I do not plan to post endlessly, or even anymore, on the whole Corapi mess because I think one very quickly crosses a moral line speaking and writing about these things, taking an obsessive and prurient interest in such matters and urging others to do so, thus creating a kind of tabloid culture in the ekkelsia. However, there is one take on this matter that I think merits drawing some attention to- that of Deacon Bob Yerhot of the Diocese of Winona, Minnesota, who, unlike myself and others, actually has some expertise he can bring to bear on yesterday's announcement: John Corapi, aka "The Black Sheep Dog,". Bob offers some very worthwhile insights to anyone who has an interest in this matter, especially those who, understandably, want to defend "The Black Sheep Dog".
Deacon Bob, who works in the field of mental health, wrote- "From only reading the text of his statement it strikes me of a man who has a wounded pride. He seems to be lashing out, and seeing himself in some way now as the defender of truth in the world. He doesn’t actually say that, but it leaves that impression in my mind." Bob is one of the most faithful and gracious people I know. As I always, I appreciate his wisdom, prudence, and charity.
Deacon Bob also took the time to post an thoughtful comment regarding my last post, as have several others, like Bill Ditewig, who urges us not to forget the great disappointment, hurt, and potential disillusionment on the part of many who have followed Corapi over the years. A pastoral concern that I certainly share.
St. Isidore of Seville (proposed patron saint of the internet) and St. Francis de Sales, pray for us.
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Things contemporary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Things contemporary. Show all posts
Sad, but unsurprising
As with a lot of things in both the church and the world over the past several months, I have not written or spoken in any way about the predicament of John Corapi. I don't have anything particularly original or insightful to add. Suffice it to say, I am not a fan of anyone in the church who sets out on his/her own, creating ministries, especially media ministries, that are primarily about self-aggrandisement and making money. Few can bear it. Those who can bear it operate within structures of accountability. Dr. Graham is a great example of operating within structures of accountability. I certainly never rejoice when somebody, anybody, is caught doing something wrong. It grieves me, but I also pray that s/he will experience Christ through their self-inflicted troubles.
For those who are unaware, Corapi, striving, predictably, to get out in front on the story, announced today that he would no longer serve the church as a priest. Rather than accept any responsibility for the events that led to his effective resignation, which will likely result in formal action by the church in the near term, meaning his religious order, the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, he spends the entirety of his time complaining about the process and the authority of bishops regarding these matters, even while saying he accepts it all.
For those who do not know, Corapi was accused by a former female employee back in March that he engaged in sexual relations with multiple adult women and habitually abused drugs. These allegations were deemed credible by the responsible church authorities and, in accordance with binding norms, his priestly faculties were suspended pending the results of an ecclesial investigation. Corapi's response to the announcement of his suspension was really quite defiant, impugning the process practically before it began and all the while saying derogatory things about his accuser. Today, Corapi made the following announcement:
It's always disturbing when members of religious orders set off on their own, as did Corapi a long time prior to the allegations, living alone, focusing on the success of his own ministry, which he ran independently. I don't mind saying that I was never a fan of Corapi. I really disliked his style, which also seemed pretty self-absorbed (as does his most recent message). In my own ministry I can think of at least two occasions when I had to spiritually talk people down from what they took away from listening to him on a regular basis. I also know people from Sacramento who were there during his days in that diocese ('nuf said). All of this is why I resisted the temptation to write something before now. I was not sure I could write charitably.
I have read comments to the effect that Corapi is correct about the process. He is not. It is a canonical process, which in this instance would certainly provide him, even if only eventually (like when the investigation is completed), the opportunity to face his accuser and to be advised of the specific canonical charges (if there are any) against him. Maybe if he had decided to see the process through, which might include a canonical trial, even he would understand it better, and perhaps be exonerated. His decision not to wait for the process to move forward indicates that Corapi knows very well that everyone else involved in the case is sworn to confidentiality and so cannot respond publicly to the criticisms he voices in his resignation from the pristhood.
As you might imagine, there has already been a lot written in response to Corapi's pre-emptive announcement. I have to disagree with my dear brother Greg Kandra, who wrote that this announcement "is a sad moment... for the Church, which has lost a dynamic and singular voice" and agree with Mark Shea, who wrote that Corapi's statement set "a world record for most passive-aggressive manipulative self-aggrandizement ever squeezed into 8 and a half minutes." Sadly, at least to me, this seems an accurate summary of Corapi's ministry, too. As always, I appreciate Mark's forthrightness and honesty. (I doubt he remembers it, but I briefly met Mark outside Blessed Sacrament Church in Ballard, WA early on a Sunday morning in October 2008).
I pray for Corapi to receive the grace of true repentance and/or humility by recognizing just how Christ is reaching out to him in and through these events. As the Angelic Doctor averred, love is seeking the greatest good for your beloved. Or, as my dear Don Gius said, to truly love another is to love her/his destiny.
I will be so bold as to suggest that Corapi read the trials and travails of St. Pio of Pietrelcina, who was truly a victim of calumny and false accusations. For me personally, Pio's holiness lies mainly in his absolute trust in Christ in the face of such allegations.
For those who are unaware, Corapi, striving, predictably, to get out in front on the story, announced today that he would no longer serve the church as a priest. Rather than accept any responsibility for the events that led to his effective resignation, which will likely result in formal action by the church in the near term, meaning his religious order, the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity, he spends the entirety of his time complaining about the process and the authority of bishops regarding these matters, even while saying he accepts it all.
For those who do not know, Corapi was accused by a former female employee back in March that he engaged in sexual relations with multiple adult women and habitually abused drugs. These allegations were deemed credible by the responsible church authorities and, in accordance with binding norms, his priestly faculties were suspended pending the results of an ecclesial investigation. Corapi's response to the announcement of his suspension was really quite defiant, impugning the process practically before it began and all the while saying derogatory things about his accuser. Today, Corapi made the following announcement:
It's always disturbing when members of religious orders set off on their own, as did Corapi a long time prior to the allegations, living alone, focusing on the success of his own ministry, which he ran independently. I don't mind saying that I was never a fan of Corapi. I really disliked his style, which also seemed pretty self-absorbed (as does his most recent message). In my own ministry I can think of at least two occasions when I had to spiritually talk people down from what they took away from listening to him on a regular basis. I also know people from Sacramento who were there during his days in that diocese ('nuf said). All of this is why I resisted the temptation to write something before now. I was not sure I could write charitably.
