Profiles in Carnage

By Michael Hicks
Op/Ed

Christ once said, "To whom much is given, much is expected". This saying applies to our U.S. Lawmakers who are in a powerful position to pass or veto laws of the land. Some of these lawmakers stand up against the atrocity of infanticides, while others brazenly support this hideous carnage.

The focus of today's Profiles in Carnage is Senator John Kerry. He has openly stated, "I believe human life begins at conception". Yet, over the course of his entire career John Kerry has voted to support abortion under every circumstance and at any stage of development even up to the time of birth. Well Mr. Senator, if that conception occurs in America, then by your own definition that human life being violently dismembered is an American Citizen. It's sort of like saying "I know it is a human baby, but some mothers are going to kill their babies and it is best that I look away on this matter". Is that what we elect our officials to do... to look away? John Kerry is "looking away" to the tune of 4,000 deaths per day. How would you feel if one of your U.S. Senators were voting for legislation that endorsed the murder of 4,000 young American soldiers each day? It's sad enough that an average citizen might look away and pretend they don't know, but remember, John Kerry is a U.S. Senator-- one of the few powerful people in this country who can (and do) make a difference by creating and passing laws. He is even quite worse than the many other politicians who claim, "it's not a human life"--because Kerry is on record acknowledging that human life begins at conception, and is therefore all the more guilty for promoting the deaths of those American lives. If he has been promoting such carnage as a U.S. Senator, what will he do if he becomes President? Not only is this un-American-- it is about as far away as a person can get from the teachings of Christ. To add insult to injury, this man claims to be a Catholic and hopes to get "The Catholic Vote". The next time you look up the word Hypocrite you may not see a definition-- you'll just see John Kerry's photograph .

There is such a heated debate going on inside (and outside) of the Church regarding the "worthiness" of certain individuals to receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, especially those politicians who openly support the killing of babies.

Not only is Mr. Kerry the worst kind of hypocrite, but also he is poisoning the world's view of the Catholic Church. If the Church does not take action against him, then She is in effect, endorsing his point of view.

So, the big question on everyone's mind is: Does the Church have the right to exclude such individuals from the participating in Communion? Canon Law has been quoted many times, but few have presented scriptural references on the topic.

The Canon Law 915, which is often referenced, was to my knowledge instituted as a result of the events written in Corinthians 11,17-34. As the story goes, Paul was upset that some early Christian Communion gatherings were turning into a food-fest party and being conducted without reverence. Let us remember that 2,000 years ago starvation was more of a reality than it is today. Everyone would bring his own food to eat. Some of the more fortunate members of the congregation would bring a feast, while poorer members might only have a bit of bread and wine. They were HUNGRY. The Lord's Supper back then was not as concise a ritual as we practice today...it was a real supper. Jesus said "as often as you do this, do this in memory of me". So, Jesus' words were interpreted to mean, "Do this during every meal". St. Paul was rightfully concerned that the people who had lots of food were partaking of the Lord's Supper "unworthily"...meaning "without due respect and reverence". There was much laughter, food and wine flowing. Not only was this an appalling lack of reverence to Paul, it also caused resentment amongst the poor while they sat idly watching with nothing themselves to eat. Paul admonished them that it would be better off that they eat their meals at home BEFORE coming to the gathering, and in this way all could participate the Lord's Supper with equal reverence. It was no longer to be a food party. This was the beginning of the ceremonial "Mass" we know today.

