Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
IN THEORY:
When priest meets politics
A Roman Catholic priest in South Carolina recently told parishioners that they should not take Holy Communion if they voted for Sen. Barack Obama because of the president-elect’s stance on abortion. Doing so, according to the Rev. Jay Scott Newman, “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.” The church’s senior officer in the state promptly reprimanded him, saying the church should give the same treatment to all members regardless of their partisan beliefs. Was the priest right to tie Holy Communion to a political issue?
First, let’s clarify something. Abortion is not primarily a “political” issue. It is a serious matter of morality that addresses the nature of who we are and when human life actually begins. Those who believe that a human fetus is, well, human, believe that abortion is the unjust taking of a human life.
I appreciate Newman’s zeal for the plight of the unborn. But I don’t think it was appropriate for him to ask his Democratic-voting parishioners to refrain from taking Communion. I do see merit in Newman’s argument that voting for a pro-abortion politician constitutes some degree of promoting abortion, but to me it seems a little too far removed from the culpability of actually performing, or having, an abortion. Of course, this is a matter for the Catholic Church to decide for itself, and we all should respect their right to govern themselves as they deem best before God.
Communion is a regular, tangible reminder that Jesus paid the debt of our sins before a holy God. Countless people who have performed abortions, or had them, or who have fallen short before God in a number of other ways, find mercy and forgiveness and healing through faith in, and the remembrance of, what He did on the cross.
PASTOR JON BARTA
Valley Baptist Church
I think that this priest was terribly wrong to tie a religious ritual to politics. People come to houses of worship for spirituality and guidance — not for partisan political ploys. Even if this priest feels that voters for Obama were somehow misguided, it is wrong to single out those congregants for exclusion from part of the service. Why treat them differently than other individuals looking for spiritual direction?
Such incidents of politicizing our religious institutions are distasteful and counterproductive. America has just gone through two years of sharply partisan politics; the negative rhetoric and unrelenting political attacks have left our country splintered and hurting. Thankfully, the election campaign is over and the people have spoken. President-elect Barack Obama has a clear mandate to govern, and now all citizens should get behind him and offer the support he deserves. For the benefit of our country, we should all pray for his success.
Especially with the serious challenges we face, now is no time for further bickering and squabbling. No matter what our individual feelings may be, we must unite as a people and focus positively on developing a prosperous and peaceful era with a president who will have all our best interests in mind.
During his speech Nov. 4, Obama stated that “for those who did not vote for me, I am your president too . . . I have heard your voice.”
Our nation should take the president-elect at his word and give him a chance. May God grant him the wisdom and fortitude necessary to heal this country, pull us out of this financial crisis and successfully end the two wars we are waging.
RABBI SIMCHA BACKMAN
Chabad Jewish Center
No, he wasn’t. It seems to me that what the priest forgot is that he might be wrong on his anti-abortion stance — just as I always must keep in mind that I may be wrong in my pro-choice stance.
Each of us must decide matters according to our faith and conscience, but it is always possible that we may be wrong. Before I was a minister, I would attend church, and sometimes I would leave a Saturday night party early in order to be in good shape Sunday morning. When people asked me if I was religious, I would say, “Yes, I am; but I get to decide what ‘religious’ means to me, not you.”
We have in our country religious Republicans, religious Democrats and religious independents. Each of them gets to decide what “religious” means, and each of them gets to decide for whom to vote. No clergy in this country has the right to tell somebody else how to vote. The clergyman can give his opinion or his understanding of what it means to be “religious” in the voting booth. But he has no right to impose his faith on another believer who may be just as “religious” as the clergyman!
THE REV. C. L. “SKIP” LINDEMAN
La Cañada Congregational Church
United Church of Christ
This is complicated. Churches aren’t permitted to endorse or oppose candidates for election; positions, yes, but not persons unless the churches forgo their tax exemption. I think churches should not be so bound, but that’s our law. For this priest to penalize voters for their contradictory choice would seem to endanger the church’s status.
A second issue pertains to doctrine. To be Roman Catholic is to be submitted to the rules of membership, the official pronouncements and positions of the Vatican. It would be like joining a baseball team and agreeing to abide by the rules of the game. Here is a case where team members are abiding by their own rules and essentially disqualifying themselves from the league, yet still expecting to play ball. The priest is acting as umpire and calling them forfeited.
Another problem is the unique view the Roman Catholic church has regarding the communion elements.
Unlike all Protestant churches, it demands conformance of belief in transubstantiation — that the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Christ (mystically, not visibly) and they remit sin. How then could an ordained priest apply the remitter of sin to unrepentant parishioners who willfully acted in opposition to the very church in which it is administered?
If murdering pre-born babies is evil, but certain parishioners vote for its promised continuation, then what is the obligation of an institution opposed to that evil, with regard to such communicants?
The Bible warns, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning . . .” (1Corinthians 11:27 New International Version). “Whoever” is the recipient, not the minister, and “whoever” wasn’t named, only warned.