I have read comments to the effect that Corapi is correct about the process. He is not. It is a canonical process, which in this instance would certainly provide him, even if only eventually (like when the investigation is completed), the opportunity to face his accuser and to be advised of the specific canonical charges (if there are any) against him. Maybe if he had decided to see the process through, which might include a canonical trial, even he would understand it better, and perhaps be exonerated. His decision not to wait for the process to move forward indicates that Corapi knows very well that everyone else involved in the case is sworn to confidentiality and so cannot respond publicly to the criticisms he voices in his resignation from the pristhood.
As you might imagine, there has already been a lot written in response to Corapi's pre-emptive announcement. I have to disagree with my dear brother Greg Kandra, who wrote that this announcement "is a sad moment... for the Church, which has lost a dynamic and singular voice" and agree with Mark Shea, who wrote that Corapi's statement set "a world record for most passive-aggressive manipulative self-aggrandizement ever squeezed into 8 and a half minutes." Sadly, at least to me, this seems an accurate summary of Corapi's ministry, too. As always, I appreciate Mark's forthrightness and honesty. (I doubt he remembers it, but I briefly met Mark outside Blessed Sacrament Church in Ballard, WA early on a Sunday morning in October 2008).
I pray for Corapi to receive the grace of true repentance and/or humility by recognizing just how Christ is reaching out to him in and through these events. As the Angelic Doctor averred, love is seeking the greatest good for your beloved. Or, as my dear Don Gius said, to truly love another is to love her/his destiny.
I will be so bold as to suggest that Corapi read the trials and travails of St. Pio of Pietrelcina, who was truly a victim of calumny and false accusations. For me personally, Pio's holiness lies mainly in his absolute trust in Christ in the face of such allegations.
Pentecost
"'Oh, could I tell, ye surely would believe it!
Oh, could I only say what I have seen!
"How should I tell or how can ye receive it,
How, till He bringeth you where I have been?
"Therefore, Lord, I will not fail nor falter,
Nay, but I ask it, nay, but I desire,
Lay on my lips Thine embers of the altar,
Seal with the sting and furnish with the fire;
Oh, could I only say what I have seen!
"How should I tell or how can ye receive it,
How, till He bringeth you where I have been?
"Therefore, Lord, I will not fail nor falter,
Nay, but I ask it, nay, but I desire,
Lay on my lips Thine embers of the altar,
Seal with the sting and furnish with the fire;
"Give me a voice, a cry and a complaining,
Oh, let my sound be stormy in their ears!
"Throat that would shout, but cannot stay for
straining,
Eyes that would weep, but cannot weep for tears.
"Quick in a moment, infinite for ever,
Send an arousal better than I pray.
Give me a grace upon the faint endeavor,
Souls for my hire and Pentecost to-day!"
Dr. Frederick Myers
Oh, let my sound be stormy in their ears!
"Throat that would shout, but cannot stay for
straining,
Eyes that would weep, but cannot weep for tears.
"Quick in a moment, infinite for ever,
Send an arousal better than I pray.
Give me a grace upon the faint endeavor,
Souls for my hire and Pentecost to-day!"
Dr. Frederick Myers
"Light a candle everything's alright"
It's too easy to get overwhelmed by the negative, by all the things in the world that drag us down, break our hearts, and tick us off, be it in the church or in the world, at home, or at work, wherever. All of this is why I love the motto of The Christophers so much: It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Along these lines, I came across David Brooks' 30 May 2011 column in the New York Times entitled It's Not About You.
He begins his article with by observing how poorly we, their elders, have served this year's graduating class, but he goes on to discuss not just the challenges and obstacles this presents to them, but the opportunities, too. He uses the opportunities to build up to his main point, which he captures beautifully in his final paragraph:
Besides, the One we follow tells us: "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:14-16- ESV). As my dear Don Gius put it, we are to be protagonists, not antagonists, in imitation of the Lord.
UPDATE: Speaking of lighting a candle, Jim & Cindy McConnell's pastor shows us what it means to gently shepherd his flock, see The Deacon's Bench for more. You might also wish Deacon Greg a happy birthday while you're there.
Along these lines, I came across David Brooks' 30 May 2011 column in the New York Times entitled It's Not About You.
He begins his article with by observing how poorly we, their elders, have served this year's graduating class, but he goes on to discuss not just the challenges and obstacles this presents to them, but the opportunities, too. He uses the opportunities to build up to his main point, which he captures beautifully in his final paragraph:
Today’s grads enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the center of a life. But, of course, as they age, they’ll discover that the tasks of a life are at the center. Fulfillment is a byproduct of how people engage their tasks, and can’t be pursued directly. Most of us are egotistical and most are self-concerned most of the time, but it’s nonetheless true that life comes to a point only in those moments when the self dissolves into some task. The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It’s to lose yourselfI urge you to take a few minutes today, amidst all the tumult, to read Brooks' article in which he truly lights a candle. Thanks Mr. Brooks.
Besides, the One we follow tells us: "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:14-16- ESV). As my dear Don Gius put it, we are to be protagonists, not antagonists, in imitation of the Lord.
UPDATE: Speaking of lighting a candle, Jim & Cindy McConnell's pastor shows us what it means to gently shepherd his flock, see The Deacon's Bench for more. You might also wish Deacon Greg a happy birthday while you're there.
End-times mania
It is important to note with all of the end-time mania going around that, like most heretical stances, Harold Camping’s prediction of the parousia is nothing new. Such people have been around since at least the time St. Paul. The apostle wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians, which is probably the first book of the New Testament to be written, to quell just these kinds of predictions. Let's not forget that Scripture itself warns us against claiming such knowledge (see Matthew 24:36). Also of use is Supplement 1763 to the Angelic Doctor's great Summa Theologiæ. This part of the supplement is where St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, "Whether the time of the future judgment is unknown?"
In keeping with his method, Aquinas sets forth several objections, which he proceeds to answer one-by-one, but not before stating the contrary and offering an answer. To the contrary, he writes that "[i]t is written (Mark 13:32): 'Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.' The Son, however, is said not to know in so far as He does not impart the knowledge to us.
"Further, it is written (1 Thess. 5:2): 'The day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night.' Therefore seemingly, as the coming of a thief in the night is altogether uncertain, the day of the last judgment is altogether uncertain."
