Why a Catholic Bishop Refuses to Serve Vice-President Biden Communion
Every election cycle the controversy hits the news again. A Catholic bishop publicly declares that he will not serve communion to a politician who supports laws that allow abortion. Most recently (HT: Aquila Report) Bishop Michael Sheridan of the Diocese of Colorado Springs has declared that he will not serve the body and blood of the Lord to Vice-President Joseph Biden, a very devout, consistently practicing Roman Catholic.
The Catholic bishops are unified on the issue of abortion like they are unified on no other political issue. And pro-choice Catholic politicians generally affirm this teaching, as Vice-President Biden did in the debate with fellow Catholic Paul Ryan when he declared,
With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call de fide [dogmatic teaching]. Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.
But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews and — I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman.
I — I do not believe that — that we have a right to tell other people that women, they — they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor, in my view. And the Supreme Court — I’m not going to interfere with that.
The distinction to which Biden is appealing is a distinction between a sin and a crime, or between the truth which he affirms that abortion is murder, and the moral obligation of the state to punish murder as a crime. It is the same distinction that most Christians make when they say that sexual immorality is wrong but that it should not be punished by the state, or that worshiping a false god is a sin that should nevertheless be protected as a right by the state because of the principle of religious liberty.
Contrary to what conservatives sometimes claim therefore, there is nothing inherently contradictory about Biden’s distinction. The question, however, is whether the state has the prerogative not to punish murder, or not to protect a human being’s right to life. To put it another way, is it ever moral for a state to make murder – the killing of an innocent – legal? Or is the right to life so foundational to the very purpose of the state as established by God that a magistrate or legislator cannot abandon his or her obligation to protect that right without sinning?
Note that the question is not ultimately about how sinful the practice in view is. Idolatry is generally portrayed in Scripture as the gravest sin of all, and yet few Christians believe the state should prohibit idolatry. The reason for this is that most Christians believe (though this was not always the case) that the state should be particularly concerned to prevent injustice against human beings rather than impiety against God. The state’s obligation to secure the most basic level of justice, however, they believe to be non-negotiable.
In any case, the Roman Catholic Church has made its position on abortion quite clear, and it has affirmed its judgment that politicians who support laws legalizing murder may not receive communion. In 1974 the Vatican Declaration on Abortion declared:
A Christian can never conform to a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the licitness of abortion. Nor can a Christian take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application.
More recently, in 2004, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) sent a memorandum to the American clergy which declared that unlike other moral and political issues matters pertaining to the right to life of innocents are non-negotiable for Catholics, and that Catholics who support the legality or practice of abortion must be denied the right to communion. On some issues, Ratzinger acknowledged, there is a distinction between principle and policy. Not so on this issue:
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Ratzinger went on to apply the issue specifically to Catholic politicians who vote pro-choice:
Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
It is on the basis of instruction like this that many Catholic bishops have denied various politicians communion, including Vice-President Biden.
But what about Catholic voters? Does this mean that the church should excommunicate anyone who votes for a pro-choice candidate? Ratzinger clarified that there is a difference between voting for a candidate who happens to be pro-choice and voting for a candidate for the reason that he or she is pro-choice.
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
It is obvious from Catholic history that Ratzinger’s purpose here is not to pander to the Christian Right or to American conservatism. The concern is clearly to place the church in opposition to an evil so grave that it may never be tolerated. For that, I think, the Catholic Church should be lauded. There are some principles of moral obedience binding on a disciple of Christ that simply cannot be compromised, even if (or especially if) that disciple is a civil magistrate
Posted on October 19, 2012, in 2012 election, Abortion, Church Discipline, Roman Catholic Church and tagged Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger, Diocese of Colorado Springs, excommunication, Joseph Biden, Michael Sheridan, Nancy Pelosi. Bookmark the permalink. 29 Comments.
Thank you, Matt.
You may have seen the debate over on Presbyterian Blues about this same issue, when I pointed out that U.S. Sen. Scott Brown is an openly and publicly pro-choice politician who is also a member in good standing of a congregation of the Christian Reformed Church.
I’m glad to see a “Two Kingdoms” advocate say what you said here about abortion.
DTM, it seems that you missed the point of our conversation. Abortion is an evil, and the church rightfully sees it that way. Your point is that it’s patently obvious that Scott Brown should be subject to charges for his view that abortion should remain legal. Those would be charges that an elected reprsentative should be charged with and found to be in sin for expressing the policy that abortion should remain legal.