Now, I wasn't there, but I believe in response to Paul's request, the churches repented and did as he said. Later on it was decided that there would be a 24 hour fasting period before the mass so that both the rich and poor would attend mass feeling hungry-- out of compassion and sympathy for the poor of the community, as well as improving the worthiness and reverence given during the mass. Receiving the Holy Eucharist was no longer a happy food celebration, but was now a reverential ceremony done with much respect and humbleness. In addition the poor would feel less resentful (which is a sin) knowing that the rich were feeling, if even for one day, the hunger they feel every day. Of course, today the waiting period before Communion is only one hour, but I believe that's the history behind it. So...it was not a matter of someone being "unworthy" to receive the body of Christ (for we are all unworthy sinners), but the main concern Paul had was that the reenactment of the Last Supper was being done in an unworthy manner...without reverence, see? He was upset in the WAY it was being done...not at the worthiness of each individual. So, I think as a lot of Bishops might think, that Canon Law 915 should be revisited and amended. Sinners and Saints just need to make sure they are not receiving the Holy Eucharist in a disrespectful manner. Paul's admonition had little to do with their character's worthiness or their sins.

However, Church Membership trumps any individual Sacrament.

Any organization can (and does) enact laws by which its members agree upon. If the laws aren't adhered to, then the membership is in jeopardy. If I were a member of Green Peace expounding my beliefs on the love of wildlife and nature-- yet on weekends I clubbed baby seals to death for their valuable pelts, how long would I remain a member of that organization? How about if I were a Senator who voted against every piece of environmental legislation that came across my desk-- how long would I remain a member of Green Peace? How long do you think a Boy Scout would remain if it were known that he enjoys pushing little old ladies off the curb as they try to cross the street? As my coach used to say, "You break the rules, you're off the team". It is as simple as that. Rules express the very definition of an organization, for without them there would be no need for membership-- everyone would be welcome. The Catholic Church is also an organization. If people want to remain part of the club then they must adhere to the requirements or quit. The Church has every right to enforce the rules--or what have we got, a social club open to everyone? In Mr. Kerry's case, the Bishop has a right to change his status to "Probationary Catholic" while lovingly encouraging him to repent. By being branded "On Probation", Kerry would lose certain privileges within the Church but still be required to attend mass and (obviously) confession. What John Kerry needs now is not excommunication, rather he needs to be immersed in the Word of God in the hope he eventually sees the light and changes his ways.

This may also solve the sticky issue of Mr. Kerry speaking at Catholic Colleges while on the campaign trail. He wants the Catholic vote, and he just may get it if Catholics abroad believe that the Church has no opposition to him. However, if it is known nationally that he is "on probation" --not in union with Christ's teachings, he will no longer be able to delude or deceive other Catholics into thinking that they, too can do as they please and still be able to call themselves "Catholic". That is probably the biggest violation right now, the fact that Catholics are getting the idea that their Church puts up with absolutely any behavior.

If John Kerry is not disciplined, then it's a free-for-all with the rest of the laity. Branding people who are obstinate abusers of the Catholic doctrine will make it clear to others that this person should not be taken credibly until he changes his ways. Continued obstinacy would be met with appropriate measures up to and including excommunication. This structured approach to discipline portrays a merciful Church. The sinner is on probation, yet still encouraged to attend mass, contemplate scripture, and reform his ways.

Now about receiving the Holy Eucharist while "On Probation"... First I'd like to begin with Confession: I think the Confessional is a good thing. Non Catholics pay therapists millions of dollars each year to do the same thing...They confess their sins (resentments/faults/obsessive attachments), they admit they have a problem, realize it's too big of a problem to handle on their own, seek forgiveness & acceptance, and get on a plan of rehabilitation. We as Catholics receive this as a Sacrament (at no charge to boot!). So I think it's one of the least used and most precious of Sacraments that we Catholics have. The reason why I begin with Confession is because I want to make it abundantly clear of my favorable position towards it. That being said, I think that receiving the Eucharist should NOT be contingent upon receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation. These are two very special and very separate Sacraments. Why? Repentance is the act of turning from your error and beginning anew. Participation in Communion is about remembering Christ's sacrifice for us-- and by receiving it we are also reminded that we too must strive to sacrifice ourselves for the love of Goodness and the love of others... even if it means pain, rejection by all those whom we love, and the passing up of honors, praise, or wealth. Standing up for what's good and right-- even if you get jailed, ridiculed, punished or even put to death. This is the symbolism that accompanies the transubstantiation and it encapsulates the whole of Christ's Doctrine. We can partake of this Sacrament separately from the Sacrament of Reconciliation and still be in line with Christ's teachings. For example, some people take a long time to recognize that they are "wrong". So they may not go to confession, because "why confess something I don't believe is wrong?" However, partaking of the Lord's Supper is something that should be done frequently by saint and sinner alike.