He then answers "that, God is the cause of things by His knowledge [*Cf. FP, Question [14], Article [8]]. Now He communicates both these things to His creatures, since He both endows some with the power of action on others whereof they are the cause, and bestows on some the knowledge of things. But in both cases He reserves something to Himself, for He operates certain things wherein no creature co-operates with Him, and again He knows certain things which are unknown to any mere creature. Now this should apply to none more than to those things which are subject to the Divine power alone, and in which no creature co-operates with Him. Such is the end of the world when the day of judgment will come. For the world will come to an end by no created cause, even as it derived its existence immediately from God. Wherefore the knowledge of the end of the world is fittingly reserved to God. Indeed our Lord seems to assign this very reason when He said (Acts 1:7): 'It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power,' as though He were to say, 'which are reserved to His power alone.'"
Let's also turn to Objection 3 and Reply to Objection 3 to clarify matters:
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor 10:11): "It is on us ['These things . . . are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come'] that the ends of the world are come," and (1 John 2:18): 'Little children, it is the last hour,' etc. Since then it is a long time since these things were said, it would seem that now at least we can know that the last judgment is nigh."
Reply to Objection 3: "The statement, 'It is the last hour' and similar expressions that are to be found in Scripture do not enable us to know the exact length of time. For they are not intended to indicate a short length of time, but to signify the last state of the world, which is the last age of all, and it is not stated definitely how long this will last. Thus neither is fixed duration appointed to old age, which is the last age of man, since sometimes it is seen to last as long as or even longer than all the previous ages, as Augustine remarks (Qq. 83, qu. lviii). Hence also the Apostle (2 Thess. 2:2) disclaims the false signification which some had given to his words, by believing that the day of the Lord was already at hand."
As to the whole pre-millenarian dispensationalist view that posits the Rapture, it is very thin biblical gruel, indeed. Let's turn to St. Jerome for a commentary on Matthew 24:40-42:
Indeed, dear friends in Christ, we pray the prayer of the Church from the beginning, "Maranatha," which means something like, "Come, Lord" Jesus (Rev. 22:20). Each time we attend Mass we acknowledge that we joyfully await His glorious return, not knowing the hour or the day, but, like the wise virgins, keeping our lamps trimmed and burning (Matt. 25:1-13). I love the part of the baptismal liturgy for children when the candle, lit from the Paschal candle, is given with these words: "Parents and Godparents, this light is entrusted to you to be kept burning brightly. This child of yours has been enlightened by Christ. S/He s to walk always as a child of the light. May s/he keep the flame of faith alive in his/her heart. When the Lord comes, may he (she) go out to meet him with all the saints in the heavenly kingdom."
It's easy to be ironic and smug about all of this, but given the confusion in the world and in the Church, especially the many who have taken Camping's prediction seriously and who will suffer as a result, the issue deserves at least some sober treatment.
In keeping with his method, Aquinas sets forth several objections, which he proceeds to answer one-by-one, but not before stating the contrary and offering an answer. To the contrary, he writes that "[i]t is written (Mark 13:32): 'Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.' The Son, however, is said not to know in so far as He does not impart the knowledge to us.
"Further, it is written (1 Thess. 5:2): 'The day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night.' Therefore seemingly, as the coming of a thief in the night is altogether uncertain, the day of the last judgment is altogether uncertain."
He then answers "that, God is the cause of things by His knowledge [*Cf. FP, Question [14], Article [8]]. Now He communicates both these things to His creatures, since He both endows some with the power of action on others whereof they are the cause, and bestows on some the knowledge of things. But in both cases He reserves something to Himself, for He operates certain things wherein no creature co-operates with Him, and again He knows certain things which are unknown to any mere creature. Now this should apply to none more than to those things which are subject to the Divine power alone, and in which no creature co-operates with Him. Such is the end of the world when the day of judgment will come. For the world will come to an end by no created cause, even as it derived its existence immediately from God. Wherefore the knowledge of the end of the world is fittingly reserved to God. Indeed our Lord seems to assign this very reason when He said (Acts 1:7): 'It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power,' as though He were to say, 'which are reserved to His power alone.'"
Let's also turn to Objection 3 and Reply to Objection 3 to clarify matters:
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor 10:11): "It is on us ['These things . . . are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come'] that the ends of the world are come," and (1 John 2:18): 'Little children, it is the last hour,' etc. Since then it is a long time since these things were said, it would seem that now at least we can know that the last judgment is nigh."
Reply to Objection 3: "The statement, 'It is the last hour' and similar expressions that are to be found in Scripture do not enable us to know the exact length of time. For they are not intended to indicate a short length of time, but to signify the last state of the world, which is the last age of all, and it is not stated definitely how long this will last. Thus neither is fixed duration appointed to old age, which is the last age of man, since sometimes it is seen to last as long as or even longer than all the previous ages, as Augustine remarks (Qq. 83, qu. lviii). Hence also the Apostle (2 Thess. 2:2) disclaims the false signification which some had given to his words, by believing that the day of the Lord was already at hand."
As to the whole pre-millenarian dispensationalist view that posits the Rapture, it is very thin biblical gruel, indeed. Let's turn to St. Jerome for a commentary on Matthew 24:40-42:
"'Two men in one field' shall be found performing the same labour, sowing corn together, but not reaping the same fruit of their labour. The two 'grinding together' we may understand either of the Synagogue and the Church, which seem to grind together in the Law, and to make of the same Scriptures meal of the commandments of God; or of other heresies, which out of both or one Testament, seem to grind meal of their own doctrines."These reflections are not given to be definitive or complete, but just to show how the church deals with the passages of Scripture that Harold Camping is so badly abusing. I also want to refute the kind of biblical literalism that claims to know things like the day, month, and year of the flood and to make arthmetical predictions based such falsities by showing how, even from the time of St. Jerome (4th-5th centuries), we approach and interpret the sacred texts.
Indeed, dear friends in Christ, we pray the prayer of the Church from the beginning, "Maranatha," which means something like, "Come, Lord" Jesus (Rev. 22:20). Each time we attend Mass we acknowledge that we joyfully await His glorious return, not knowing the hour or the day, but, like the wise virgins, keeping our lamps trimmed and burning (Matt. 25:1-13). I love the part of the baptismal liturgy for children when the candle, lit from the Paschal candle, is given with these words: "Parents and Godparents, this light is entrusted to you to be kept burning brightly. This child of yours has been enlightened by Christ. S/He s to walk always as a child of the light. May s/he keep the flame of faith alive in his/her heart. When the Lord comes, may he (she) go out to meet him with all the saints in the heavenly kingdom."
