I don't really understand the Catholic standards for ex-communication. For example, the American Catholic Church allowed American priest Father Charles Coughlin to spout his anti-Semitic, anti-black, pro-Nazi propaganda for 12 years (1930-42), but will ex-communicate someone just because they take a principled stand as part of the cause of justice and compassion?

I intended my comment for the post above. Oops!

Joel,
As Justin stated in this thread topic, "A Catholic is a Catholic because of the Catechism, not because of a history book." The same is true whether or not the history is actually in a book or common knowledge.

Well, first of all, Joel, you're being extremely uncharitable when it comes to the Church generally and its handling of Fr. Coughlin. My understanding is that his radio rhetoric didn't start out objectionable but progressed in that direction in the late '30s, until the Church forced him off the air in '40 and then to cease all political activity after Pearl Harbor.

I'm not sufficiently interested to go in search of the U.M. Church's dark spots (indeed, that represents an inter-church practice — sometimes nearly a hobby — that baffles me about Christians), but I don't imagine that it's history is without blemishes, even by your radical standards.

Second of all, you're misconstruing the Catholic conception of excommunication, as well as blurring all sorts of distinctions that ought to be obvious. I speak, here, not only of differences between issues, but also of differences of kind and degree within people's dealings with each issue.

Third of all, your Church may offer the eucharist to everybody and anybody, but from what I understand, the your Church doesn't attribute to the ritual the same thing that Catholics do.

Justin,

I have a very high opinion of the Catholic Church in some areas, a low opinion in others. Besides, from reading your writings, it seems clear to me you don't have a necessarily charitable attitude toward liberal Christians.

Yes, the Methodist Church had a substantial history of racism and bigotry, particularly in the South. I think that should be talked about openly.

How I am misconstruing ex-communication?

Yes, United Methodists have a different understanding of the eucharist. However, it is possible that some Catholics would prefer to receive communion under circumstances they consider less than ideal than not to receive it at all.

Father Coughlin ceased broadcasting, but he never renounced his views -- yet he was allowed to continue as a parish priest until he retired in 1966.

Although his radio broadcast ceased in 1940 -- some say at the insistence of the church -- others say because the National Broadcasters Association instigated a cancellation of his contract, Coughlin continued to publish anti-Semitic materials until on May 1, 1942, when Archbishop Francis Mahoney warned him to cease political activities or be defrocked. However, the Archbishop didn't act until the U.S. Government had first seized his publications as geing in violation of the Espionage Act.

Your attitude that the Catholic Church isn't to be questioned explains exactly why Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation came to be. I would have preferred that the Church had instead listened to him and remained as one.

Joel,

I've never said that the Catholic Church shouldn't be questioned. I'm primarily objecting to your use of my comments sections for the purpose of U.M. evangelization.

I should have made more explicit a point that is mostly just implied above: digging up old dirty laundry from the Church's past doesn't constitute an argument for a particular policy today. In other words, raising Fr. Coughlin is a distraction — a rhetorical trick.

Joel,
You do me a great disservice by suggesting that I tolerate hatred of Jews because I am Catholic. Even as I was brought up in a Southern Baptist household, I did not tolerate hatred of Jews, Blacks, or anybody else for that matter. You are also making a big mistake to confuse hatred of people with hatred of ideas, or even actions. Is that really a difficult concept to understand? When it comes down to it, I am no more tolerant of hate than I am of homogamous actions. In my experience that is more true of the majority Catholics that I know than is your allegation.

smmtheory,

I've made no such claim that you have a hatred for Jews or a tolerance for such hatred. I made a true assertion that the Roman Catholic church as an institution had a long history of anti-Semitism, whereas the Methodist Church had a long history of racism. I asked a valid question of what causes an institution to tolerate anti-Semitism on the one hand but be quick to ex-communicate someone for instituting Christ's call for love of neighbor with respect to gays on the other hand. I am equally critical of my own church for its hard and unloving stance against gays.

By Justin's view someone is still "welcome" in the church if they have been refused the eucharist. I simply pointed out that in the United Methodist Church refusing communion would be considered an act consistent with being expelled from the church altogether.

My favorite politicians of all time are John and Robert Kennedy. Robert Kennedy in particular remains my idol today. I've spent countless hours defending Catholics in Oklahoma from Baptist and Pentecostal bigotry. The idea that I have it out for the Catholic Church is simply a figment of Justin's imagination. I have in fact always advocated for a much closer relationship between United Methodists and Catholics.

