The Jesus we learn about in the bible and on Sundays fought for the little guy. He healed the sick. He made it so that the blind could see and the deaf could hear. He hung out with the dregs of human society and invested his efforts in helping them.

Then, we get to abortion. That’s where we have a bit of a separation. The church preaches that life is sacred whether it is at the beginning or the bitter end. It preaches that all life should be valued whether they be saint or sinner. Obviously, ending a pregnancy doesn’t fall into that paradigm.

Yet, there has always been a tension between the faith teachings of any church and the way a secular society has to be run. It has always been a challenge to keep God in our lives and yet not to intrude on the beliefs of others. A moral law cannot be based on religion alone. It must be backed by common sense, basic human decency, and a universal agreement of its existence.

This is a serious moment in our nation’s history. It demands seriousness on all sides. The Declaration of Independence said we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are God-given rights it said. We were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Life is the first and the most basic human right.

However, to call oneself pro-life implies that those that are opposed to a specific viewpoint are anti-life. The reality is that we are talking about one narrow definition of life and one point in the life continuum. The truth is that there are any number of issues and times in our lives when the question of life is paramount. What does it truly mean to be alive? Are there basic human necessities everyone is entitled to? If so, what are they?

If we are entitled to life then it is absolute at every juncture. It is absolute when I commit a crime. It is absolute when we have wars of choice. It is also absolute when I lack the basic necessities of life. It is absolute when I am hungry. It is absolute when I don’t have a roof over my head. It is absolute when I need health care and don’t have insurance. Any conversation about life has to include a discussion about the quality of life. We must agree on a minimal quality of life if we are to call ourselves pro-life.

When one calls for the birth of a child and then offers nothing in support of that child once it is born then they cease to be pro-life. They are pro-birth. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as a viewpoint. You just don’t get to claim a higher moral ground or have sole appeal to a higher moral authority.

If we are to be strict constructionists then we would have to strike down the equal protections clause in the 14th amendment except for those groups specifically named in the constitution. That would include mixed race couples, LGTBQ+ individuals, in addition to those rights of privacy not explicitly stated in the constitution.

As appetizing as that may sound to some, it puts a qualifier on life. Your life is only fully actualized if it fits into this tiny box we defined in 1789 and after the civil war and reconstruction. Otherwise, you are invisible and you do not get to love who you want or be who you want to be.

Most people are well-meaning folks. They really don’t want to hurt anyone and think making such limitations helps those folks. I’m just trying to imagine Jesus of Nazareth saying the same things. I really can’t. In order to keep the faith I do have I refuse to.

By now I’m sure that you’ve heard about the Catholic priest who has resigned in shame after the Church declared all of his baptisms invalid because he used the word “we” insted of the liturgical “I” as in, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”  It blew up last week, after the Diocese of Phoenix announced on its website that everyone  baptized during the career of Phoenix priest Father Andres Arango has had their baptisms invalidated by the Church.  What that means is that their subsequent first communions, marriages, and all other liturgical events in their lives are also invalid.  The announcement even included a form to fill out to get a corrective baptism done.

To a post-christian infidel like me, the entire issue seems absurd, but this judgment by the Church has thrown thousands of people’s lives into serious uncertainly, and only God knows how many of those people who had died since Arango’s invalid baptisms are now burning in hell because of one wrong word.  I’m sorry, but this “scandal” is complete bullshit.

So what’s really going on here?  Well, as explained by another priest, actually former priest, Father Nathan Monk, it’s a diversion from an actual scandal in the Church.  In a Facebook post a few days ago, Monk explained the absurdity of the Phoenix Diocese’s claim that the baptisms are invalid, noting that the only requirement is that the baptism should be in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, the traditional Trinity in Christianity.  He explained further that even laypersons (not ordained) can baptize a person in an emergency, and those baptisms are considered valid.

In that same post, though, Monk drops the bombshell, which actually should have been obvious….The Diocese of Phoenix invalidated these thousands of baptisms on the orders of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the enforcer of rules in the Catholic Church.  So why would this agency inside the Vatican do such a thing to a local priest way out in Phoenix?  Monk explains it this way –

“Because the decision came down from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and this absurd story broke right after Joey Ratz aka Pope Emeritus Benedict the 16th was called to the carpet for how he handled another scandal within the Church. And guess where he was in leadership before being appointed pope? The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! And guess which story we are talking about instead of that? The one about a priest saying ‘we’ instead of ‘I.'”

Now we get it.  Monk contends, and it makes more sense than any of us would like, that the Roman Catholic Church willfully and knowingly destroyed the life long career of a devoted bilingual priest and turned the lives of thousands of people on their heads to distract church attention away from the actual villain, who is Ratzinger, in an effort to protect his corruption.

This sordid tale explains perfectly how, and more why, the Church as we know it is dying. And that death can’t come soon enough.

The American Council of Bishops is strongly considering denying the Eucharist to Joe Biden. To understand the gravity of this, one needs to understand exactly what the Eucharist is. For centuries, the Catholic church have been the only group to believe in something called transubstantiation. Put simply, this is the belief that the host one receives actually becomes Jesus Christ.

Again, that’s pretty heavy stuff. However, it is also the thing which separates us from all of the other Christian churches. Sure, we have rules and regulations. All of them do. Sure, we have traditions. All of them do. We have idiosyncrasies that people believe about us that aren’t true. As a Catholic I get these questions all the time. They can become tiresome, but most people are asking innocently enough.

The Eucharist is the very center of our faith. It is the very reason why we go to mass. It is the thing I miss the most when I don’t go and it is the thing that has been a hole during the pandemic. The church offers a spiritual alternative for those that are unable to go, but that hardly measures up. So in short, it’s the whole ballgame.

Catholics are taught from a very early age that they are not supposed to receive the host if they have a mortal sin on their conscience. I’m certain this is where the bishops are getting their mojo to deny Biden. However, I have never witnessed any priest deny anyone the host that comes up to receive it. It is supposed to be a personal decision that is governed by the individual and their conscience.

While this rule has been in place as long as I’ve been a Catholic, the mechanics of it really have never made much sense. We are receiving God. We are receiving God’s grace. God’s grace is given freely to anyone that chooses to accept it. How are we as mere mortals supposed to decide who is worthy of that grace?

How do we decide that Joe is not worthy, but Sally over here is? We are all sinners. We all need God’s grace. Forget heaven for now. Sometimes, that grace is something I have needed to get through the week or even through the day when I attended daily mass. The president of the United States certainly can use God’s grace. He attends mass regularly. By most accounts he is a good and decent person. I’m still not sure what the problem is here.

Except we all know what the problem is here. Biden is politically Pro-Choice. Privately I’m not sure what he is exactly. That describes millions of Catholics across the country. It describes me. I believe in the sanctity of life. The funny thing is that this extends to the death penalty and wars of choice as well. Yet, those same bishops have no problem supporting politicians that support the death penalty and tend to be hawkish. Yet, they are somehow free to receive God.

I don’t know if being Pro-choice is a sin. It’s a complex situation that has any number of perspectives and theologians will certainly disagree. I do know that we can support people’s rights to choose what is right for them without necessarily agreeing with the choices they make. That extends to a whole lot more than just abortion. We can accept them. We can love them. I certainly believe my God does and I don’t think any human should say otherwise.