One of the core teachings from the apostle Paul is the idea that believers in the Gospel of Christ are to live by the Spirit and are no longer under the Law of Moses.  Linked to the Gospel is the idea of divine grace: we do not earn acceptance by God because we are able to comply with the prescriptions of the Law, but because God is merciful enough to forgive our imperfections.  Paul says:

^“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:21-24)

The debate about the choice between Law or Gospel appears to have been resolved in Acts 15, which talks about a council held in Jerusalem by the leaders of the early Church to decide whether Gentile converts should be required to observe the Law of Moses and be circumcised.  The decision reached by the leaders is that Gentiles should not be burdened either with circumcision or the Law, and much of Paul’s teaching to the churches he founded remained consistent with that decision.

I have previously written about the changes that occurred when the status of Christianity went from persecuted religion to state religion of the Roman Empire. It is not difficult to see how the desire to accommodate for the needs of an empire relying on force and brutality for domination, and on notions of law and order for self-maintenance, would have led to the corruption of a religion whose founder preached about love, peace, forgiveness and caring for one’s neighbor.

Apparently, Paul’s teaching about divine grace must have suffered in the process since history tells us that it took a 16^th century monk named Martin Luther to rediscover it.  This rediscovery led to the Protestant Reformation.  However, listening to Protestants today, one gets the impression that grace is simply the means by which they go to heaven.  On earth, they believe they are firmly under the Law, and some seem to think the nation will be saved if the Ten Commandments are posted in courts.  They relentlessly fight to control the judicial system so that they can coerce citizens into obeying rules that are often rooted in their cultural biases.  They have fully gone backward from the Gospel to the Law, and that is actually not surprising: One of their founding leaders, John Calvin, managed to convince them Paul was actually saying that the Gospel is included in the Law.  Of course, if Paul believed that, he would not have written the following:

^“So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” (Galatians 5:16-18)

Christians who think of the Law as God’s ultimate revelation do not seem to pay any mind to Paul’s clear intent to redirect Christian living from the Law to what he calls life by the Spirit: Christian ethical conduct should be driven, not by compliance with a set of legal commands, but by an inner transformation through which they are non-coercively led, by the action of the Holy Spirit, to live in ways that reflect the nature of the true God:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22-23)

Those who undergo the true inner transformation implied by these words do not need the Law, and it is extremely clear that a return to the Law is an abandonment of the higher calling of the Christian faith.  In a previous post, I discussed Pope Francis’ views on this matter, which he expressed in his commentary about Galatians 3:1-5.  As we will see below, he continues to be vocal on this subject.

The approach used by Conservative Christians in their fight against abortion leads to the conclusion that they choose the Law over the Gospel.  Their relentless efforts to change the laws of the nation show their single-minded focus on legalism.  Of course, those efforts can also be legitimately questioned in a nation whose constitution calls for separation of state and religion, a point that is addressed by Linda Greenhouse in an article published on September 21, 2021 in the New York Times.  The article is titled God Has No Place in Supreme Court Opinions.

It is important to understand that New Testament Christians saw themselves as citizens of heaven and pilgrims on earth.  They were expected to respect earthly laws and authorities, but live by kingdom of God principles.  Jesus expected them to non-coercively exert influence in the world by being, through their conduct, a light to non-believers:

“In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

From that perspective, it is easy to see why Christians should respect the idea of separation between church and state, which protects minority religions and interests against a dominant religion that might seek to impose its will on all citizens.  The Christian goal should be to influence, not to coerce.

Greenhouse writes as a defender of separation of state and religion.  She starts her article with an example that would be seen today as a “low point” for the United States Supreme Court: About 150 years ago, both the Illinois Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court denied an application by Myra Bradwell who was trying to assert her constitutional right to be admitted to the Illinois bar.  She had passed the Illinois bar exam with high honors.  The shameful decision was tied to questionable religious beliefs, as seen in an opinion written by one of the justices of the US Supreme Court who wrote:

“The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.”

But Greenhouse’s article primarily addresses the current Republican efforts to restrict or eliminate abortions, which could lead to the repeal of Roe v Wade by today’s conservative Supreme Court.  She notes that historically, Republican politicians initially relied on secular arguments in their crusade against abortion:

“Republican politicians used to offer secular rationales for their anti-abortion zealotry: They claimed that abortion hurt women or that abortion procedures demeaned the medical profession. In the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, some opportunistic states imposed temporary bans on abortion, making the demonstrably false assertion that abortion patients would take up scarce hospital beds.”

