kerry, conscience and communion

matty b asked whether i have any polemical ideas about bishops excommunicating politicians. well, i think i do, and strangely enough it seems to coincide both w/ some orthodox roman catholics and the evangelicals behind the editorial in christianity today on "the politics of communion" (thanks, again, to amy welborn for the heads-up). in contrast to what i said in the last post, wherein i castigate myself for being so dogmatically minded and quick to wrap myself in the cloak of "captian orthodox," it is precisely the bishops' bailiwick to stand guard over the faith once delivered to the saints. if the church, in the personages of the bishops, fail to fulfil its charge to defend the faith, it undermine its own position as "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 tim 3.15). in fact, it's reprehensible that the idea of barring the table, a sort of "minor excommunication" (see "excommunication" in the catholic encycl.) in other words, is seen in today's "hypermodern" world as so, well, reprehensible. i'm a kerry supporter, don't get me wrong (although i may write in the king of town); but i think he's off the mark when he draws this line b/tw acts and consequences in public and private life. the following is attributed to justin martyr by archbishop charles j. chaput: no one may take part (in the eucharist) unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what christ taught. i think all of us should think about that (and ponder 1 cor. 11.27) more often, politicians included.

hooowahhh, matt.