Before I go on in my discussion of the denial of communion to anti-life people, I need to answer some very good questions that came up that I would like to answer:
More on your topic — where does it end? How about the justices who wrote Roe v. Wade? The Presidents who nominated them, the committees and Senators who confirmed them? And now that we will have federally funded abortion, maybe we should just eliminate communion all together, since we will all be culpable.
This is an excellent question. In fact, one of my strong complaints about some–but not all–in the pro-birth movement is precisely that they use a type of reasoning to build a chain of causality that can lead out forever. Let me give you one example. Unless they are a specifically faith-based company, almost all insurance companies have some form of reimbursement for those who undergo an abortion. Even if the procedure itself is not reimbursable (though it often is), many times some of the physician fees and the medication fees are reimbursable. Most employers only give you one choice of an insurance company, and it most likely is not a faith-based insurance company. Therefore, it can easily be argued–by causality–that almost every Christian who gets health insurance through an employer health plan is supporting abortion with their money. Therefore, it could be concluded that Christians nationally need to drop out of their employer provided health insurance (unless it is one of the faith-based health insurance companies), otherwise they are guilty of subsidizing murder and should therefore be denied communion, since they are accessories to murder.
Do you see the problem? Arguments built on causality can often be inadvertently or purposefully taken out to an illogical extreme, where they reduce themselves to an absurdity (reductio ad absurdum). Please realize that the same causality arguments are being used in the healthcare debate. There is no funding for abortion in the heathcare bill. The argument for that is a causality argument. The Roman Catholic bishops were concerned enough that the argument could be correct that they requested changes in the bill and opposed it in its original wording. But, when it was passed and President Obama issued the Executive Order reaffirming this country’s stance since the original 1976 Hyde Amendment, that there is to be no federal funding of abortion, notice that the Roman Catholic bishops still would like the changes made, but have also said that they will keep a close eye on the implementation to make sure abortion is not funded in practice. That is, they recognize that if the causality arguments are correct, the government could end up funding abortion, but it is not a sure thing. Causality arguments are not sure things.
A further variation of that type of causality argument is to claim that since the federal government will help subsidize neighborhood clinics and will help underwrite some private plans–the public option was not passed so there are no public plans–and since those clinics and plans will “inevitably” talk about or fund abortions, that therefore this means that the Federal government has now begun to fund abortions because the Federal money “mixes” in with the private money into a whole. This is an extremely dangerous argument for Christians to make, because it is the reverse of the arguments that liberals have used for years against faith-based organizations. You know the argument, don’t you? Faith-based organizations inevitably “preach” to those on their premises. Therefore, no federal money should be given to any faith-based organization because the money will “mix” with their religious money and will indirectly result in the support of religion by the government, which violates the wall of separation between Church and State. President George W. Bush had to work hard to crack that argument and bring faith-based organizations somewhat back into public life. So, do you really want to use the “mixing” argument to try to defeat the healthcare bill? That argument is guaranteed to come back and bite Christians very hard.
So, how would I set limits on what I said, about people who are, “actively and directly involved in activities that are in murderous violation of pro-life standards?” Well, we actually have two judicial examples in our American history that help set the limits on how far “punishment” should go. In both cases, the crimes committed were crimes against humanity and were tried under general “moral” rules rather than under specific laws. What were the two examples? One were the trials after the Civil War, the others were the trials after World War II (both Nuremberg and the Japanese trials).
Read the history of those three sets of trials. In every case, only those very directly involved in clear cases of crimes against humanity were taken to trial. In neither the USA nor Germany nor Japan were the general officers, who were not directly involved, tried, even though it could be argued that as generals they had to be aware of the death camps even if they did not run them. No causality arguments were allowed in either the USA trials, the Nuremberg trials, or the Japanese trials. The person had to be personally involved, had to be directly involved and had to have ultimate control of the situation. Thus, not even the prison guards were tried unless a particular prison guard was directly and deliberately involved in the mistreatment of prisoners in a grossly despicable manner.
Under that doctrine of jurisprudence, then no the Presidents could not be denied communion simply for whom they nominate, nor the Supreme Court Justices, nor the committees, nor the Senators. Why not? Because a federal justice is chosen on many criteria other than being pro-choice. Frankly, finding a pro-life, pro-universal healthcare, pro-nuclear arms treaty, etc., justice would be a rather tough matter. But, direct support for Roe v Wade by legislative or judicial vote would very well be another matter. A physician at a pregnancy termination center, a person supporting mandated abortions, the mother who deliberately chose the abortion, etc. would qualify.
Nevertheless, look at the caution of those post-Civil War and post-World War II who were dealing with genocide, torture of prisoners, etc. Even under such extreme provocation, their list of who was actually brought to trial was an extremely short list compared to those of whom it could be said that they were involved. When it came to jurisprudence, the decision by this country and other countries has been that this type of serious crime requires direct involvement, not simply a causality argument or an accessory after the fact argument. My paragraphs above showing how easy it would be to use causality arguments to prove that almost no Christian in this country could receive communion is proof of why good and godly jurisprudence requires direct and active involvement as the criteria.