Today, the arguments are overtly religious, with no fear of violating separation of state and religion:

“But now, sensing the wind at their backs and the Supreme Court on their side, Republican officeholders are no longer coy about their religion-driven mission to stop abortion. In May, when Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed S.B. 8, the vigilante bill that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, he claimed that ‘our creator endowed us with the right to life, and yet millions of children lose their right to life every year because of abortion. In Texas we work to save those lives.’ (There are actually fewer than one million abortions a year in the United States, but let’s not get picky with the facts.)

Two years earlier, signing a bill that criminalized nearly all abortions in Alabama, Gov. Kay Ivey called the measure a ‘testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.’”

Greenhouse also points out the hypocrisy associated with some of the arguments put forth by the politicians:

“And this year, a Republican state senator in Arkansas, Jason Rapert, declared in explaining his sponsorship of a bill to ban nearly all abortions that ‘there’s six things God hates, and one of those is people who shed innocent blood,’ as if it were self-evident that he was referring to abortion rather than to the ‘stand your ground’ bill that he co-sponsored.”

But the end of her article has particular relevance to the subject of this post.  She described the abortion debate between New York Catholic governor Mario Cuomo and Catholic leadership:

“In this country, the clash between church and state over abortion is an old story. Thirty-seven years ago, one of the country’s most prominent Catholic public officials, Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, was caught up in a debate with the church over his support for using public money to pay for abortions for poor women. The Supreme Court had recently upheld the Hyde Amendment, which cut off federal Medicaid funding for that purpose. But states remained free to spend their own money, and New York had chosen to do so. On Sept. 13, 1984, Mr. Cuomo addressed the controversy, defending the state’s policy in a speech at Notre Dame that he titled “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective.’”

The governor accepted the church’s teaching on abortion as a matter of personal belief.  But as a public official, he thought “there is no church teaching that mandates the best political course for making our belief everyone’s rule.”  In her article, Greenhouse provides a portion of his remarkable speech:

“The hard truth is that abortion isn’t a failure of government. No agency or department of government forces women to have abortions, but abortion goes on. Catholics, the statistics show, support the right to abortion in equal proportion to the rest of the population. Despite the teaching in our homes and schools and pulpits, despite the sermons and pleadings of parents and priests and prelates, despite all the effort at defining our opposition to the sin of abortion, collectively we Catholics apparently believe — and perhaps act — little differently from those who don’t share our commitment. Are we asking government to make criminal what we believe to be sinful because we ourselves can’t stop committing the sin?”

It turns out that one-quarter of American women are Catholic, and one-quarter of abortions are from Catholic women.  In other words, Catholicism has failed to make a difference, and wants to use a coercive approach to make up for its failure to lead by the Spirit.  Apparently, Cuomo understood this better than his critics.  Greenhouse writes:

“’Persuading, not coercing’ had to be the goal ‘in our unique pluralistic democracy,’ the governor said. ‘And we can do it even as politicians.’”

Within the Catholic Church, another aspect of this debate is currently seen in the push among some American bishops to keep President Biden from receiving Communion because of his Pro-Choice position on abortion.  It is argued that a president who does not adhere to the teaching of the Church on abortion should not be allowed to participate in a Sacrament such as the Eucharist.  This topic took on particular urgency in anticipation of Biden’s planned visit to the Vatican.

On October 29, 2021, Biden met Pope Francis for 75 minutes, which is considered “an unusually long time by Vatican standards.”  By comparison, the pope met with President Obama for 52 minutes, and with President Trump for 30 minutes.

According to a White House official, “The engagement between the two was very warm when the delegation arrived in the room. There was laughter and clear rapport between President Biden and Pope Francis.”

According to a Vatican source, “The atmosphere was very friendly and relaxed. You could see that the pope and the president know each other well and enjoyed being together.”