It was a long conversation that people can check out if they wish, but the charges would not be like “Scott Brown has murdered,” they would be along the same lines as “poltician Smith has advocated that extramarital sex and false religion remain legal.” Add in the fact that any Washington politician has taken a vow to uphold the Constitution -the same Constitution that says abortion is a legal right – and you have a very difficult task in drawing up charges. You would be charging politicians with what you consider to be defective theories on what kinds of sin the federal government should coercively prevent and punish.
Matt, I’m dealing with business issues that are taking too much of my time. You are raising valid points, and I’m planning to respond to them on your own blog. I’m in discussion with a couple of other people on how to best frame my response, but rest assured that I’m not ignoring you. On the contrary, I believe your views deserve enough respect to be taken seriously, and that takes time.
The issue, as I see it, is that you believe abortion is wrong, abortionists should be excommunicated, and women who procure abortions should be excommunicated. Presumably you would also agree that boyfriends and husbands who encourage their girlfriends and wives to get abortions should be excommunicated. However, you seem to believe that civil authorities who have the chance by their votes to stop or at least reduce the number of abortions, for some reason that I don’t yet understand, should not be put under church discipline even though by their votes they are allowing thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions of babies to be killed.
How is that possibly compatible with a biblical view of church discipline, let alone a Reformed view? How is in not, in effect, becoming a respecter of persons by showing favoritism to the powerful while more severely punishing the powerless?
If anything, the civil magistrate advocating mass murder is more deserving of church discipline than a desperate mother who kills her own child rather than seeking help from her church to deal with the consequences of her pregnancy.
Sorry, Matt, about the typo… that last post was directed to Mikelmann. I’ve put a (better edited) version of it on his blog as well.
“I’ve put a (better edited) version of it on his blog as well.”
I’m flattered.
Here is the open invitation I have given:
Draw up biblical charges to support the specification “On a certain date, Scott Brown/Joe Biden said he favored the continued legalization of abortion.”
If that can be done, I’m on board. If it can’t be, then let’s just say we disagree with him.
Disagreements over the legality of abortion have almost nothing to do with the heinousness of murder. They have everything to do with the definition of the beginning of life, the certainty of that definition, the relative good of individual rights to choice given that uncertainty, and consideration of the evils which have historically resulted from an underground abortion market. I’m not sure why folks couldn’t disagree over these questions and remain within the Reformed confessions.
Jack, I don’t know what denomination you belong to, and therefore I don’t know which set of Reformed confessions you hold. Therefore, I can’t argue intelligently against your statement that you are “not sure why folks couldn’t disagree over these questions and remain within the Reformed confessions.”
I would strongly urge you to review the official doctrinal position of your denomination on abortion and how it interacts with the confessions of your denomination. I do not believe it is possible to be confessional and evangelical and believe anything other than human life begins at conception.
Even if we want to take the older position that human life begins at “quickening” (i.e., when the unborn child starts to show signs of movement and life), it would still rule out virtually all induced abortions. (This isn’t an entirely irrelevant issue since the “quickening” position would allow “morning after” emergency contraceptives, would eliminate questions about IEDs and the Pill, and address a small number of other issues, but I do not believe the “quickening” position can be defended in light of Scripture or modern medical science.)
The simple fact of the matter is that even if all the alleged “hard cases” are allowed, nearly all abortions are for other reasons, basically convenience for or embarrassment of the mother.
Abortion is murder if done for any reason other than saving the life of the mother. Legalized abortion is mass murder sanctioned by the civil government which is supposed to be protecting life but refuses to do so.
There is no other way to define the issue.
Murderers should be dealt with by civil authority. Just because the civil authority refuses to do so, that doesn’t remove the obligation of the church to put them under church discipline and excommunicate those who refuse to repent.
Jack, I respectfully disagree. There are not really substantive scientific disagreements regarding the definition of the beginning of life. Within the Catholic Church and other churches in particular there is no such disagreement, as Biden himself admits.
There are no scientific disagreements because it is not a scientific question. It’s philosophical, ethical, and prudential. It’s obvious that the disagreement is not over the morality of murder because no one would agree that murder is not evil.