I found Eric Johnson's commentary quite interesting. Especially the part where he
states that if the Catholic Church were not the true Church, it would be a 'horrible monstrosity', because it presumed to speak with the authority of God but taught erroneously.

This is interesting to me because it is exactly what some opponents of the Church have been saying for centuries - they believe (apparently quite sincerely) that the RCC is teaching erroneously, and, therefore, _is_ a horrible monstrosity. This ranges from (culturally and theologically) conservative Lutherans and Baptists to fringe-dwellers like Jack Chick.

The question of whether a God of justice would permit His name to be misused in this way has itself been used by freethinkers since Ingersoll as evidence that God does not exist - or, conversely, that He does exist but leaves us free to do as we please while we live.

"There's no purpose in me responding to anything you write." I couldn't have said it better myself. :-)

Joel,
In your response to me, you didn't ask why the Catholic Church tolerated anti-Semitic hatred, you asked why Catholics tolerated it. If you are still not ready to make the distinction between the two, then we've got a long way to go to reach understanding between you and I. Then again with the way you casually state that you consider RFK your idol, I suspect the gulf between us may be insurmountable at the moment.

Joel,

I didn't say that you're being dishonest. Merely that you're evangelizing and citing irrelevancies. As for my disparaging of liberals, I could be wrong, but I don't believe I've ever attempted to disqualify a current position of theirs by citing an unrelated past issue.

I don't casually state Robert Kennedy as my idol. To me, he represents the highest ideal of what a Catholic should be.

If the Catholic Church isn't made up of Catholics, then what is it made up of? I think it is silly to make a distinction between the church as an institution and its members.

I would say that I am much closer to Catholic teaching on war and ecomomic justice than Justin is.

The question of whether a God of justice would permit His name to be misused in this way has itself been used by freethinkers since Ingersoll as evidence that God does not exist - or, conversely, that He does exist but leaves us free to do as we please while we live.

Of course He "leaves us free to do as we please while we live" - it's called free will. The idea that God must not exist because we have free will (because He permits His name to be misused) is fatuous. So is the idea that because we have free will, He doesn't care what choices we make.

Joel,
What would that ideal be that RFK represents? Being dead? I guess you don't believe that idolatry is sinful then. If I were unable to make the distinction between you and the UMC as an institution then I would probably assume the lot of you and your UMC fellowship were idolatrous troublemakers intent on misleading christians into apostasy.

smmtheory,

Fine, call him my hero. I didn't say I worshiped him. He represents concern for the poor as opposed to 25-30% credit card interest rates and other predatory lending practices that represent modern Republican morality.

At least I spell Christian with a capital C.

Mike S.,
I was making a reference (an excessively oblique one, apparently) to a line in Erick Johnson's original quoted piece,
"If the Catholic Church was not the true Church, it was a horrible monstrosity, because it presumed to speak with the authority of God but taught erroneously. Would a God of justice permit his name to be misused in this way for fifteen centuries?"
Presumably, your response to Mr. Johnsons's rhetorical question would be, Yes, a God of justice would certainly permit His name to be so misused."
Since we have free will, then, the fact that God has permitted the Catholic Church to speak for Him for fifteen centuries is not evidence that it is, in fact, speaking for Him. Therefore, Mr. Johsons's rhetorical question cannot be considered evidence that the Church is speaking for God.

That was the point I was making in that paragraph. You are, of course, free to continue to ignore the rest of my post - free will, and all.

Joel,
I spell Christians with a capital C too, except when I make typographical errors.

I'm going to do you a favor and assume that you require more qualifications than just those to estimate somebody as a hero, but I'm still not very impressed with your selection of hero. There is only one man that represents the ideal of what a Catholic should be, and it's not just anybody but the Lord himself.

Robert,

Gotcha. I agree with you that that particular line of reasoning is not a good argument in favor of the church. Islam has been around for 1300 years, but presumably Johnson doesn't think that is an argument for the truth of the Koran. I would look at it more from the standpoint not that God allows the church to speak for Him, but that if the church was, in fact, speaking falsehoods it would not be as successful as it has been. For example comparing Islamic societies with Christian ones I think favors the truth of Christianity vis-a-vis Islam.

I also reject the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is either 100% right or a monstrosity. Certainly some Protestants have thought the RCC was a monstronsity, but currently there are plenty of Protestants, myself included, who have a lot more affinity for the teachings of the RCC than for those of some liberal Protestant denominations. The RCC could, in fact, be speaking erroneously about some matters, but not be a 'monstrosity' because of it.