After the meeting, the Vatican released the following statement:

“’During the course of the cordial discussions, the Parties focused on the joint commitment to the protection and care of the planet, the healthcare situation and the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as the theme of refugees and assistance to migrants.’ It added that ‘reference was also made to the protection of human rights, including freedom of religion and conscience.’ It concluded: ‘the talks enabled an exchange of views on some matters regarding the current international situation, also in the context of the imminent G20 summit in Rome, and on the promotion of peace in the world through political negotiation.’”

Clearly, climate change, health care, the Covid-19 pandemic, assistance to refugees and migrants, human rights, freedom of religion and conscience and world peace are all concerns the two leaders have in common.  And Biden reportedly said to the pope: “You are the most significant warrior for peace I’ve ever met.”

Not surprisingly, reporters were anxious to know whether there had been any discussion about Biden’s participation in the Eucharist.  The president reportedly said “We just talked about the fact he was happy I was a good Catholic and keep receiving Communion.”

This does not mean the pope supports abortion.  However, he had addressed the Communion topic in prior declarations in which he exhorted bishops to be less judgmental and act as pastors rather than politicians.  To him, politicians are quick to condemn, and that has been a serious problem in Church history:

“But always this condemnation, condemnation. Enough with excommunications! Please let’s not make more excommunications. The poor people, they are children of God and they want and need our pastoral closeness. Then the pastor resolves things as the Spirit tells him.”

Clearly, Pope Francis is against the legalistic approach associated with bishops who act as politicians rather than pastors.  Pastors must be led by the Spirit rather than legalistic considerations.  As for himself, he revealed that he had never refused communion to anybody, and further explained his position as follows:

“What must the pastor do? Be a pastor. Be a pastor and don’t go around condemning, not condemning…. But is he a pastor for the excommunicated too? Yes, he is a pastor and must be a pastor with him, to be a pastor with God’s style. And God’s style is closeness, compassion and tenderness.”

I doubt very much that the American bishops who want to deny the Communion to Biden are motivated by closeness, compassion and tenderness.  It is more likely they want to punish him because they disagree with his political views.  In the process, they may be acting as if the Church belongs to them.  The pope has a different perspective on the matter.  Perhaps this explains his continued focus on the book of Galatians lately.

In an address delivered on October 17, 2021, the pope first reminded his audience about Paul’s complete surrender to “Christ crucified,” that is, to the idea of God’s grace as reflected in the sacrificial love demonstrated by Jesus through his death on the cross. The pope then discussed the natural result of this surrender, life by the Spirit as taught by Paul, which he contrasted to the legalism that is constantly promoted by many.  The last portion of the pope’s address is reproduced below.  It should be helpful for understanding how the true Christian calling differs from the picture projected by those who want to see the Ten Commandments in courts.

The fruit of the Spirit, instead, is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5:22-23), as Paul says. Christians, who in baptism have “put on Christ” (Gal 3:27), are called to live as such. It can be a good spiritual exercise, for example, to read Saint Paul’s list and take a look at our own behavior to see if it corresponds, if we are truly living according to the Holy Spirit, if we are bearing these fruits.

These fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control: does my life bear these fruits? Is it the Spirit who gives? For example, the first three that are listed are love, peace and joy: a person in whom the Holy Spirit dwells can be recognized by these traits. A person who is in peace, who is joyful and who loves. With these three traits, the Spirit is seen.

The Apostle’s teaching poses quite a challenge for our communities too. Sometimes, those who approach the Church get the impression that they are dealing with a dense mass of rules and regulations: but no, this is not the Church! This can be whatever association. But, in reality, the beauty of faith in Jesus Christ cannot be grasped on the basis of so many commandments or of a moral vision developed in many layers which can make us forget the original fruitfulness of love nourished by prayer from which peace and joyful witness flow.

In the same way, the life of the Spirit, expressed in the Sacraments, cannot be suffocated by a bureaucracy that prevents access to the grace of the Spirit, the initiator of conversion of heart. And how many times we ourselves, priests or bishops, follow so much bureaucracy to give a sacrament, to welcome people, so that people say: “No, I do not like this”, and they do not go, and many times they do not see in us the power of the Spirit who regenerates, who makes everyone new. We therefore have the huge responsibility of proclaiming Christ crucified and risen, enlivened by the breath of the Spirit of love. For it is this love alone that possesses the power to attract and change the human heart. Thank you.