It's easy to be ironic and smug about all of this, but given the confusion in the world and in the Church, especially the many who have taken Camping's prediction seriously and who will suffer as a result, the issue deserves at least some sober treatment.
Salvation comes neither by law nor by cheap grace
In his introduction to Eric Metaxas' recent biography of Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Timothy Keller, pastor of New York City's Redeemer Church and author of several very good books, like The Reason for God: Belief in the Age Skepticism, writes about Bonhoeffer's most important theological theme: the stark contrast between "cheap grace" and "costly grace", which he set forth is still very relevant book, The Cost of Discipleship:
Asking how the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany was so easily co-opted by Hitler and the Nazi party, Keller, in a warning to us today, writes that the answer "is that the true gospel, summed up by Bonhoeffer as costly grace had been lost. On the one hand, the church had become marked by formalism. That meant that going to church and hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it doesn't really matter much how you live. Bonhoeffer called this cheap grace. On the other hand, there was legalism, or salvation by law and good works. Legalism meant that God loves you because you have pulled yourself together and are trying to live a good, disciplined life."
Towards the end of his foreword, Keller writes in the true spirit of Bonhoeffer when he says "we know that true grace comes to us by costly sacrifice. And if God was willing to go to the cross and endure such pain and absorb such a cost in order to save us, then we must live sacrificially as we serve others. Anyone who truly understands how God's grace comes to us will have a changed life. That's the gospel, not salvation by law, or by cheap grace. Costly grace changes you from the inside out. Neither law nor cheap grace can do that."
I think this is worth considering right now in the wake of so many conflicting reactions to the death of Osama bin-Laden. As followers of Christ we must insist that how we live and what we do matters, we cannot shrink back in the face of evil, using cheap grace as an excuse to take a powder, or, even worse, to smugly condemn out of self-righteousness those whose response is to stand-up to evil. This is the challenging legacy and witness of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
This puts me in mind of something written by my brother deacon of old, St. Ephrem the Syrian, which I posted over Lent:
You see, grace is costly, which means that cheap grace is no grace at all.
Asking how the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany was so easily co-opted by Hitler and the Nazi party, Keller, in a warning to us today, writes that the answer "is that the true gospel, summed up by Bonhoeffer as costly grace had been lost. On the one hand, the church had become marked by formalism. That meant that going to church and hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it doesn't really matter much how you live. Bonhoeffer called this cheap grace. On the other hand, there was legalism, or salvation by law and good works. Legalism meant that God loves you because you have pulled yourself together and are trying to live a good, disciplined life."
Towards the end of his foreword, Keller writes in the true spirit of Bonhoeffer when he says "we know that true grace comes to us by costly sacrifice. And if God was willing to go to the cross and endure such pain and absorb such a cost in order to save us, then we must live sacrificially as we serve others. Anyone who truly understands how God's grace comes to us will have a changed life. That's the gospel, not salvation by law, or by cheap grace. Costly grace changes you from the inside out. Neither law nor cheap grace can do that."
I think this is worth considering right now in the wake of so many conflicting reactions to the death of Osama bin-Laden. As followers of Christ we must insist that how we live and what we do matters, we cannot shrink back in the face of evil, using cheap grace as an excuse to take a powder, or, even worse, to smugly condemn out of self-righteousness those whose response is to stand-up to evil. This is the challenging legacy and witness of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
This puts me in mind of something written by my brother deacon of old, St. Ephrem the Syrian, which I posted over Lent:
"On that dreadful and amazing day, You shall say to us sinners, O Lord: ‘You men know well what I have undergone for you; what have you suffered for Me?’…The martyrs will point to their wounds, their sufferings, the severed parts of their bodies… The ascetics will point to their asceticism, to their long fasts and vigils, to their liberality…But I, idle, sinful, transgressing as I am, what shall I be able to point to? Spare me, O merciful One! Spare me, O Thou Lover of mankind!"
You see, grace is costly, which means that cheap grace is no grace at all.
A lesson learned once again
Another lesson learned, yet again: Don't react! This requires prudence. Acting imprudently is certainly an occupational risk for anyone who blogs, at least for someone who tries to do so responsibly. In light of the lack of seriousness and utterly absurd and preachy judgments arrived by many (among which I number my earlier post) concerning the death of Osama bin-Laden, I feel the need to highlight another aspect of this event, one in which I will try to avoid abstraction:
This morning I wrote that "[a]s I get older I come to grips more and more with who and what I am. In addition to being a husband, a father, a son, and brother, I am a deacon whose ministry primarily consists of teaching, preaching, and counseling. So, on this day when the demise of Osama bin-Laden, a man who really can't be seen as anything other than a murderer and an ideologue who was responsible for the killing many more innocent Muslims than any other people, is being widely reported and even celebrated, I offer what I can, which is my reflection for this year on the first of Jesus' Seven Last Words as He hung upon the Cross." While I do not retract what I offered, I realize that it was not really appropriate in this context and over this medium.
Thankfully, even early this morning I was capable of making at least a partially accurate judgment, grounded in reality: "In practical and realistic terms we can certainly hope that the death of bin-Laden strikes a blow to the financial, operational, and recruiting capabilities of al-Qaeda. We should pray that his death has the effect of reducing violence, especially senseless acts of terror, which were certainly his evil specialty, along with corrupting idealistic young men, drawing them into his evil and murderous game, which, sadly, is his lasting and pathetic legacy."
While I do not rejoice at or celebrate the news of bin-Laden's death, I am puzzled by those who seem to want to quasi-canonize him. Let's not forget that he was a man who consciously and unapologetically did evil things to good people and who had much blood on his hands, including the blood of untold thousands of his fellow Muslims. He also encouraged and facilitated others in their murder and evil-doing. I have no doubt that his death saved lives. So, while I am not rejoicing, I am not exactly in mourning, or bereft. Sadly, along with President Obama, I have to say that the world is better off without him in it.
