sen. Kennedy. Nevertheless, when Sen. Barack Obama became the first African American to clinch the presidential nomination of any major political party this week, I could not help but feel that both Dr. King and Sen. Kennedy both lent spiritual support to the Obama campaign from beyond. Sen. Obama will give his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver 45 years to the day from when Dr. King gave his historic I Have a Dream Speech. Sen. Obama has also literally been handed the Kennedy mantle of leadership by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy, the late senator's brother. All of these intersections with King and Kennedy, and we're supposed to believe that the two of them aren't working in support of Barack Obama? I don't think so!

Tom Toles political cartoon
The Washington Post, June 6, 2008

The event that is central to Christianity is the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the wake of his arrest and crucifixion at the hands of the Romans, his mother and disciples were thunderstruck by grief at the magnitude of their loss and the violent manner by which it occurred. On the Sunday after he was crucified, however, the Gospels relate that Jesus appeared to his disciples after rising from the tomb. While some were incredulous and some were confused, they were all eventually overjoyed at his return. Their pain and loss had been redeemed, their hope restored that Jesus' message could still be realized.

Neither Dr. King nor Sen. Kennedy were Jesus Christ, and when they were assassinated, everyone who experienced that loss knew that it was for real and it was permanent. Two of the most special, transformational leaders in the history of America had been brutally taken, with no hope of their return. It has been 40 years since that awful spring when the hopes and dreams of a generation aching for a better America were snuffed out in a puff of smoke from the barrel of a gun. Forty years is a much longer time to wait for redemption than 3 days. After so much time, do we dare to dream and hope again, now that Sen. Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, that everything that Dr. King and Sen. Kennedy both worked to achieve is once again within our grasp? Maybe so, but I'm not taking any chances. Hoping and dreaming are fine, but for myself I'm gonna pray to St. Martin and St. Bobby every day from now until the election! Shalom.

- Doug L.

Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I've Been to the Mountaintop"
Memphis, TN- April 3, 1968