The conflict between Patrick Kennedy and his Catholic bishop uncovers the underlying fail of most of the fundamental Christian groups that choose to ignore the separation of church and state policy. By playing this political game, they in essence abandon the philosophy of their founder.
The words were simple, “whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone.”
The lessons behind the words were far more complex, however.
First, they indicated the end of the Mosaic Law and ushered in the era of spiritual principles. What it meant was, people would be punished “by” their sins not “for” them. Sinning or not sinning is a personal matter, and judgment is a conscience issue based on an individual’s relationship with the principles taught.
To back this up, when the disciples were being commissioned for the ministry, it was explained clearly that if anyone rejected the “message,” the disciples were to “kick the dust from their sandals and walk away.” No judgment, no condemnation. They were just to walk away and move on.
It was the spreading of the message that was the important duty to fulfill, not the dispensation of judgment or the imposing of doctrine. The message itself was a road map, not a rule book, and it was up to the individual whether or not the road was to be taken and how accurately the map followed.
The reward or loss as the final outcome, is to be determined by the individual’s loyalty to his or her own trained conscience and how well the principles were applied throughout the person’s life.
Secondly, and more important to the failure of organized religion is the removal of authority of one over his or her fellow man. By removing governance by law and replacing it with principles, teaching was to be the primary duty of the congregations rather than enforcement.
The level of an individual’s association with the congregation then, is based on their willingness to be “like-minded” with the other members, and severance to be determined by the individual’s “straying from the flock.”
It is the teachings and strength of the group that serves as a shield of protection to keep the congregations clean. The elders’ function then is in the areas of persuasion and guidance as a shepherd. Their job is to watch for those straying and try bringing them back to the security of the message, not to impose punishment. If the member responds favorably, then the elder did his job. If the member continues to stray, then the elder simply notifies the rest of the congregation of that one’s current standing in order to protect them from influence.
And finally, the matter at hand between Kennedy and his bishop . . .
It was said, “keep doing this in remembrance of me.” It was not said, “keep doing this only if you’re following all the rules and have the approval of your elders.”
By partaking in the memorial ritual, an individual is merely acknowledging the “new covenant.” His or her level of adherence to the principles of that covenant is inconsequential to participation in the ritual itself. However, by participating, the individual’s life performance in connection to the covenant then becomes a matter of conscience and brings value or lack there of to the act of participation.
But in any event, the entire thing is about a person’s relationship and standing with the covenant and in no way should be dictated or governed by anyone else.
So then, when religion tries to influence law in order to enforce adherence to principle, they end up leaning back toward judgment and punishment revoked by the “new covenant” and ignore the teaching of the one they claim to follow.
And that’s exactly what the bishop did when trying to force Kennedy’s hand based on his position on the law rather than on his own personal adherence to spiritual principle. Kennedy’s job binds him to the secular constitution, and in good conscience must vote accordingly. Yet as a Catholic, he may never consider doing certain things allowed in that secular law for his own life or those of his family.
As a disciple once said, “all things may be lawful, but not all things are advantageous.”
This should serve as a clear separating factor between secular law and Christian principle. And so, if the elders were doing their job correctly, there would be no reason to concern themselves with whether or not the law was in step with what they’re supposedly promoting, nor whether or not their flocks were taking advantage of the lawfulness of certain acts.
It’s all a matter of principle, and they’d do well to stick to that.