I have come to see today that analogies, metaphors, et al. are not appropriate in this case. I read and heard a lot of emotionally-driven abstract statements, along with a lot of preachy advice about what my response, as a Christian, "ought to be". I would just say that it is precisely because we follow Christ that we must resist cheap grace, passively-aggressively dispensed over social media. Nothing can be cheaper, more worthless, or abstract than insisting something be forgiven that costs you nothing.
At end of the day, I can only share meaningfully from my own experience, which, even with deep wounds, indicates the truth of what Pastor Brian Zahnd writes in his very challenging book, UNconditional: The Call of Jesus to RADICAL FORGIVENESS: "Hope dares to imagine the future as a legitimate alternative to the vicious repetitions of the past. But refusal to forgive is a toxic memory that endlessly pulls the painful past into the present." Perhaps we should consider that the survivors of those killed by bin-Laden's terror are a little more at peace today not because they are blood-thirsty revenge-seekers, but because they realize that he will no longer be able to commit atrocities, or to faciliate, finance, and train others to kill innocent people, even while realizing there are plenty of people left who are still ready, able, and willing to do evil in the service of their warped idea of the good.
This morning I wrote that "[a]s I get older I come to grips more and more with who and what I am. In addition to being a husband, a father, a son, and brother, I am a deacon whose ministry primarily consists of teaching, preaching, and counseling. So, on this day when the demise of Osama bin-Laden, a man who really can't be seen as anything other than a murderer and an ideologue who was responsible for the killing many more innocent Muslims than any other people, is being widely reported and even celebrated, I offer what I can, which is my reflection for this year on the first of Jesus' Seven Last Words as He hung upon the Cross." While I do not retract what I offered, I realize that it was not really appropriate in this context and over this medium.
Thankfully, even early this morning I was capable of making at least a partially accurate judgment, grounded in reality: "In practical and realistic terms we can certainly hope that the death of bin-Laden strikes a blow to the financial, operational, and recruiting capabilities of al-Qaeda. We should pray that his death has the effect of reducing violence, especially senseless acts of terror, which were certainly his evil specialty, along with corrupting idealistic young men, drawing them into his evil and murderous game, which, sadly, is his lasting and pathetic legacy."
Jesus, I trust in you
Goldstone tells the truth about his untrutful report
Back in October 2009 in an article I wrote for Il Sussidiario, I did my level best to point out in a short space the primary problems I had with the so-called Goldstone Report, which is popularly named after the its lead investigator Richard Goldstone, who is a distinguished South African judge who also happens to be Jewish. In a 1 April 2011 editorial piece for the Washington Post, Goldstone himself effectively renounced the report that bears his name.
As one might expect, given what was/is at stake in this volatile part of the world, reaction to Goldstone's coming clean has been passionate on both sides. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the retraction "a poor attempt by Goldstone to cleanse his conscience. There can be no forgiveness for Goldstone for the vicious damage he has done to the State of Israel. Goldstone strengthened terrorist groups, weakened moderates and thereby exacerbated the suffering of civilians on both sides." While I would hope forgiveness would be in the offing for someone who has so publicly admitted his mistakes, I agree with Olmert on the effect of the report. This seems an appropriate real-world take for what (judging by what I have come across today) we all too trivially call Spy Wednesday, albeit one with a repentant Judas.
Of course, Goldstone is also now pilloried on the so-called Arab Street in the anti-Jewish manner that is common in that part of the world, but no less disgusting for its frequency. What Tom Gross, who edits Mideast Dispatch, documents here makes Olmert's forthright statement look very mild.
I continue to wish my Jewish friends, especially those in Israel, a peaceful and pleasant passover. During this Holy Week, may we all pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
As one might expect, given what was/is at stake in this volatile part of the world, reaction to Goldstone's coming clean has been passionate on both sides. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the retraction "a poor attempt by Goldstone to cleanse his conscience. There can be no forgiveness for Goldstone for the vicious damage he has done to the State of Israel. Goldstone strengthened terrorist groups, weakened moderates and thereby exacerbated the suffering of civilians on both sides." While I would hope forgiveness would be in the offing for someone who has so publicly admitted his mistakes, I agree with Olmert on the effect of the report. This seems an appropriate real-world take for what (judging by what I have come across today) we all too trivially call Spy Wednesday, albeit one with a repentant Judas.
Of course, Goldstone is also now pilloried on the so-called Arab Street in the anti-Jewish manner that is common in that part of the world, but no less disgusting for its frequency. What Tom Gross, who edits Mideast Dispatch, documents here makes Olmert's forthright statement look very mild.
I continue to wish my Jewish friends, especially those in Israel, a peaceful and pleasant passover. During this Holy Week, may we all pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Prepare ye the way for the kingdom
Making political judgments: where truth confronts ideology
Without a doubt the U.S. is currently experiencing a time of great political tension caused by the clashing, not of political philosophies (we abandoned those along ago), but of competing ideologies. It is all too easy for Christians to get sucked in on one side or the other. Nothing is more indicative of an ideology, which at the practical and personal level means approaching things in a preconceived manner, than sloganeering or repeating memes that have the effect of reinforcing preconceptions borne of a given ideology.
Today on Facebook I saw this meme posted by a quite a few people. Because I was bothered by this, I let it serve as a provocation:
Such a dense compilation of issues doesn’t bear up under examination. The best way to describe it is as an incoherent rant, which, if we’re honest, most of us go off on from time-to-time. On my view, what makes it worthy of an extended commentary is that I believe that many who posted it think that it makes some over-arching point and provides us with moral guidance on how to resolve our current political stand-off.
The first indication that this is ideology at work is that it lumps things together that need to be considered separately. It also seeks to establish moral equivalence between matters that have no moral equivalency whatsoever. This is also a sign of ideology, the kind that is engaged under the guise of righteous indignation. I mean, are defunding public broadcasting and PP morally equivalent?
I look at everything mentioned in the meme and think: I oppose the attempt in Wisconsin to deprive state employees of their ability to collectively bargain, which, as a Catholic, I take to be a right, which is not to say I think unions always act in the best interests of their members, or the common good. I am against de-funding public broadcasting. I favor de-funding PP. Despite its success, I remain opposed to TARP, precisely because it rewarded bad behavior and also provided cover for many people who are guilty of serious crimes that impacted the lives of millions, not only insuring they will never be brought to justice for their misdeeds, but that they will walk away with more money than ever! I have registered my discontent about this on a regular basis in posts going back more than two years. Nonetheless, I must begrudgingly admit that the TARP money has been repaid and that taxpayers actually made some money off these funds. There still remain deep, systemic problems with our financial system, such as it is.
