Thanks for your words on the new pope John! I have been greatly frustrated by the coverage I've seen so far about the new pope. It seems every bit of news I saw had two approaches to the story: show the (favorable) reaction in the Vatican/Germany/world then cut to reaction from American Catholics. And it was always emphasized who these people were--AMERICAN Catholics. Quickly we were moved from seeing the celebratory announcement of the apostolic succession to white liberal Americans bummed that the new pope apparently wasn't elected in a fashion that polled American interests. Quickly people chided Ratzinger as a defender of the Church and God's bulldog. To that I wanted to respond, "Good!" It never ceases to offend me how quickly Americans try pigeon-holing religious figures into liberal political categories. Hearing the new pope compared to a hard-line Republican disgusted me. Anyway, there are many more thoughts to be said about this subject, but I'll leave room for others, if I haven't already scared them away in boredom. I guess I really need to start up my blog. Hehe.

Yes, Matt, you need to start up your blog! Ask Dave-O for my cell phone #.

John & Matt, I both mostly agree with your sentiment here. I recently read on a blog called Verbum Ipsum a post that made what should seem like an obvious point:

A lot of the commentary I've been reading on the papal conclave has had a peculiar tick: it seems to treat as newsworthy the fact that the next pope, whoever he is, will not likely deny or change the central teachings of the church.

Odd that this pope won't be changing Catholic Orthodoxy! Not really, which is why I'm surprised at all the people who are surprised.

So far, he seems pretty cool, except I don't understand his position on denying the Eucharist to John Kerry just because he is "pro-choice" on the abortion issue. I'm not "pro-choice" myself, nor do I even think the issue of abortion should be framed in terms of "rights" like many do today, but I thought that was a rather odd position to take by Ratzinger. I heard that John Paul had to correct him on it. I mean, I understand that the Catholic church has authority and stuff, but aren't we all sinners? Why are some things considered more sinful than others-- so much so that you have to go so far as to deny participation in perhaps the one real thing we have on this earth, the Eucharist?

I read a comments section of another blog of a person who said that Ratzinger "went on the record saying that the pedophilia scandals were made up by enemies of the church." This also baffles me.

On the other hand, this is a great homily on faith, politics, and the nation stat from Ratzinger in 1981:

Benedict XVI on Faith and Politics

Eric,
I was re-reading some Torture and Eucharist today, trying to fit it into a Adolescent Moral Development paper (which is turning out to be pretty hard), and I came accross the section on "Performing the Body of Christ" (Chapter 6). I think this is a very good example of how denying the Eucharist can be a way for the Church to make a disciplinary stance (always with the posssibility for repentance), and not merely chalk things like torture, complicity with torture, etc. to the private life, or as an arena that the Church has no say in. Cavanaugh... mmmmgood.

A couple of quick points.

1. I think that John's 2 Vatican II's reading is correct, and I think that he's also right in comparing that to what's going on in Nazarendom. At a Nazarene global theology conference a few years ago, I was amazed (perhaps I shouldn't have been!) at the number of young Nazarenes who were thinking of leaving the CoN (church of the Nazarene) for other churches which are more liturgical, sacramental and historically tied (the so called 'Cantebury trail', though I think it has significant branches that also go to Rome and Constantinople). I think this trend can be understood as the 'ressourcement' reacting to what they see as the increasing and lamentable 'aggiornamento' of the CoN.

2. Mid-City is blessed with a 'ressourcement' approach!

3. As to the now Benedict's reaction to those like Kerry (though I'm very nervous about singling Kerry out here, despite my own views of the man. But I'll stick with the name as a general placeholder for similar such individuals). Benedict's reaction can't be understood in isolation from the 'mortal/venial' distinction in Catholic theology. By promoting a practice which has been explicitly and authoritatively condemned by the Church, Kerry et al. are not in communion with the Church, and thus the rejection of communion is what should be expected.

4. This distinction in no way denies that we are all sinners. But one might say that all sinners are not created equal. What is lamentable, in my opinion, is that the Church sent the wrong message by only excommunicating some of those who publically reject its teachings.

