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)