===MORE TO COME===
First, let me say that I believe the taking of ANY life for the sake of convenience is wrong (a sin). Now there are many directions I can go from here. First, to God sin is sin. there are no little sins and big sins. Abortion is no greater a sin than, say, gossip that hurts someone or being judgmental. So why aren’t we Christians starting anti -gossip or anti-judgement movements.
Second, life is life weather it’s in the womb or in a recliner. How can we get so “judgmental” about abortion, but not be bothered by 10’s of 1000’s of civilian deaths in wars we now wage or genocides all over the globe?
And lastly, who made us the keeper of all that’s right a true? Why do we think we know the heart, mind and will of God? The Old Testament is filled with stories of the slaughter of whole populations at the hand of God or by the hand of God’s servants at His direction. Where did we come up with the idea that we know what life is sacred and what isn’t, or what God has in mind? His ways are far above our ways, we only give our best guess at His mind and I believe that we miss the mark by miles almost always.
God asks us to do two things and two things only in our lives. All His purposes will be fulfilled in our lives and the life of this planet if we just “love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength — and our neighbor as ourselves”. This means everybody. Jesus said “love your enemy – for what credit is it to you if you love those who love you back, even the pagens do this”. I submit to you that we as a nation, as a humanity, are daily killing those who Jesus asked us to love — where is the out-cry?
As far as who should or should not be allowed to take communion, that is God’s business and once again man has set himself up as God’s policeman. Communion is a remembrance for those who love God as the Lord of their lives, and for those who are truely repentant of the sin. I guaranty that there are millions of people taking communion every day who are neither repentant or recognize God as Lord. Who polices those? – You will say they will answer to God. Well, so should everybody else. — Just love like Jesus loved. He never got upset with the common sinner – only with those who tried to play God and make rules. There is, has never been and never will be a person (other than Jesus) on this earth that has the right to judge another in the sight of God.
I partially agree and I partially disagree with what you said. In a very brief summary, here it is:
1. You are right about war, particularly unjust war. I actually will be dealing with some of that on one of the posts in this discussion, so stay tuned.
2. You are using a moral equivalency argument, that all sins are equal. But, Our Lord Jesus talks about an unforgivable sin and Saint John talks about a “sin unto death.” The Orthodox do not believe that all sins are equal, nor do we believe that the Bible says so, that is more of a conception among some Protestants.
3. In the Orthodox tradition, war is considered as a sad necessity that must be waged, at times. BTW, the same would be true of using the “power of the sword” on domestic duty (police work). Technically soldiers are supposed to confess when they return from the battlefield, and, at one time, were even supposed to abstain from communion for a year if they had killed someone, even in a just war. A priest who “spills blood” can be defrocked and permanently barred from celebrating the Holy Mysteries. I have no problem in saying that too many in this nation do not view war properly and take too much “joy” in the killing of enemies rather than praying for them.
4. Well, as to who should be allowed to take Communion, if what you say is true then both Saint Paul and Saint John sinned because both barred people from communion. (Read the Epistles). Our Lord Jesus himself in Saint Matthew spoke of a process that could lead to excommunication. Your argument does not match what actually happened in the New Testament.
Finally, among many Orthodox jurisdictions, one may not take communion unless one has gone to confession, some say within the last month and some say within the week. Thus, theoretically, those who gossip, etc., have actually been through a process to cleanse them so that they may approach without sin. Among some of the Slavs, communion is not frequent because there is the additional requirement to have fasted during the week before. So, we actually do work with other sinners than just the flagrant ones.
Thanks, Ernesto. I wondered if you even got my comment, as it disappeared from fb and I couldn’t find it.
BTW, an executive order never supercedes a statute, so the President’s order relative to the Hyde Amendment is worthless paper. Besides which, the Hyde Amendment restricts funding that goes through the Dept. of Health & Human Services only. Funding through Obamacare will not be through HHS. And you may be sure that abortions will be funded since they are not expressly forbidden. Whatever is not specifically excluded is included.
You realize that that is a logical argument not an argument from the wording of either the statute or the Executive Order. Your argument consists of several steps:
1. The courts will pay no heed to the President’s Executive Order. Note that there are many previous Executive Orders on other subjects that have been enforced by the court. Nevertheless, this is one of the concerns of the Catholic bishops.
2. The Hyde Amendment will be interpreted by the courts to not apply to the currently passed healthcare bill.
3. Despite the clear intent to exclude, the courts will rule against the clear intent.
All of this may be true. But, it may not be true. The problem with this type of argument is that it assumes how the courts will behave. I agree with both you and the Catholic bishops that it would be better to have had it clearly written into law. However, the reason that they have taken a wait and see attitude is because the worst case argument may not come about.
And, that is the point of some parts of my posting. To argue the worst case, and then to say that the worst case must come true, therefore it is true, is quite a logical leap. The most you can do with a worst case argument is to say that it may come true and that therefore it would have been better to have stronger protections against it. But, one cannot say that the Federal government voted to subsidize abortions based on what may happen, that is an illogical leap, though it may come true. But, it may also NOT come true and the compromise may be honored.