I realize that within the Catholic and confessional Protestant churches there is no disagreement about the beginning of life; I just don’t see the scriptural basis, which I think is necessary.
Is there any pause given to the fact that there is only one political view that comes in for conscience binding? So much room given to so many political puzzles that involve just as many questions about life and death, yet only one rises to such lofty realms. And what about questions of proximate cause? Do those who hold choice politics really have the same level of guilt as those who actually have or provide elective abortions in their own persons?
And what about Protestants taking their cues from Roman conceptions of ecclesial authority? Is to conflate political view with personal behavior a way to lower standards about who is to come in for discipline and invite a form of ecclesial authoritarianism?
None of this is to question when human life begins, that it should be protected, the duty of government to do so, or how the current legislative policy in America is wanting (in various ways). It is to wonder if the whole question is a good test for Reformed notions of liberty. There may be limits on political liberty, but what about limits on church authorities to bind consciences and the use of spiritual means to effect political ends? Some of us who are morally and politically opposed to elective abortion are also concerned about how some ecclesiastical postures may be as less-than-conservative as some political postures.
Fellows, I’m curious, do you think a Christian magistrate should be allowed to do whatever he wants as long as it’s in an official capacity? Is there ANYTHING for which you’d agree that he or she should be disciplined? What about the Emperor Theodosius, who murdered thousands of his own people? What if politicians ruled that it was fair game for people to kill Mormons on site (as once happened in parts of this country)? Would you discipline them?
I understand that on most political issues the church should remain silent. What worries me is that some of you seem to think the church should say nothing at all to the state and nothing at all to Christians who are involved in the work of the state, even if they are members of your own church, no matter what grave evil they are committing. But how is that anything other than to say that Christian magistrates can sin with impunity, as long as they are doing so in their official capacity?
I trust you understand that the conclusion you seem to be defending is absolutely foreign to the two kingdoms doctrine running from Luther and Calvin through the 20th Century. Remember that one of the primary reasons Calvin introduced the two kingdoms doctrine was to defend the right of the church to exercise discipline and bar people from the Lord’s Supper, against the wishes of Christian magistrates.
MT, I would argue that citizens should be citizens and advocate for righteous laws, including righteous laws in the area of abortion.
But your logic is that we should charge politicians in our midst with sin for not being in favor of using the power of the state to prosecute sin. You mention the unrighteous slaughter of Mormons, but right back at you: why would you not advocate for charging a politician with sin who refuses to prosecute the heresy of Mormonism? Calvin’s Geneva would have done so, so what is your hesitation? Then I wonder why you are being selective about second table laws: why wouldn’t you be in favor of charging politicians for not being in favor of prosecuting extramarital sex?
More specifically, here is your logic: we all agree on what sin is. Therefore we must all agree on what sins the politician must be in favor of using the state to prosecute. Therefore any poltician that advocates something different then our consensus should be brought up on charges. But the Church tries people for biblical sins, not for violations of consensus.
Mikelmann, as I’ve said over on your blog, I believe the Mormon question was handled wrongly. I’ve read books and articles published in the 1800s by people who would today be described as evangelicals arguing that the United States government needed to deal with Mormonism not as a religious problem but rather as a criminal problem.
For better or for worse, the decision to admit Utah as a state to the Union on condition of forbidding polygamy bound the United States, not only those living in the United States at the time but also their successors, to treat Mormons the same way Jews and Roman Catholics have been treated since the American Revolution, i.e., as full citizens. We can see that is the biblical model based on the treatment of the Gibeonites after they made a treaty with the Israelites under false pretenses — and note that King Saul was considered by God to have done wrong by breaking the treaty and persecuting the Gibeonites hundreds of years later.
I happen to think we did the right thing by giving Jews citizenship, and I follow Oliver Cromwell on that point.
With regard to Roman Catholics, given the circumstances of the 1770s and our need to secure the allegiance not only of Maryland but also the French, the Continental Congress probably did the right thing. It turned out better for America than for the Hungarian Reformed, who made a similar deal with the Roman Catholics in Austria to kick out the Turkish Muslim overlords, and then found out that the Austrian Catholics could not be trusted to keep their word.
I guess we’d better be glad the Catholics living in Maryland were honest people unlike the Austrians, and also that the French government self-destructed not long after the American Revolution so their territory in Louisiana and west of the Mississippi became politically irrelevant and was sold to the United States a few decades later.