How do I back up this position? Since we have already demonstrated that Canon Law 915 does not substantially agree with scripture, let's take a look at which scripture passages do support this point of view. Let us go directly to the night of the Last Supper... Did Jesus stand at the door of the upper chamber and require all Apostles to visit the confessional first? The closest thing to that was His act of washing their feet (which in my mind should be a Sacrament). The washing of the feet is Christ's symbolic way of reminding his disciples that they must proactively go out and wash the ignorance (sin) from their fellow humans. It is a perfect symbol in that it requires the forgiver to be "at the humble service" of the forgiven. In other words, the forgiveness given should be in the form of loving enlightenment-- from the sincere position of love and respect for the person who is living a self-destructive life. Ignorance is the sin to be washed away, for all sin is the ignorance of God's Truth. This is further emphasized when Peter says "wash my whole body then", and Jesus (referring to Baptism) says, "A person who has taken a bath does not need another-- only the feet need washing". To make it crystal clear, He meant, "You don't need to be forgiven twice for the same sin...the first forgiveness was your Baptism (when you repented your former lifestyle). However, as you walk through life it is to be expected that your feet will become dirty again (meaning that you will likely sin again after baptism), thus you need to be forgiven for those sins". The beauty of this ritual-- the washing of the feet, is that Christ did not command his disciples to wash their own feet before they attended dinner-- he did it for them. In the same way we can't demand others wash themselves of their own ignorance, demand that they "go to confession", but we must educate them and enlighten them with the knowledge of Christ, which will make them clean. Why is this important? Because a person who realizes his mistake will finally admit it to himself and the world (if he believes he will be truly forgiven)...and when he finally admits it, will he want to commit the same sin again? Of course he won't, thus his sin no longer remains because he has been finally awakened to the Truth. John Kerry needs the Sacrament of Feet Washing... a "rehab program". He needs someone who is knowledgeable of scripture to sit with him on a regular basis until he becomes enlightened with the Truth.

Part of this rehabilitation program should require the dedicating of his life to the way of Christ. His understanding the symbolism that accompanies the trans-substantiation during Communion, and to receive the Holy Eucharist often best accomplishes this. In addition, the Sacrament of Reconciliation will always be there for him when he comes to the realization of his errors and needs forgiveness. We all have opinions, which over time may change. That's part of being human-- what we thought was once true no longer may be. At the point when we realize that our past suppositions of "truth" were not actually truth, but in fact lead to regrettable decisions, we change our mind and wish we hadn't held those prior beliefs. The sacrament of Reconciliation is sort of "baptismal amendment" which gets the guilt off of our back by publicly renouncing our former (selfish) opinions and ways, allowing us to move forward with a sense of cleanliness and joy. These two Sacraments are best used together and one should not be contingent upon the reception of the other.

Some may still say "Communion for John Kerry-- 'Heaven Forbid!'". Well, let me refer again to scripture: Did Jesus stand at the doorway of the upper chamber on the night of his Last Supper and hold up his hand to Judas' face? Did he say "Sorry, you are not worthy enough to share supper with Me."? If anyone were unworthy of attending the Last Supper you'd think it would be Judas. Did Jesus deny Peter the Last Supper? (Yet He knew Peter would deny Him three times before the night was over). So, what I'm saying is that if Jesus would not deny even Judas, then I think he would not deny any other sinner. I say this because I truly believe that the Sacrament instituted by Christ at the Last Supper was meant for all sinners who are actively trying to reform their lives to better reflect the model set forth in Jesus. It was...and is, a motivating icon for the faithful to remind them of the ultimate sacrifice of their Founder. It is also a daily encouragement that we too must strive to live our lives in like fashion. He instituted this Sacrament knowing that it would be an integral part of his disciple's daily dedication to him. The Canon Law 915 requirement of "worthiness" was a misinterpretation (with the best intentions I'm sure) and is the cause of today's confusion on the matter. So, viewing Communion in this light, I believe John Kerry needs to receive the Holy Eucharist while he is on probation and must seek with all his heart and soul to understand the Church's position on the sanctity of all human life so that he may be reunited with the Christ.

