I was just about to leave work when I came across an article posted on Yahoo! which was about a group of anti-abortion Catholics urging the United States Bishops to proclaim a policy to deny the sacrament of communion to those that vote for or otherwise support abortion. This position infuriates me. The group contends that some politicians are using the church to further their political careers, without being true Catholics. It seems to me more likely that anti-abortion groups are using the issue to advance their political agenda. I understand that the church unequivocally opposes abortion in any form. It also opposes capital punishment, and a host of other social injustices. While abortion is at the top of the hierarchy of sins for some ready to stand in judgment, child-neglect, abuse and poverty are the ultimate wrong-doings for others. From a spiritual standpoint, humanity cannot rank the degree of offense that certain sins cause to God. I am not defending the act of abortion from a spiritual standpoint. However, I am vehemently opposed to any church policy that would deny one of the churches basic sacraments to somebody that votes for any particular public policy. There are probably no politicians in history that have not violated God's law in one way or another throughout their careers. In fact, as humans, we are all sinners. We acknowledge this, and we pray for forgiveness. John Kerry is not having or performing an abortion. His votes for laws that are construed to favor the access to abortion for women do not necessarily condone the practice. If John Kerry voted to legalize murder, I would hold the same view. He would not be committing murder. Some of those that are ready to stand in judgment to deny Christ to politicians need to take a step back. If they honestly did this, they would see that there is potentially grave sin within many political decisions. One example: a vote or an order to go to war in which a politician knows that innocent people will die. The church officially opposed the invasion of Iraq, which many politicians supported. Should these politicians be prevented from holy communion because they voted for a policy that they knew would result in innocent casualties? There are many other examples, and that is just the problem. Everyone has different opinions on what is right, especially on what policies are correct. The church is there to guide us and teach us, but ultimately we have to make our own decisions. Jesus and the Holy Spirit would not condemn someone whom has sinned, but would continue to reach out to them, offering himself to them. Why would anyone else have the right to deny Jesus to someone?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome...
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the...
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An...
Read more