Another prevalent argument against de-funding public broadcasting and PP is that they amount to a small drop in an inkwell full of red ink. Indeed, they do. There are two reasonable answers to this argument. The first and perhaps the most obvious is that every bit of cost-cutting adds up. Still, the argument that those proposing to eliminate government funding for these organizations are thereby making a claim to balance the budget misses their point, namely that these entities have no value, are of negative value, or, pertaining especially to public broadcasting, they go beyond the scope of what government should do. It bears noting (skipping back to the issue of moral equivalence) that the issue of whether or not to de-fund public broadcasting is very much an issue of prudential judgment, as is whether one supports or laments TARP.
To demonstrate that ideological moves are not the sole property of one viewpoint, I’ll use Sen. Kyle, a Republican from Arizona, as an example. Over the past few days the senator has rightly been taken to task for saying on the Senate floor, while arguing for the de-funding of Planned Parenthood, that 90% of what they do is perform abortions. Not only was Kyle’s statement incorrect, it turned out to be a woeful exaggeration. Apparently performing abortions amounts to only about 3% of the services provided by this nationwide non-profit group that receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year from our federal government via grants and contracts. In a similar vein, Rep. Michelle Bachmann called Planned Parenthood "the LensCrafters of Big Abortion."
Let’s approach the question from a different angle, without exaggeration or making analogies, which are always problematic, or, as in Bachmann’s case, intentionally incendiary: without a doubt PP is not only the largest abortion provider in the U.S., but throughout the world. Thanks to an executive order signed by Pres. Obama on 22 January 2009, just days after taking office and on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade no less, reversing the so-called Mexico City policy, implemented by Pres. Reagan and reinstated by the last Pres. Bush, Planned Parenthood and other NGOs now use your tax dollars to provide abortions overseas. According to its most recent annual report, in 2008-2009 Planned Parenthood received some $363 million in federal funding. During this period the organization performed 324,008 abortions in U.S. alone, setting a new record for the number of abortions it performed in a year. In fairness, they provided 9,433 adoption referrals, which is not quite 3% of the number babies it aborted. According to one commentator, there seems to be a correlation between the steady rise in federal funding for PP and the number of abortions they perform.
I think it always bears noting that if we put our faith in Christ into political action, which are encouraged to do if in no other way than when we vote, we look pretty incoherent to those whose views are shaped by secular forces. According to the prevailing political labels, when it comes to marriage, family, and life issues we are seen as very "conservative", with the exception of opposing the death penalty. When it comes to labor matters, immigration, and many issues of social welfare we come across as considerably more "liberal". In a very broad statement about the on-going budget debate, which presents the occasion for all these issues to come to the fore, thus tempting us to lump everything together, Bishop Hubbard of Albany, NY and Bishop Blair of Stockton, CA, who chair the International Justice and Peace and Domestic Justice and Human Development committees respectively, gave a threefold criteria for judging budgetary decisions in a way that challenges us to move beyond ideology:
Let's keep in mind that Jesus was no more a liberal democrat than He was a conservative Republican.
Today on Facebook I saw this meme posted by a quite a few people. Because I was bothered by this, I let it serve as a provocation:
Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neitherThe point, assuming I understand it correctly, is that by seeking to de-fund Planned Parenthood, NPR, and PBS, while continuing to allow oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and rewarding bad behavior on the part of major financial institutions, members of a certain party in Congress are perceived as intentionally refusing to do the morally correct thing across-the-board. What could be more outrageous than that?!
Such a dense compilation of issues doesn’t bear up under examination. The best way to describe it is as an incoherent rant, which, if we’re honest, most of us go off on from time-to-time. On my view, what makes it worthy of an extended commentary is that I believe that many who posted it think that it makes some over-arching point and provides us with moral guidance on how to resolve our current political stand-off.
The first indication that this is ideology at work is that it lumps things together that need to be considered separately. It also seeks to establish moral equivalence between matters that have no moral equivalency whatsoever. This is also a sign of ideology, the kind that is engaged under the guise of righteous indignation. I mean, are defunding public broadcasting and PP morally equivalent?
I look at everything mentioned in the meme and think: I oppose the attempt in Wisconsin to deprive state employees of their ability to collectively bargain, which, as a Catholic, I take to be a right, which is not to say I think unions always act in the best interests of their members, or the common good. I am against de-funding public broadcasting. I favor de-funding PP. Despite its success, I remain opposed to TARP, precisely because it rewarded bad behavior and also provided cover for many people who are guilty of serious crimes that impacted the lives of millions, not only insuring they will never be brought to justice for their misdeeds, but that they will walk away with more money than ever! I have registered my discontent about this on a regular basis in posts going back more than two years. Nonetheless, I must begrudgingly admit that the TARP money has been repaid and that taxpayers actually made some money off these funds. There still remain deep, systemic problems with our financial system, such as it is.
Another prevalent argument against de-funding public broadcasting and PP is that they amount to a small drop in an inkwell full of red ink. Indeed, they do. There are two reasonable answers to this argument. The first and perhaps the most obvious is that every bit of cost-cutting adds up. Still, the argument that those proposing to eliminate government funding for these organizations are thereby making a claim to balance the budget misses their point, namely that these entities have no value, are of negative value, or, pertaining especially to public broadcasting, they go beyond the scope of what government should do. It bears noting (skipping back to the issue of moral equivalence) that the issue of whether or not to de-fund public broadcasting is very much an issue of prudential judgment, as is whether one supports or laments TARP.
To demonstrate that ideological moves are not the sole property of one viewpoint, I’ll use Sen. Kyle, a Republican from Arizona, as an example. Over the past few days the senator has rightly been taken to task for saying on the Senate floor, while arguing for the de-funding of Planned Parenthood, that 90% of what they do is perform abortions. Not only was Kyle’s statement incorrect, it turned out to be a woeful exaggeration. Apparently performing abortions amounts to only about 3% of the services provided by this nationwide non-profit group that receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year from our federal government via grants and contracts. In a similar vein, Rep. Michelle Bachmann called Planned Parenthood "the LensCrafters of Big Abortion."