If Mr. Kerry were never a Catholic to begin with and expressed a desire to become one, the Church would emphatically say "NO". Even Jesus' cousin John turned away the hypocritical priests who came to be baptized (for the sake of show only). He called them "snakes" and demanded they show real proof of their changed ways before allowing them to join the 'club of the baptized". So I say, the Church today is right that is rejects the admittance of hypocrites. However, Mr. Kerry was baptized a Catholic and as such is entitled to have every opportunity to repent before he gets kicked out of the Church for good. Of course, Mr. Kerry deserves no better than to be called a snake and told to show proof that he has changed his sinful ways-- for what is more hypocritical than to promote the murder of babies in your daily job, yet claim to love God, the author of all life? A person is only fooling himself if he really believes Jesus would approve of this... but as a baptized Catholic, he needs to be given that chance to show he's changed in mind, body, and spirit.

The Church would do well to act promptly and remove John Kerry from his good standing if only for self-preservation. Ignoring the issue makes the Church guilty of condoning it-- indirectly deceiving the sheep into believing it's okay to act like that wolf in sheepskin. But now that I think of it, self-preservation seems to be a theme here...

I am of the opinion that some Church leaders in America are afraid of losing the favorable status currently enjoyed with many politicians. This "favorable status" gives real hope for the passage of laws and grants financially beneficial to Catholic interests: Catholic Colleges, institutions, and other humanitarian causes considered important to the Church in America. The reality today is that if the Church offends these powerful lawmakers, many of these causes will go under-funded-- or may be eliminated completely out of political revenge or resentment. We are talking about millions of dollars in funding for Catholic causes. Don't think this won't happen. American lawmakers are notorious for remembering past favors-- and past offenses. It's a "what can you do for me and my cause...and I'll see what I can do for yours" mentality. This is American politics at it's best. This is also why we see such a divide between Rome and America on this issue Sacramental sanctions...Rome is not affected by the financial blackmail that the American Church officials are submitted to, so Rome is more likely to stand strong on principle...they don't have as much to lose. But standing strong on principle is the litmus test of being a Christian, is it not? When it comes to the gruesome murder we call abortion, we are talking about 4,000 babies per day dismembered and sucked out of their mother's wombs. Are our Church leaders exchanging the death of babies for greater political clout and financial favors? Is one group of Catholic more deserving of financial aid then the thousands of babies lost each day? Who is going to stand up for the rights of our precious children who are crying out to us, "I don't want to die, let me LIVE!" Let's stop the carnage now.

In closing, I think our Church leaders are not quite ready to give up the political favor they currently hold. Our leaders fear not only the loss of millions for pet projects, but also the heavier prosecution and financial losses stemming from abuse crimes committed by some clergy. There will be a definite backlash if the Bishops do decide to stand up for what's right. There will be a strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Washington DC and many favors withdrawn. The American media will choose this opportunity to do more blood thirsty Catholic bashing, and the general public, unaware of the anti-Catholic agenda of the media, will believe it all. However, the early Church survived and prospered even though it was an outlaw organization. We need to remember what Jesus said to Peter, "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail"--and just do what's right. We desperately need our Bishops to be our Profiles in Courage and come to full agreement with the Pope on this issue-- no matter what the financial, political, or prestigious losses may amount to. This is an important test of our Catholic faith-- a test for the highest officials of the American Catholic Church. Will they pass the test? Could we?