Well, that will be all for now. Back to grading.

"What is lamentable, in my opinion, is that the Church sent the wrong message by only excommunicating some of those who publically reject its teachings."

Kevin, that's exactly why I'm a bit perplexed. There are a bunch of Catholics (as in, probably the millions) who identify themselves with the "pro-choice" position, but most of them are never denied communion, as far as I know. Either they should all be picked on and denied communion or none at all, otherwise, as you said, the message definitely feels wrong.

My question is, why does abortion alone get nearly all the attention? Is not preemptive war waged on basis of lies also mortal sin? In the early church soldiers had to undergo a time of cleansing, as it were, before they were welcomed back to the table. (And this is assuming you can somehow come up with a "just" war--something I'm sure most of us find very difficult.) Nowdays, it seems like soldiers returning home are sent to the front of the line during the celebration of the Eucharist. Why is this not condemned? I know many people get turned off by language of excommunication, but I think we need to be stronger about it. To follow Charlie's lead and refer to Cavanaugh, I really like how, in "Torture and Eucharist", he demonstrates how excommunication is an act committed by the one being excommunicated. The Church merely makes official what the individual has already willingly done through his or her action. Frankly, I wish the Church would do a little more of that these days. I feel the message of the Gospel is diluted when it doesn't. If we can't more seriously oppose an atrocity like Bushco. have started in the Middle East, we're in a world of hurt.

Eric, I think the difference between Kerry and the remainder of the pro-choice camp really comes down to a public witness to or against the Church and its teachings. Kerry's stance on the issue was definitely "out there" and flew in the face of the RCC's official position. For most other pro-choice Catholics out there, their views remain relatively private, or at least outside the watchful eye of the Vatican, the Diocese, or local church, and pose no "real" threat to the public witness of the RCC. I have more to write about the private-public bridge during election years, but I will save that for later in the weekend. Off to a conference... peace.

Thanks for your excellent observations. I am a Catholic, but I grew up Methodist. Actually, it was my readings of Wesley that kept me in touch with an orthodox form of Christianity. I grew up with the back of the Methodist Hymnal and selections from the Book of Common Prayer echoing, along w the Scritures, in the back of my mind. Thanks again for wonderful points made. A breath of fresh air.

Bill from Tampa

Well, here's one difference between war and abortion that may be relevant. (Note that I'll be speaking from the Roman Catholic view, simply because most protestant denominations do not have the hierarchy needed to make such pronouncements, statements for the GSs not withstanding!).

The Church has condemned abortion as wrong/sinful (cases of double effect aside).

The Church has not condemned all war as wrong/sinful.

In fact, until sometime in the past 100 years (I can't remember the exact time frame right now), the Church taught Just War Theory, and only recently accepted complete pacifism as a viable alternative. Does this mean that every war is just? Of course not. And it is a real question, as I guess the new pope has recently commented, if one can wage a war that meets the just war criteria today.

Now, I realize that this doesn't answer all the questions involved. But I think that it does start to address Matt's question.

Good point Kevin. Certainly the current war in Iraq does not meet the criteria for just war. (Unless, of course, you're a neocon or Southern Baptist.) That's why I'm so frustrated in the selectivity of refusing the elements to pro-choice politicians. Why not also refuse elements to those stumped with Bush, suggesting he is a just, righteous warrior against a sinful enemy in this holy war against terrorism. JPII condemned abortion, and the "liberal" media went crazy with its implications. He also called the war in Iraq a defeat for humanity, but there was not nearly the same response. (Check out Jon Stewart pointing this out in his normal hilarity... http://www.edwardsdavid.com/BushVideos/dailyshow_bush_neocons_use_popes_death_050407-01.rm) Kevin, I for one am glad to have you around wandering the blogosphere. Your insight, particularly as a Nazarene within the RC milieu, is much appreciated. Thanks!

Just stopped in to see if this thread was still alive. Thanks for the insights, Kevin and Matt! I didn't know some of that stuff.