Let’s approach the question from a different angle, without exaggeration or making analogies, which are always problematic, or, as in Bachmann’s case, intentionally incendiary: without a doubt PP is not only the largest abortion provider in the U.S., but throughout the world. Thanks to an executive order signed by Pres. Obama on 22 January 2009, just days after taking office and on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade no less, reversing the so-called Mexico City policy, implemented by Pres. Reagan and reinstated by the last Pres. Bush, Planned Parenthood and other NGOs now use your tax dollars to provide abortions overseas. According to its most recent annual report, in 2008-2009 Planned Parenthood received some $363 million in federal funding. During this period the organization performed 324,008 abortions in U.S. alone, setting a new record for the number of abortions it performed in a year. In fairness, they provided 9,433 adoption referrals, which is not quite 3% of the number babies it aborted. According to one commentator, there seems to be a correlation between the steady rise in federal funding for PP and the number of abortions they perform.
I think it always bears noting that if we put our faith in Christ into political action, which are encouraged to do if in no other way than when we vote, we look pretty incoherent to those whose views are shaped by secular forces. According to the prevailing political labels, when it comes to marriage, family, and life issues we are seen as very "conservative", with the exception of opposing the death penalty. When it comes to labor matters, immigration, and many issues of social welfare we come across as considerably more "liberal". In a very broad statement about the on-going budget debate, which presents the occasion for all these issues to come to the fore, thus tempting us to lump everything together, Bishop Hubbard of Albany, NY and Bishop Blair of Stockton, CA, who chair the International Justice and Peace and Domestic Justice and Human Development committees respectively, gave a threefold criteria for judging budgetary decisions in a way that challenges us to move beyond ideology:
1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity. 2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects 'the least of these' (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first. 3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times
Let's keep in mind that Jesus was no more a liberal democrat than He was a conservative Republican.
Meum cum sim pulvis et cinis
Archbishop Dolan on telling the truth to yourself and to others
Below is a post from Archbishop Timothy Dolan's blog, The Gospel in the Digital Age. I am putting it up in its entirety because, as he usually does, Archbishop Dolan hits the nail on the head, that is, he simply tells the truth. Let us approach Lent, which is a mere week away, in this same manner:
_______________________________________________________________________
I’ve known for a long time that I should lose some weight. So, last week, I visited my doctor, and he showed me a gross, disgusting, dripping ball of yellow wax. “This,” he said to me, “is what ten pounds of fat looks like. This is what you’re carrying around in your body.” Was it upsetting? Unnerving? Sobering? You bet it was. It was also true, and it was effective, as it strengthened my resolve to get my weight under control.
Being confronted by the truth can often be unpleasant. That’s why those who fight so hard to eradicate world hunger will show us what hunger does, with a picture of a starving child, covered with flies and sores. Does it disturb us to face that truth, an image we’d rather not see or think about? It should, even as it spurs us to action.
It’s the same with smoking. I’m sure you’ve seen those television commercials that graphically portray the effects of smoking. It’s unpleasant to look at open heart surgery, or a pair of diseased lungs, or to see a person who has lost fingers, toes, or the esophagus, all due to smoking. The ads are nauseating, even hideous, to see. But the New York State Department of Health, among many others, sponsors these kinds of ads because they know that they can help to save lives.
Another ad has been generating some fierce reactions. Here in New York, a billboard was recently displayed, that simply stated “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.” This message was accompanied by a photograph of a young, African-American girl.
Is that message unpleasant? Is it upsetting? Does it get our attention?
Yes!
Because the message is somberly true. The City of New York’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recently released its vital statistics from a year ago which showed that 59.8% of African-American pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion. That’s even higher than the chilling city-wide average of 41% of pregnancies ending in abortion. (I joined other community leaders from a diversity of religious and ethnic backgrounds at a press conference sponsored by the Chiaroscuro Foundation about this a few weeks ago.)
So why has the billboard suddenly been taken down? What was it that moved many of our elected officials to condemn this ad and call for the gag order. Are they claiming that free speech is a right enjoyed only by those who favor abortion or their pet causes? Do they believe that unpleasant and disturbing truths should not be spoken? Or are they afraid that when people are finally confronted with the reality of the horror of abortion, and with the toll that it is taking in our city, particularly in our African-American community, that they will be moved to defend innocent, unborn, human life?
Perhaps I’m more saddened by this intolerance right now because on Monday I will be celebrating the funeral mass for Doctor Bernard Nathanson, that giant of the pro-life movement, who died earlier this week. If you don’t know Dr. Nathanson’s story, you should. At one time, he fought hard to promote and expand abortion on demand in this state and in our country. He was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League. He ran what he called the “largest abortion clinic in the Western world,” and bragged about personally performing thousands of abortions. But, when Dr. Nathanson was confronted with the undeniable truth, when he could see the unborn baby in the womb through the use of ultrasound technology, he abandoned his support for abortion and became a crusader for the protection of the life of the baby in the womb.
His courage and bravery should be an inspiration to us, especially when we have to face unpleasant and sobering truths.
_______________________________________________________________________
I’ve known for a long time that I should lose some weight. So, last week, I visited my doctor, and he showed me a gross, disgusting, dripping ball of yellow wax. “This,” he said to me, “is what ten pounds of fat looks like. This is what you’re carrying around in your body.” Was it upsetting? Unnerving? Sobering? You bet it was. It was also true, and it was effective, as it strengthened my resolve to get my weight under control.
Being confronted by the truth can often be unpleasant. That’s why those who fight so hard to eradicate world hunger will show us what hunger does, with a picture of a starving child, covered with flies and sores. Does it disturb us to face that truth, an image we’d rather not see or think about? It should, even as it spurs us to action.
It’s the same with smoking. I’m sure you’ve seen those television commercials that graphically portray the effects of smoking. It’s unpleasant to look at open heart surgery, or a pair of diseased lungs, or to see a person who has lost fingers, toes, or the esophagus, all due to smoking. The ads are nauseating, even hideous, to see. But the New York State Department of Health, among many others, sponsors these kinds of ads because they know that they can help to save lives.
Another ad has been generating some fierce reactions. Here in New York, a billboard was recently displayed, that simply stated “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.” This message was accompanied by a photograph of a young, African-American girl.
Is that message unpleasant? Is it upsetting? Does it get our attention?