Politics is the art of the possible. That means sometimes difficult decisions need to be made to work with people who do not share our core values but are useful for the short term, and sometimes even are essential for the short term.
The problem is that short-term decisions, once made, can have very long-term consequences.
DTM, wow, you’re really posting on whether Mormons, Jews, and Catholics should have been allowed to live our country?
If that’s the mainstream I think I’ll swim elsewhere.
Mikelmann, it’s not me who raised the issue of Jews, Roman Catholics and Mormons being allowed to live in the United States. You asked the question, so you’re entitled to an answer on why I believe allowing those three groups to live in America is legitimate, both under civil law and biblical principles.
Civil rights for Roman Catholics and Jews were not minor issues when the United States was founded. People who care about the history of our First Amendment and prior equivalents in state law have to consider such issues.
I believe the United States took the right position on extending citizenship and voting rights to Jewish people. Not everyone who is Reformed is going to agree with me, but I think Oliver Cromwell was right on the issue of a continuing role for national and ethnic Israel under the New Covenant. Cromwell believed that if Jewish people were going to hear the Gospel, they needed to live in places where the Gospel was preached, and he fought hard against longstanding laws in England that persecuted Jews, up to and including forbidding Jews from living openly in England.
The background here is that in the 1600s, some citizens of Spain who were nominally Roman Catholic but actually Jews had moved to England, and Cromwell wanted to allow them to stay in England and openly practice Judaism rather than Roman Catholicism. Also in the mid-1600s, a small group of Sephardic Jews had taken advantage of Dutch toleration of Judaism to settle in New Amsterdam, now New York City. An additional factor is that Alexander Hamilton had studied in Jewish schools when he was denied admission to Anglican schools because his birth was illegitimate, and as a result he had personal connections with Judaism going far beyond what would have been expected in the 1700s. Hamilton also may or may not have had a Jewish mother.
The decision of the leaders of the American Revolution to accept help from France was a political decision, and in no way represented agreement with Roman Catholicism. Even after the Revolution, the deliberations of the Congress on what to do with a letter from the Pope asking what opinions the Congress might have on the Pope establishing a hierarchy of Roman Catholic bishops in the United States shows just how concerned the Founders were not to get close to Rome.
However, in the era before the French Revolution, an agreement with France required an agreement not to persecute Roman Catholics, as England had been doing for several centuries. The fact of the matter is the existence of Maryland probably would have required that anyway.
There has never any serious discussion of expelling Jews or Catholics from the United States, at least after the 1700s, but that was very seriously considered with regard to the Mormons — and don’t forget that when they settled in Salt Lake City, it was part of Mexico, not the United States. They were trying to flee American rule, and Mormon history in Missouri and Illinois shows pretty clearly that Americans didn’t want them in America, either.
You may or may not be aware of the history of Utah, but the United States Army was sent into the Utah Territory to keep the peace after some pretty serious incidents of violence. It was only an accident of history at several points in time that we did not have open and sustained warfare with the Mormons. The Mormons themselves expected that and many of them fled Salt Lake City after the United States Army arrived. Also, don’t forget the history of the Mormon colonies in Mexico, to which Mitt Romney’s polygamist ancestors fled so they could continue to practice multiple marriages.
For better or for worse, the United States settled the Mormon issue by Utah being admitted to the United States on condition that polygamy be outlawed. It doesn’t make any difference what I think about that decision — just as King Saul was bound by the decision of the Israelites centuries earlier with regard to the Gibeonites, modern Americans are bound by the covenants made by our ancestors.
As a lawyer, I’m sure you can understand that contractual agreements are permanently binding upon corporate entities, even after all the founding members and directors of the corporation are long since dead. That is a valid principle in both civil and biblical law.
I don’t run around saying that I wish the United States Army had driven the Mormons out of Utah in response to the Mountain Meadows Massacre — that’s a settled question and there’s no point. My point is not that I want to drive out Mormons today, but rather that there were lots of people in America of the 1800s who wanted to do just that. I believe it would have been entirely legitimate to do so under the Constitution. I rather strongly suspect that every state, except possibly Rhode Island, would have driven out the Mormons at the point the Constitution was ratified.
Again, you asked the question, not me.
