In or Out

Imagine, if you will, that you have an organization devoted to doing charity work. You meet regularly and have a nice system and structure, world contacts, the works. As a part of membership, you require that everyone refrain from spending money on silly things (big screen TV's, third cars, etc.), in order that they more greatly appreciate the things that they have, and so that more of their income can be given to charity. Everyone accepts this as a logical consequence of your organizations beliefs and goals.


Then imagine that some members start to balk at this requirement. They feel that it's too intrusive and not really relevant to whether a person is truly working towards the organizations charitable goals. A few begin to openly flout it, holding big parades where they show off their new flat-screen plasma sets with 6-speaker stereo surround sound and Mustangs for their 16-year-olds. Many become angry at these heretics, and start committees devoted to condemning them and returning to the organization's simple goals. Many more take a conciliatory approach, declaring that while they don't have a big-screen TV themselves, the decision to have a big-screen TV or not is a personal decision, utterly divorced from any other consideration. The leadership affirms the original requirements but takes no action against those that ignore them.


The result of all this squabbling is a noticeable decline in actual charitable work. The anti-big-screen crowd, or as they prefer to be called, "pro-simplicity", start devoting their energies and resources to causes that undermine the arguments of the pro-big-screen crowd, who prefer to be called "pro-choice," and do likewise. Membership begins to decline because people are tired of listening to it.


You're the leader of this organization. You believe in the not-buying-ostentatious things requirements. You believe that it accomplishes good things. What do you do with those that persistently ignore this requirement yet claim to be members of the organization?


You can a) continue to ignore the problem, b) change the rules to accomodate the pro-choice members, or c) demand that the pro-choice members accept the rules or face expulsion.


What do you do, hot shot? What do you do?


Some people might think it horrendous that the Catholic Church would start to deny communion to people who are pro-abortion. Andrew Sullivan, natch, chalks it up to theocon nastiness (I doubt he'd have a problem with the Church serving Mel Gibson in that capacity, however).


The exclusion from the sacrements, like excommunication, seems brutish, but is actually intended to be communicative, to indicate in the starkest terms possible that an individual's actions are endangering his immortal soul. It was a lot more effective when there was only one church to be a member of, but such is the way of things. But in a time when the Inquisition, and the idea that destroying the body will purge the soul is, thankfully, no more, exactly how shall the Church discipline its members? How shall those who consistently flout the church's teachings without regard to the moral considerations contained therein be dealt with? If the Church has not the authority to denounce immorality, and those who practice immorality, in the starkest terms, then it is effectively neutered. That many, for various reasons, would want it thus, I do not doubt. But it is not for such reasons that the Church exists.