As with their voting, they probably ignored the church’s representative and did it anyway. God will sort them out.
THE REV. BRYAN GRIEM
Montrose Community Church
First, let’s clarify something. Abortion is not primarily a “political” issue. It is a serious matter of morality that addresses the nature of who we are and when human life actually begins. Those who believe that a human fetus is, well, human, believe that abortion is the unjust taking of a human life.
I appreciate Newman’s zeal for the plight of the unborn. But I don’t think it was appropriate for him to ask his Democratic-voting parishioners to refrain from taking Communion. I do see merit in Newman’s argument that voting for a pro-abortion politician constitutes some degree of promoting abortion, but to me it seems a little too far removed from the culpability of actually performing, or having, an abortion. Of course, this is a matter for the Catholic Church to decide for itself, and we all should respect their right to govern themselves as they deem best before God.
Communion is a regular, tangible reminder that Jesus paid the debt of our sins before a holy God. Countless people who have performed abortions, or had them, or who have fallen short before God in a number of other ways, find mercy and forgiveness and healing through faith in, and the remembrance of, what He did on the cross.
advertisement
Valley Baptist Church
I think that this priest was terribly wrong to tie a religious ritual to politics. People come to houses of worship for spirituality and guidance — not for partisan political ploys. Even if this priest feels that voters for Obama were somehow misguided, it is wrong to single out those congregants for exclusion from part of the service. Why treat them differently than other individuals looking for spiritual direction?
Such incidents of politicizing our religious institutions are distasteful and counterproductive. America has just gone through two years of sharply partisan politics; the negative rhetoric and unrelenting political attacks have left our country splintered and hurting. Thankfully, the election campaign is over and the people have spoken. President-elect Barack Obama has a clear mandate to govern, and now all citizens should get behind him and offer the support he deserves. For the benefit of our country, we should all pray for his success.
Especially with the serious challenges we face, now is no time for further bickering and squabbling. No matter what our individual feelings may be, we must unite as a people and focus positively on developing a prosperous and peaceful era with a president who will have all our best interests in mind.
During his speech Nov. 4, Obama stated that “for those who did not vote for me, I am your president too . . . I have heard your voice.”
Our nation should take the president-elect at his word and give him a chance. May God grant him the wisdom and fortitude necessary to heal this country, pull us out of this financial crisis and successfully end the two wars we are waging.
RABBI SIMCHA BACKMAN
Chabad Jewish Center
No, he wasn’t. It seems to me that what the priest forgot is that he might be wrong on his anti-abortion stance — just as I always must keep in mind that I may be wrong in my pro-choice stance.
Each of us must decide matters according to our faith and conscience, but it is always possible that we may be wrong. Before I was a minister, I would attend church, and sometimes I would leave a Saturday night party early in order to be in good shape Sunday morning. When people asked me if I was religious, I would say, “Yes, I am; but I get to decide what ‘religious’ means to me, not you.”
We have in our country religious Republicans, religious Democrats and religious independents. Each of them gets to decide what “religious” means, and each of them gets to decide for whom to vote. No clergy in this country has the right to tell somebody else how to vote. The clergyman can give his opinion or his understanding of what it means to be “religious” in the voting booth. But he has no right to impose his faith on another believer who may be just as “religious” as the clergyman!
THE REV. C. L. “SKIP” LINDEMAN
La Cañada Congregational Church
United Church of Christ
This is complicated. Churches aren’t permitted to endorse or oppose candidates for election; positions, yes, but not persons unless the churches forgo their tax exemption. I think churches should not be so bound, but that’s our law. For this priest to penalize voters for their contradictory choice would seem to endanger the church’s status.
A second issue pertains to doctrine. To be Roman Catholic is to be submitted to the rules of membership, the official pronouncements and positions of the Vatican. It would be like joining a baseball team and agreeing to abide by the rules of the game. Here is a case where team members are abiding by their own rules and essentially disqualifying themselves from the league, yet still expecting to play ball. The priest is acting as umpire and calling them forfeited.
Another problem is the unique view the Roman Catholic church has regarding the communion elements.
Unlike all Protestant churches, it demands conformance of belief in transubstantiation — that the bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Christ (mystically, not visibly) and they remit sin. How then could an ordained priest apply the remitter of sin to unrepentant parishioners who willfully acted in opposition to the very church in which it is administered?
If murdering pre-born babies is evil, but certain parishioners vote for its promised continuation, then what is the obligation of an institution opposed to that evil, with regard to such communicants?
The Bible warns, “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning . . .” (1Corinthians 11:27 New International Version). “Whoever” is the recipient, not the minister, and “whoever” wasn’t named, only warned.
As with their voting, they probably ignored the church’s representative and did it anyway. God will sort them out.
THE REV. BRYAN GRIEM
Montrose Community Church
Save/Share
 |
||
| IN THEORY: Serving God through tough times |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of burbankleader.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
Not registered yet?
RSS