DTM, you said “just as King Saul was bound by the decision of the Israelites centuries earlier with regard to the Gibeonites, modern Americans are bound by the covenants made by our ancestors.”
I wouldn’t see the covenant made with the Gibeonites as having any relavance to this discussion because I don’t believe the United States is a New Israel, so I’m wondering why you thought it was necessary to make this reference.
Valid question, Mikelmann.
If the underlying question is whether I use theonomic principles in dealing with the Gibeonite example, the answer is no. I believe the “general equity” principle of the Westminster Confession applies here, making the Gibeonite example relevant to modern civil law as a good example to follow but not absolutely binding on America in the same sense that it was binding on Israel.
I’m sitting at a county commission meeting right now and have no access to my reference library, but I think you may find that the Gibeonite example was also used by the Protestants during the time of the Reformation to argue that oaths sworn to heretics are still valid, contrary to the Roman Catholic position that allowed the burning of Jan Hus. I would need to check the Scripture proofs for the Westminster Standards but I would not be surprised if the Gibeonites were used by the Westminster Assembly as a proof of the principle that oaths, once given, are binding regardless of whom they are given to.
Matt wrote: “What worries me is that some of you seem to think the church should say nothing at all to the state and nothing at all to Christians who are involved in the work of the state, even if they are members of your own church, no matter what grave evil they are committing. But how is that anything other than to say that Christian magistrates can sin with impunity, as long as they are doing so in their official capacity?”
BINGO!!!!!!!!!! BINGO! BINGO, BINGO, BINGO!
That’s what I’ve been trying to say for several years now as this “Two Kingdoms” movement has developed.
I still do not know where to draw the line between “Radical 2K” and “moderate” or “Escondido” 2K positions. I’m reading and trying to understand what connections the modern “Two Kingdoms” advocates have to historic Southern Presbyterian theology, and (more broadly) the various Old School theological positions which developed under the American revision of the WCF and avoided taking political stances while not ruling out the need to do so from time to time.
Quite frankly, Matt, if I heard more Two Kingdoms people saying what you said in that paragraph above, I’d be a lot less worried.
A theology which says that it’s perfectly fine for a outspokenly pro-choice United States Senator to be a member in good standing of a professedly Reformed church is not something I recognize as being part of the Reformed tradition with which I am familiar.
Even Jim Lucas and several female ministers I know in the Christian Reformed Church are pro-life, or at least they were back in the 1990s. Susan B. Anthony was an opponent of abortion because she believed abortion was an example of how male lust oppressed women by killing their babies and enabling male irresponsibility. If I were still active in Christian Reformed politics, I’d be working with pro-life feminists in the CRC to try to do something about Sen. Brown.
Frankly, abortion is a much bigger deal than women’s ordination and most of the other issues over which we argue as conservative Calvinists.
Mass murder of defenseless babies in the womb is not something on which there should be toleration of different views in Bible-believing churches, let alone Reformed churches.
Second paragraph, second line: “certain sins.”
Mikelmann, it’s always odd to me when, during a conversation in the comments section, someone characterizes me as arguing something I precisely distinguished my argument from in the original post. I don’t mind having this discussion, but please do engage the article itself. Here’s what I wrote:
“The question, however, is whether the state has the prerogative not to punish murder, or not to protect a human being’s right to life. To put it another way, is it ever moral for a state to make murder – the killing of an innocent – legal? Or is the right to life so foundational to the very purpose of the state as established by God that a magistrate or legislator cannot abandon his or her obligation to protect that right without sinning?
Note that the question is not ultimately about how sinful the practice in view is.”
The question is, does having a magistrate who makes it legal to kill innocents participate at the Lord’s Table mar the communion and sanctity of the body of Christ? What about a slaveholder who breaks up marriages by selling a husband away from his wife and children? What about an officer who works at a Nazi concentration camp? These are not made-up examples …
Sorry, MT, I did engage in your comment, and I assumed your comment to be consistent with what you have said elsewhere.
You bring up the slaveholder and the officer. For myself, it’s ambitious enough to discuss the politician and sort out his particular issues.
Here is the part of your post that I am engaging: “A Catholic bishop publicly declares that he will not serve communion to a politician who supports laws that allow abortion.” Then you have a quote from Biden that is not about voting for abortion – the Supreme Court, not elected officials legalized it – but about expressing a preference that abortion should remain legal.