Matt,

Here's one way of understanding your question. Why did the Vatican (or certain people within it) call to refuse the sacraments to Kerry and not Bush? Well, because the Catholic Church already refuses the sacraments to Bush--he's not Catholic (or they should refuse him the sacraments because he isn't Catholic--maybe he has been given the sacraments by a Catholic priest, I don't know--probably. But that's not the point). But I'm guessing that there is something else behind the question.


Are there Catholics who 'stumped for Bush' and the war? I don't know. But if the Catholic Church said the latest war in Iraq wasn't just (and I take it that it did), and there are such people, then it looks consistent to me that they should not be served the sacraments by the Catholic Church. For all I know, it might have refused allowing them to the table, but if so it certainly didn't get the kind of media attention that Kerry et al. did.

So I think that we both agree that the Catholic Church should excommunicate more people than it actually does. Yup. That seems right. The Catholic Church looks like it's being inconcistent. But that doesn't mean that it still shouldn't refuse allowing those to the table that shouldn't be there. Bravo for them getting it right in the one case. Shame on them for not getting it right in the other.

This is probably me just being pedantic (hey, I'm an analytic philosophy, or as my wife calls me, an 'anal'-itic philosopher) and probably not what you meant at all. But whether or not the war is just does not depend on whether one is a neo-con or a Southern Baptist or not. If it's unjust, it's unjust. Those that think it was were just wrong. (I'm guessing that's what you really meant. But I've been teaching all day and this kind of comment just comes naturally!).

kevin,

good point. i forgot to remember dubya is a "methodist", although he apparently never attends. i read many methodists sought to excommunicate (or whatever methodists call it) bush and cheney both. i don't think they ever got enough signatures though. i agree that we agree, and amen to the catholic church needing to excommunicate more. that's something i've thought ever since reading "torture and eucharist", which i mentioned in a previous comment. i really appreciate your analysis, and i like getting notes from another 'anal'-itic person. it's good for me to see the holes i leave in my arguments. i agree the war was nowhere near being just--i was just being sarcastic about the southern baptists falling in line w/ neocons who feel anything they do i just, just b/c they thought it. peace.

This thread is important so we not let ourselves be defined by who we share with what we are against, but to keep the church catholic and local committed to a "culture of life" so that it remains a true culture of life, not a slogan taken over by the principalities and powers to co-opt the churches witness. Thank you for continuing it.

I have to take the opportunity, however, to correct Kevin -- it comes so rarely, that I must enjoy the chance! Kevin wrote, "In fact, until sometime in the past 100 years (I can't remember the exact time frame right now), the Church taught Just War Theory, and only recently accepted complete pacifism as a viable alternative." We will have to forgive Kevin for knowing Augustine and after better than knowing Jesus' and Paul's saying (how is that for a not-so-subtle subtle ad hominem!).

The church was unanimous in its teaching before Constantine about Christians participation in war. While some Christians were in the army, such was never condoned, but, instead, condemned by Christian teaching. The churches recent recovery of pacificism is part of the Ressourcement that seeks to go behind medieval catholicism "to the sources" to find faithful witness there. To argue otherwise is to pretty much to say that true Christian worship must be said in Latin!

Oh John, where to begin?

I confess to knowing Augustine better than Paul and this strange man you mention: Jesus, was it? Did he join Augustine's church?

OK, in all seriousness: I stand thankfully corrected. Though I must say that I'm still not convinced that the only position a Christian can take vis-a-vis war is pacifism. Maybe it is. But I haven't seen the argument made yet (how's that for a philsophical retort! At least I just resort to burden of proof issues and not ad hominems! Wait, it's not an ad hominem if it's true, is it?).

And I never said that true Christian worship must be in Latin. But I think it would be nice. Let's get Mid-City some icons, incense, maybe even a relic or two, and then we'd be set!

An interesting and relevant article can be found here.

The author appartently takes this to be a criticism of Ratzinger (now Benedict). But I, for one, say amen (to what he said--I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing whatever effect his statements may have had on the election).