Not approved for consumption by the Orthodox Union, Star-K, or ecclesiastical authority of any kind. Unkosher Jesus is an online forum for members of the worldwide interfaith community to explore and share various points of view relating to interfaith relationships and experiences, faith traditions, politics and popular culture.
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.
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
Robert F. Kennedy's Impromptu Speech on the Assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Indianapolis, IN, April 4, 1968
What kind of Catholic is Rudy Giuliani? The rare kind who apparently believes that as an anti-government insurrectionist, Jesus Christ should not only have been flogged and crucified, but waterboarded as well.
Now, of course, if you were to ever ask Rudy if Jesus Christ should have been waterborded by the Romans, he would likely give you his patented Giuliani contemptuous response, making reference to how he is a life-long Catholic, Jesus is more important to him than any of his wives, past present and future, yadda, yadda, yadda. Fair enough. BUT, put Rudy in the shoes of Pontius Pilate, and you'd likely see Jesus strapped to the water board on His way to the whipping post, and finally the cross.
What do I base any of this on? Why, Rudy's own comments on the subject. This past week, asked to define whether or not waterboarding amounts to torture, Rudy bravely equivocated, stating, "It depends on how it's done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it." So, based upon Rudy's worldview of who the good guys and bad guys are (United States= Good, "Islamofacists" and Enemy Combatants= Bad), waterboarding might be fine. For example, if it's done by Americans in the name of the War on Terror, or by Roman Centurions who are "interrogating" the alleged leader of an anti-government insurrection movement. Rudy didn't just equivocate as to the question of who, he even said that it depends on HOW waterboarding is done before you can classify it as torture. So, just to clarify things for Hizzoner: the circumstances of why, where and to whom waterboarding is done may vary on a case-by-case basis, but the how never does. I refer you to the easy-to-read illustrated chart (above) provided free of charge. Please memorize its contents so that you never have to give such a lame and evasive answer to such an elementary question ever again.
Rudy's comment about how whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture "depends upon who does it" is at least consistent with his overall selective approach to personal morality and accountability. For example, as a former federal prosecutor it is hard to fathom that Rudy has any sympathy for criminals as lowly as pedophiles. True in general, except for when it comes to Monsignor Alan J. Placa, his special priest friend of over thirty years. Never mind that the Catholic Church has ordered Monsignor Placa to cease performing his priestly duties while the molestation charges against him are under investigation. His personal loyalty to Rudy means that even though his high-profile gig with the Church is on hold, there is always a place for him at Giuliani Partners. It sounds like a really plum job, but what about his vow of poverty? Then again, if he couldn't keep his vow of celibacy...
With regard to the charges facing, and his own association with Fr. Placa, Rudy had this to say: "We give some of the worst people in our society presumption of innocence and the benefit of the doubt." Sure, Rudy. If they are Catholic priests who molest kids, absolutely, right? "Enemy Combatants" held indefinitely without charge at Gitmo? Fuggedaboutit.
So here we have a Catholic candidate for the Republican presidential nomination who:
Supports gay rights;
Is pro-choice;
Is in favor of interrogation techniques that constitute torture; and
Sees nothing wrong with his continued association with an accused pedophile who has been suspended by the Church until further notice.
Which brings me to the American Catholic Church. Of the four policy positions listed above, I actually happen to share the first two with Rudy. I also happen to know that the Catholic Church shares none of these. Even so, of the four of these, which position of Giuliani's has him in hot holy water with at least one American Catholic bishop? You guessed it: he is pro-choice. I point this out not to argue whether or not one position or the other is right or wrong. I point it out to ask: is this how narrow the agenda of the American Catholic Church has become, that it will only rouse itself to publicly speak out about a political candidate's position on abortion while ignoring his position on torture? Wasn't Jesus Christ a victim of state-sponsored torture? Why in God's name isn't there any official condemnation of Giuliani's pro-torture stance on the part of the Church? Is the Church's pro-life agenda limited purely to being anti-abortion? Is serving as a vehicle for the conservative political agenda now as, or more, important than preaching and living the Gospel? Or have some conservative Catholic leaders managed to conflate the two?
Some American Catholic leaders may apply the term pro-life more liberally than others, but the fact is that the conservative movement has grown in strength within both the Catholic clergy as well as the laity. Over the past twenty-to-thirty years, conservative Catholics have mobilized into a highly influential voting bloc, and are also counted among those who shape as well as make public policy. Five of the 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court are now Roman Catholic. The bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC presides over the annual Red Mass to inaugurate each new Supreme Court session. Conservative Catholic publications such as First Things and Crisis are highly influential voices, both in official Washington and across the country. Why, with American Catholics enjoying such prominent positions of power and influence, it is hard to fathom why some of their brethren continue to conduct themselves like minority members of the lunatic fringe with a persecution complex.
This is all to ask, what happened to my Church? The Church of my youth thundered against the immorality of funding a nuclear arms race at the expense of impoverished children and families. The Church of my youth boldly asserted that the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims a preferential option for the poor, a summons to all people to treat the needs and concerns of the poor as their own. And now? When it isn't liquidating diocesan assets in order to pay for sex abuse settlements, its bishops limit their moral outrage to publicly inveighing against pro-choice politicians and threatening to withhold communion. I haven't heard of any such threat regarding Giuliani's position on torture, or even his support for the Iraq War which the American bishops opposed.
And so, shameless, mendacious politicians like Rudy Giuliani can crow about the merits of torture, equivocate about what actually constitutes torture, and the most the American Catholic Church does in response is to condemn his tacit support for a woman's Constitutionally-protected right to have an abortion. How so truly sad I am, for my Church and for my country. In recent memory, the American Catholic Church was a voice of moral authority on a broad range of social and moral issues, and was beholden to no party or politician. Nowadays, official Church teaching often seems to resemble a dogma chasing its own infallible tail. At a time in our history when true moral authority is sorely needed from both our religious and political leaders, it is found to be grievously lacking in both.
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