My comments above address this issue, which is really more relevant to our present circumstances than the hypothetical about politicians legalizing abortion, the slaveholder,or the Nazi military officer. It is in important respects distinct from your “magistrate who makes it legal to kill innocents.”
Maybe I should pause here to see if we are on the same page.
Matt, please keep writing like that. Maybe you’ll convince your allies who are not listening to (or at least not agreeing with) Two Kingdoms opponents.
Legalized mass murder of defenseless babies in the womb is not an issue on which there should be disagreement within confessional Calvinist churches.
Everyone, go read the Pingback on this thread entitled “Applause for the church opposing evil in society? Then how about for encouraging the good? « Cosmic Eye.”
That is the blog of Dr. Nelson Kloosterman, formerly of the URCNA at Mid-America Reformed Seminary and now a PCA minister. He’s a significant critic of the “Two Kingdoms” theories but is largely complimentary to Matt Tuininga for this thread.
I believe Dr. Kloosterman’s comments are an example of why we need to distinguish between Radical Two Kingdoms views and more moderate views.
I like much of what I’m reading on this thread from Matt.
I cannot say that about everyone in the “Two Kingdoms” theological camp.
Matt, you ask whether the state has the prerogative not to punish murder, or not to protect a human being’s right to life. Again, the questions I raised in my first comment (none of which, by the way, I think you’ve considered in response) are not to suggest that the state doesn’t have the duty to protect the lives of its citizens. It is to wonder what duties ecclesiastical authority has to protect the political liberties of its members, even while it has jurisdiction over their personal lives.
It seems to me that it’s a long distance from political view to personal behavior. And it isn’t clear to me that any magistrate in our political arrangement wields so much power that that distance is shortened up such that to affirm legalized elective abortion is the same has either having or providing one in his or her own person. If you don’t mind, I’ll stay away from questions pertaining to situations across time and place.
Zrim, I apologize; I did neglect to respond to your particular point.
I agree that in a very important, and relevant, sense, it is crucial to distinguish the political from the personal. At the same time, I don’t think it is legitimate entirely to divorce the two. So while on virtually every political issue I would agree that ecclesiastical authorities need to withhold judgment, I do not agree that on every political issue they should or even may do so.
In part the reason for that is that there is no such thing as a fully impersonal political act. All political actions are carried out by persons and all laws are legislated, adjudicated, and enforced by persons. When a church comes together at the Lord’s table, therefore, it cannot fail to recognize that this person in front of them is the person who provided someone with the legal warrant to murder. This was the authority behind that act of murder.
It is dangerous, in my view, to separate away an area of life that we consider “political” and that is therefore removed from the law of God. In fact, I do not see how the church can proclaim that Jesus is Lord of every authority both in this age and in the age to come, and yet make such a complete separation.
I’m not sure if that helps or not. Trust me, I understand your concern, and on virtually every area I would agree with you. But I simply cannot make it an absolute rule that a church has to restrain from disciplining its own members when it comes to political actions, no matter how evil those actions may be.
Thanks, Matt. And I’m not saying there is “an absolute rule that a church has to restrain from disciplining its own members when it comes to political actions, no matter how evil those actions may be.” Again, I’ve conceded that there may be limits on political liberty, It just isn’t as clear to me that reproductive legislation as we know it in 2012 America rises to the level you and the Pope seem to think it does. And again, I speak as one just as morally and politically opposed to it as you both–often I get the feeling this is just a conversation about the problem of abortion that takes cover under the pious guise of church discipline. The question for is, Can we maintain our political opposition to it without using the spiritual stick?
Biden says, “I just refuse to impose that on others.” If only he would say that for the entire contents of the Democratic Party platform.
The problem with saying “abortion is murder” and seeking to apply the penalties for murder to women who have abortions is that we are trying to dock a ship that sailed 45 years ago or so. I can enter one word into a google search and have all kinds of pornographic images on my computer screen two seconds from now. How is that scenario compatible with a scenario where abortion is sanctioned as murder? I do think it is murder, but we have a lot of other things to fix first if we are going to get to that point politically. Technology is one of the factors that has gotten us to where we are at. 200 years ago people lusted and had unplanned pregnancies but you couldn’t view pornography in 2 seconds or have an easy abortion.
Pingback: Applause for the church opposing evil in society? Then how about for encouraging the good? « Cosmic Eye