RBWords

It wasn't all that hard to be a "sinner" in the sight of the scribes and Pharisees. All you had to do was to be in a job that brought you into contact with something that was considered ritually "unclean." This could mean any occupation that dealt with dead animals, like tanning, or in the case of the tax collectors, with Roman coinage! In any case, a teacher like Jesus who sat and ate with such folks was scandalous to folks like the scribes and Pharisees. Uncleaness meant a person could not engage in any temple worship, and anyone who touched them could also become unclean. There were certain things that had to be done to get rid of the unclean status, etc.. It is because Jesus often ignored these requirements that the resentment and opposition of the religious authorities of his day began to grow. His position on this matter was that the more important thing was to reach out to the faith of these "untouchables" and bring them to God. There is a tension here that one more than occasionally experiences in our modern way of being Church.

"Excommunication" is a term that has become more and more "popular" in recent years because some folks believe that anyone who doesn't toe the line on certain subjects (important as those subjects are in their own right) should be banned from receiving communion or other sacraments. That is the effect of excommunication! It is the most severe penalty that the Church can impose. Much of it centers around definitions of "intrinsic evil" and canonical penalties. Those who "go to communion" while engaging in conduct that destroys "communion" are not telling the truth. to be sure. They should be confronted. Throwing them out doesn't accomplish what Jesus speaks of in his response to the scribes and Pharisees. Those who advocate the most extreme penalties (no matter how important the subject) should ask if they are truly among the righteous or are they willing to be among the sinners? Whom did Jesus say he came to call? AMEN