| « | President Barack Obama plans to pass his health care bill at all costs. |
»
|
|
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Stones And Stoles: A Sunday Rumination
I have an ongoing feud, seemingly with Catholic clergy everywhere, about the appropriateness of clerical pronouncements on political topics. It's a rather difficult subject, since the Christian faith does offer explicit statements about what is eternally wrong -- what God Himself deems punishable with damnation. That would appear to open the door to religious posturing on matters of temporal justice.
Yet, is it not a tenet of the faith that the right to punish sin belongs to God alone? Assuming the Church's positions to be unimpeachably correct, doesn't that imply that vengeance for sins -- not crimes, just acts legal under secular laws -- committed in this life belongs to Him and no one else? If that be the case, and if we accept that the only proper functions of government are to wield its forces to protect its citizens and their property against aggression and fraud, what, then, ought a cleric to do? More important, what ought he not to do?
A particularly politically active priest here on Long Island, Father Francis Pizzarelli, who thinks nothing of distorting the Gospels or demoting the Ten Commandments of Mount Sinai to "interesting guidelines," has implied on several occasions that his political positions are spiritually incumbent on a believing Catholic. Among those positions have been presenting open, welcoming arms to illegal aliens, demanding the expansion of social services, and supporting higher taxes in the name of "compassion for the poor." Is this appropriate preaching from a Roman Catholic priest?
A couple of years ago, a Catholic bishop in Canada called openly for the criminalization of homosexual acts. He advanced all sorts of reasons for it, including some secular ones, but one cannot forget that the Church's position on homosexuality is equally condemnatory. Is the transmogrification of spiritual condemnation into temporal condemnation within the purview of a cleric, particularly a high-ranking cleric, whose discretion includes the consecration of priests and the anointing of other bishops?
I cannot pass on from this without mentioning abortion, at once the most settled and the most controversial of all topics, secular or religious. It's settled beyond all argument that the creature growing in a woman's womb is a human being, with unique human DNA and a probable future as an independently conscious entity. To kill such a creature with malice aforethought is morally indistinguishable from murder, and first-degree murder at that. Yet our temporal law holds it to be an admissible practice, and many of our legislators, though not all, hold similar opinions. The Princes of the Church have opined that to vote for such a legislator amounts to an excommunicable mortal sin. Is that an appropriate use of the Church's immense influence over American Catholics?
Ponder those cases for a moment.
Officers of the United States Armed Forces are instructed, early and often, that it is not appropriate to speak publicly about one's political opinions. In some cases, it can amount to "command influence," a serious crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Indeed, one of the things a retiring officer is reminded is that his rank will travel with him lifelong. The respect it elicits from others gives him an unusual degree of influence over their opinions and behavior. It's not a "keep your mouth shut now and forever" instruction, but a caution: a counsel of discretion and self-restraint. It's among the wisest bits of advice I can imagine, especially given my emphasis on humility.
One might acquire unusual influence over others for other reasons, of course: because of great material success, or unusually high intelligence, or superior skills, or (as any single woman could tell you) even great personal attractiveness. Anything that causes another person to admire you will impel him to emulate you. That urge to emulate often goes deeper than either the admired or the admiring one knows.
One who possesses such assets must be more careful about his words than one less gifted. It might seem "unfair," but morally it's required of us. No man, however brilliant or ethical, is guaranteed to be right always.
Yet it is religious clerics alone -- priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, what-have-you --who possess the aura of authority by which they can proclaim that "God demands it" or "God forbids it," and be treated as one who has the delegated power to speak in His name. Their requirement for discretion and self-restraint eclipses all others. When they shrug it aside, they can create tyranny, and chaos, and a war of each against all. Ask the shade of John Calvin.
Yes, clerics are human beings with a perfect right to their own political opinions. On some subjects, such as abortion, it's literally impossible that Church doctrine not imply a particular political position. But it is beyond clerical authority to demand secular punishment for sin, including the "sin" of political divergence. It is beyond clerical authority to demand that one's flock adopt one's own political stances. And it is infinitely beyond clerical authority to tell a parishioner that if he persists in seeing some political subject his own way, or voting for candidates of a certain stripe, then he is unwelcome in the bosom of the Church.
On this subject, we have the words of Jesus of Nazareth Himself:
And everyone went to his own house. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down, and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said unto Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. “Now Moses, in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned. But what do you say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up, and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” [The Gospel According To John, 7:53 - 8:11]
The lethal hurling of stones at an adulterer -- the Old Testament's most terrible punishment, reserved for its most grievous offenses -- is a secular punishment, an assertion of political authority and power. Christ "wrote on the ground" before pronouncing His own judgment, and again after doing so. A number of Scriptural scholars have conjectured that what He wrote was a compendium of the sins of the adulterous woman's accusers: a reminder that they, too, were sinners, more fortunate than the woman only by virtue of not having been found out.
Sinners are we, one and all. Some of us are in Holy Orders. Some wear purple stoles when they celebrate the Sacraments. But a stole does not entitle one to cast a stone, nor to demand that others do so on one's own authority. Christ Himself has told us so.
May God bless and keep you all.
Comments
1. Military gave me no such advice upon retirement.
2. Pinned a medal on me and more-or-less said, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
3. The instruction I continually received as I progressed through the ranks, enlisted, then officer was: “Shut up and do what you’re told.”
4. Your reminder is good advice, if it turns out you have any audience of any sort.
5. Haven’t noticed any respect accruing to my military rank and accomplishments.
6. But then, maybe, none was earned.
V/R JWestPosted by on 03/21/2010 at 11:58 AMIn a world of wrongheaded clergy
there is a voice of clarity. Which keeps my sanity.Posted by on 03/21/2010 at 01:20 PMGeez, Rachel, I hope I didn’t give you the impression that I’m a priest!
Another reader once thought so because of the picture at top left. It caused her quite a bit of agita, until I told her that what looks suspiciously like a monk’s cowl is just a “hoodie.”
(By the way, the hair loss is completely natural. It’s definitely not a tonsure. Just ask the C.S.O.)
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/21/2010 at 03:29 PMA long longshoreman possibly; a priest, never.
Posted by on 03/21/2010 at 03:43 PMElected office has a good helping of prior service, who range from the liberal to conservative spectrum. And this star on the resume is usually front and center on their campaign. In his latest book of a couple of years ago, Iacocca praises Murtha up and down for his Marine service, and how his opponents can’t hold a candle to his patriotism (as if disagreeing with him meant not honoring his very admirable service record).
Posted by mts1 on 03/21/2010 at 08:36 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
