What exactly is it that gets political officials so riled up when their churches take them to task over the disconnect between what they claim to profess and what they publicly practice? Recently down in the United States, Congressman Patrick Kennedy has been denied the privilege of taking Holy Communion in Roman Catholic churches over his stance on abortion. The issue is simple logic:
- Roman Catholics only allow practising Roman Catholics in good standing to take communion.
- To be a practising Roman Catholic in good standing, one must follow all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
- Congressman Patrick Kennedy refuses to follow all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
- Therefore Congressman Kennedy cannot be a practising Roman Catholic in good standing.
- Therefore the Roman Catholic Church cannot commune him.
The Congressman is certainly entitled to his own beliefs. But he is not entitled to force those beliefs upon a church body that does not agree. Nor can he force the church to change its official practice (regarding who should be communed) to accommodate his own heterodox beliefs.
This is certainly not the first time we’ve seen public leaders refused communion or threatened with excommunication for claiming allegiance to a church while acting in direct opposition to that church’s teachings. Here’s a mere glimpse at some of the actions taken by the Roman Catholic Church in recent history:
- June 2004 – Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary (Canada) publishes a pastoral letter decrying the “moral incoherence” of Prime Minister Paul Martin on such issues as homosexual marriage and abortion. The Bishop had previously called to task then Prime Minister Jean Chretien and then Conservative Party leader Joe Clark, and announced he would not serve them communion. He had even suggested that he himself would not preside at Clark’s funeral if the latter preceded him.
- March 2007 – Bishop Marcelino Hernandez announces that any Mexican politicians who vote in favour of a bill to legalize abortion will be excommunicated.
- May 2007 – Pope Benedict XVI issues a warning to Catholic politicians worldwide who deliberately flout the church’s position on abortion.
- March 2008 – Archbishop Terrance Prendergast, Archbishop of Canada’s capital city Ottawa, says he would “refuse communion to any politician who “obstinately” supports access to abortion, but only if he or she cannot be persuaded to stand down.”
- September 2009 – Polish bishops issue a warning to politicians that if they support abortion, they face excommunication.
- November 2009 – Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, spokesman for Spain’s Bishops’ Conference, announces that any politicians who vote in favour of a bill to liberalize of abortion laws in the country will be automatically excommunicated and refused communion.
Plans are apparently in the works to have G.K. Chesterton put on the long road towards canonization by the Roman Catholic Church, reports The Catholic Herald (UK) [see here] and The National Catholic Register (USA) [see here].
Canonization in the Roman Catholic Church is an extremely complex process, frequently taking many years to complete. A bishop must first open an investigation into the life of the deceased [generally no sooner than five years after the date of death], which results in a very thorough study of his/her life. This involves the critical reading of all his/her writings, the gathering of eyewitness accounts of his/her life, and the writing of a detailed biography of the person. The person is eventually recognized as “venerable”, meaning that s/he exhibited a faithful, virtuous life. Then, the person is declared “beatified” or “blessed” meaning that there is strong evidence to believe they have entered heaven. A martyr can be directly declared beatified. All others must first have one miracle officially recognized as having occurred as the result of the deceased’s intervention. If a second miracle is officially recognized, the “beatified” can be recognized as a “saint.” Catholics would also want to remind us that canonization is not in their theology about making someone into a saint, but rather recognizing them as a saint.
Quite a lengthy process, eh? It’s interesting to note that, from a Protestant perspective, we could skip all this rigmarole and just go ahead and proclaim him a saint. In fact, why don’t I? I hereby proclaim G.K. Chesterton a saint.
Confused? Let me explain.
In most of the history of the Church, the term ‘saint’ has always been used to mean ‘Christian’. That means that any Christian, any member of the entire Christian Church, living or dead, can be referred to in this way. Sainthood is not related to our piety or holiness, but rather to our relationship with Jesus Christ. Those called by Christ are made holy through Him – sainted, if you prefer. The very word for ‘saint’ in Latin (sanctus) is related to the concept of being ‘sanctified’. And as it is written of Christians in 1 Corinthians, “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (6:11). The Holy Spirit washes, sanctifies and justifies all Christians. Therefore, all Christians are sancti – all of us saints. And all of it, by God’s grace.
Was G.K. Chesterton a Christian? Most assuredly. Are Christians saints? Absolutely. Was Chesterton a saint? Undeniably.
So praise God for Chesterton. Praise God for all the saints. Praise Him for those who have gone on before us, who have left us strong examples of faith and courage. And praise God for all the saints still on earth, the Church on earth.
For all the saints who from their labours rest,
Who Thee, by faith, before the world, confessed
Thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest.
Allelluia! Alleluia!
O blest communion, fellowship divine.
We feebly struggle; they in glory shine.
Yet all are one in Thee for all are Thine.
Alleluia! Alleluia!
William W. How, 1823-1897
Reports are circulating that Pope Benedict XVI, currently in the Middle East to promote peace, has promised to cease all Roman Catholic missions activities among the Jewish people. If not merely a misunderstanding of his efforts to promote peace and understanding between Christians and Jews (which it may well be), it is a promise which certainly should give one pause. If, as Jesus says, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me,” then, shouldn’t missions to non-Christians remain of the utmost importance? If this is intended as an effort to improve inter-religious dialogue, it goes too far. If we are to truly converse with others, we must never lose our own voice. We are Christians and so we must remain ‘apologetically’ (strongly defending our position) and ‘unapologetically’ (without feeling shame for it). It may be politically incorrect, but it’s biblically right.