______________________________

Michael Hicks
mhicks@corpaccess.com
St. Rose of Lima Church member
Simi Valley, CA
805-306-1252

Contact

Corporae Access IT Solutions
CA, US
Michael Hicks - Owner, 805 306-1252

Email

mhicks@corpaccess.com

Keywords

Kerry, Politics, Abortion

More Catholic PRWire

Showing 1 - 50 of 4,716

• « Prev
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next »

A Recession Antidote
Randy Hain

Monaco & The Vatican: Monaco's Grace Kelly Exhibit to Rome--A Review of Monegasque-Holy See Diplomatic History
Dna. Maria St. Catherine Sharpe, t.o.s.m., T.O.SS.T.

The Why of Jesus' Death: A Pauline Perspective
Jerom Paul

A Royal Betrayal: Catholic Monaco Liberalizes Abortion
Dna. Maria St.Catherine De Grace Sharpe, t.o.s.m., T.O.SS.T.

Embrace every moment as sacred time
Mary Regina Morrell

My Dad
JoMarie Grinkiewicz

Letting go is simple wisdom with divine potential
Mary Regina Morrell

Father Lombardi's Address on Catholic Media
Catholic Online

Pope's Words to Pontifical Latin American College
Catholic Online

Prelate: Genetics Needs a Conscience
Catholic Online

State Aid for Catholic Schools: Help or Hindrance?
Catholic Online

Scorsese Planning Movie on Japanese Martyrs
Catholic Online

2 Nuns Kidnapped in Kenya Set Free
Catholic Online

Holy See-Israel Negotiation Moves Forward
Catholic Online

Franchising to Evangelize
Catholic Online

Catholics Decry Anti-Christianity in Israel
Catholic Online

Pope and Gordon Brown Meet About Development Aid
Catholic Online

Pontiff Backs Latin America's Continental Mission
Catholic Online

Cardinal Warns Against Anti-Catholic Education
Catholic Online

Full Circle
Robert Gieb

Three words to a deeper faith
Paul Sposite

Relections for Lent 2009
chris anthony

Wisdom lies beyond the surface of life
Mary Regina Morrell

World Food Program Director on Lent
Catholic Online

Moral Clarity
DAN SHEA

Pope's Lenten Message for 2009
Catholic Online

A Prayer for Monaco: Remembering the Faith Legacy of Prince Rainier III & Princess Grace and Contemplating the Moral Challenges of Prince Albert II
Dna. Maria St. Catherine Sharpe

Keeping a Lid on Permissiveness
Sally Connolly

Glimpse of Me
Sarah Reinhard

The 3 stages of life
Michele Szekely

Sex and the Married Woman
Cheryl Dickow

A Catholic Woman Returns to the Church
Cheryl Dickow

Modernity & Morality
Dan Shea

Just a Minute
Sarah Reinhard

Catholic identity ... triumphant reemergence!
Hugh McNichol

Edging God Out
Paul Sposite

Burying a St. Joseph Statue
Cheryl Dickow

George Bush Speaks on Papal Visit
Catholic Online

Sometimes moving forward means moving the canoe
Mary Regina Morrell

Action Changes Things: Teaching our Kids about Community Service
Lisa Hendey

Easter... A Way of Life
Paul Spoisite

Papal initiative...peace and harmony!
Hugh McNichol

Proclaim the mysteries of the Resurrection!
Hugh McNichol

Jerusalem Patriarch's Easter Message
Catholic Online

Good Friday Sermon of Father Cantalamessa
Catholic Online

Papal Address at the End of the Way of the Cross
Catholic Online

Cardinal Zen's Meditations for Via Crucis
Catholic Online

Interview With Vatican Aide on Jewish-Catholic Relations
Catholic Online

Pope Benedict XVI On the Easter Triduum
Catholic Online

Holy Saturday...anticipation!
Hugh McNichol

• « Prev
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next »