If in 1960 the American people had believed that the Catholic Church found it appropriate to confront a politician about his/her voting record during a homily, I don't think John F. Kennedy would have been elected president.

Further, if this weren't political, then it would be the usual within the Catholic Church for all manner of greedy or dishonest people to be "called out" individually as it would also be the norm to "call out" the divorced, those "living" together, those etc. I'm not aware this is happening.

In the United Methodist Church, we would have to "call out" President Bush because our "protected" Constitutional articles of faith (objective Truth) provide that all war is incompatible with Christian teaching -- no exceptions. Unprotected (can be changed) Discipline language allows for war under limited circumstances.

In the United Methodist Church, we would have to "call out" President Bush because our "protected" Constitutional articles of faith (objective Truth) provide that all war is incompatible with Christian teaching -- no exceptions.

Does the UMC really believe that? I know that the UMC believes war is "incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ," but are there really no exceptions? Was WWII an immoral conflict in which the Allies should have surrendered to Nazi advances? And what about the wars discussed in Revelation, some of which are to be led by God's army?

Josh,

Without being able to give you the theological answer, I might venture to guess that the state of one being aggressor versus defender may be important. In Revelation, does God's Army lead a war of unprovoked aggression or are they forced to fight?

Just as a matter of trivia (unless you are a catholic bishop)which Father of the Church noted that Hell was paved with the skulls of bishops? As to Kmiec and that new fellow in Washington, D.C. have they done anything worthwhile on the scandal of political sorts running as 100% Catholics when they aren't even 10% so?

Joel:

There is quite the debate within the Church centering around whether or not the Iraq war was indeed a just war. And it's fine to do so; there will be no overarching pronouncement directly condemning it either way. We acknowledge, however, that there is indeed such a thing as "just war," (and, as Josh points out, anybody with any sense would have to realize this, even if war - in every single instance - is a failure on the part of humanity, and as many trees have died to prove, pacifism is not an objective tenant of Christianity) so you're free to kick the idea around, to debate, etc., and it would undoubtedly be wrong for any ordained individual to directly condemn the war from the pulpit.

Abortion, however, is a different beast. Every act of abortion is dehumanizing. Every single one. Think of it as a dogma, if that makes it easier: your profession of faith is directly tied to this principle.

So the representative in question is clearly in error. To put it another way, as St. Thomas Aquinas himself would say: This man is causing scandal.

Now, I agree with Zach. Calling him on the carpet in front of everybody probably wasn't the best of moves, but it was a move consistent with past and present responsibilities. Pastorally, a bad move. But it's still a move consistent with the faith, and I won't pretend that part of me didn't cheer when I heard the news.

Michael: What you have stated is clearly an exception: War is "incompatible with the teachings and example of Christ," unless one is the defender. But does the UMC believe in this exception? Joel's point was that there is no exception.

Josh: Just as FYI, Seth wrote this post, not Zach.

Joel:

With regard to just war and the current state of affairs, I would suggest Jean Bethke Elshtain's Just War Against Terror, who mounts a thoughtful defense of Bush's foreign policy.

And, I do agree with you: The Church should move beyond only flash-point issues and also address others, such as divorce and living in sin.

Josh,

I was simply pointing out the official position of the United Methodist Church. The fact that most United Methodists find war necessary under some circumstances is reflected in the attempted softening of the Constitutionally protected ban on war with legislative approval of some form of just war theory. Part of my point has to do with whether or not under United Methodist Church law a matter stated by the denominational Constitution to be an unchangeable Article of Religion can be amended (weakened) by legislative enactment. The Article of Religion providing that war goes against the Gospel and the spirit of Christ does not list any exceptions. Only the legislative enactments, which the Constitution forbids from altering or changing our Articles of Relgion, contain the exceptions.

I myself support some version of "just war theory". That raises the question as to whether or not I am upholding UM doctrine on war. If I'm not, then I'm subject to being defrocked.

As far as Iraq, I believe there is zero possibility that such is a just war.

Regarding the question of abortion, many conservative politicians accept or suport a Constitutional amendment that allows for abortion in the cases of rape or incest. Even though that position is contrary to the Catholic position, the Church seems willing to accomodate those politicians.