Yes!
Because the message is somberly true. The City of New York’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene recently released its vital statistics from a year ago which showed that 59.8% of African-American pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion. That’s even higher than the chilling city-wide average of 41% of pregnancies ending in abortion. (I joined other community leaders from a diversity of religious and ethnic backgrounds at a press conference sponsored by the Chiaroscuro Foundation about this a few weeks ago.)
So why has the billboard suddenly been taken down? What was it that moved many of our elected officials to condemn this ad and call for the gag order. Are they claiming that free speech is a right enjoyed only by those who favor abortion or their pet causes? Do they believe that unpleasant and disturbing truths should not be spoken? Or are they afraid that when people are finally confronted with the reality of the horror of abortion, and with the toll that it is taking in our city, particularly in our African-American community, that they will be moved to defend innocent, unborn, human life?
Perhaps I’m more saddened by this intolerance right now because on Monday I will be celebrating the funeral mass for Doctor Bernard Nathanson, that giant of the pro-life movement, who died earlier this week. If you don’t know Dr. Nathanson’s story, you should. At one time, he fought hard to promote and expand abortion on demand in this state and in our country. He was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League. He ran what he called the “largest abortion clinic in the Western world,” and bragged about personally performing thousands of abortions. But, when Dr. Nathanson was confronted with the undeniable truth, when he could see the unborn baby in the womb through the use of ultrasound technology, he abandoned his support for abortion and became a crusader for the protection of the life of the baby in the womb.
His courage and bravery should be an inspiration to us, especially when we have to face unpleasant and sobering truths.
Egypt: perils and possibilities
I think enthusiasm over what is happening in Egypt needs to be tempered by who is likely to gain and who is likely to lose, especially if the regime of President Hosni Mubarak is toppled prior to elections scheduled for this September. As a result of the popular uprising against his 30-year rule, Mubarak announced that he will not run in the upcoming elections, which, with the assistance of the international community, will be much more free and fair than any elections in the history of the modern state of Egypt. It is in the best interests of everyone to have a smooth transition of power in Egypt and not the collapse of a stable government that plays a very strategic role in the world's most volatile region.
Without a doubt the Muslim Brotherhood is waiting in the wings with a plan to make a power grab, especially should the government topple prior to elections. This would mean an even more difficult plight for Egypt's Christians, most of whom belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church. Coptic Christians comprise approximately 10% of Egypt's more than 80 million people. Even now, Coptic Christians are severely under-represented at all levels of government in Egypt, even in places, like Alexandria, where they are concentrated. So, as euphoric as we tend to get when we see popular, democratic uprisings, our euphoria must be tempered by reality, which is what keeps it from turning into the opposite of what we'd all like to see. Another crucial factor to consider when thinking about political change in Egypt, not to mention Jordan, where King Abdullah seems to be panicking, is Israel.
Nonetheless, even on the religious front there is, to quote the title of Sandro Magister's most recent Chiesa article, A Glimmer of Light in an Egypt in Revolt. Specifically, on 24 January there appeared on the website of an Egyptian magazine- Yawm al-Sâbi (i.e., The Seventh Day), something called Document for the renewal of religious discourse. Accordng to Magister, by the night of 24 January this document appeared "on more than 12,000 other Arab websites."
This document bears the signatures of 23 important Egyptian Islamic intellectuals, including Nasr Farid Wasel, former grand mufti of Egypt and Gamal al-Banna, brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The document is concise, consisting of 22 bullet points that lay out an ambitious plan for reforming Islam, seeking to counter those who have turned it into a religion of "superficial and external practice." The goal of the signatories is not to accomdate Islam to modernity, but make it truer to itself, that is, more authentic.
Magister provides a translation made by the Egyptian-born Jesuit Islamic scholar, Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, for the Vatican-operated Asia News:
1. Reexamine the collections of the Hadith [the sayings traditionally attributed to Muhammad] and the commentaries of the Qur'an, to purify them.
2. Subject to analysis the political-religious vocabulary of Islam, for example the gizah [the special tax required from the dhimmi, the non-Muslim minorities subjected to limitations].
3. Find a new practice of the concept of interaction between the sexes.
4. Clarify the Islamic view on women and find convenient forms for marriage rights.
5. Islam is a religion of creativity.
6. Explain the Islamic concept of jihâd [inner and outer holy war], and specify norms and obligations that regulate it.
7. Stop the invasion of external religiosity and the extraneous practices that come to us from nearby countries.
8. Separate religion from the state.
9. Purify the heritage of the first centuries of Islam (Salafism), eliminating the myths and aggressions against religion.
10. Give adequate preparation to the missionary preachers, and in this field, open the doors to those who have not studied at the university of Al Azhar, according to very clear criteria.
11. Formulate the virtues common to the three revealed religions.
12. Give guidelines on Western customs, and eliminate incorrect behaviors.
13. Clarify the relationship that must exist among members of the different religions through schools, mosques, and churches.
14. Modify the presentation of the biography of the Prophet in a way adapted for the West.
15. Not keep people away from economic systems with the interdiction of dealing with banks.
16. Recognize the right of women to become president of the republic.
17. Combat sectarian claims, [emphasizing] that the flag of Islam [must be] one.
18. Invite the people to go to God through gratitude and wisdom, and not with threats.
19. Make the teaching of al-Azhar evolve.
20. Recognize the right of Christians to occupy important positions [including] the presidency of the republic.
21. Separate religious discourse from power, and re-establish its connection with the needs of society.
22. Improve the connection between the da'wah [the call to conversion to Islam] and modern technology, the satellite channels and the market for Islamic recordings.
Each of these points are discussed in detail by the signatories of the document, which makes Fr. Samir's analysis for Asia News a must read for anyone who is interested in what is happening. None of these reforms is a given, especially in a chaotic overthrow of Mubarak's government, which would find the Muslim Brotherhood well-positioned to seize control. This would be an utter disaster on many fronts.
Stated simply, we need to be careful before draping the mantle of righteousness over a movement that might yet spell disaster, especially for Egypt's Christians.
Without a doubt the Muslim Brotherhood is waiting in the wings with a plan to make a power grab, especially should the government topple prior to elections. This would mean an even more difficult plight for Egypt's Christians, most of whom belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church. Coptic Christians comprise approximately 10% of Egypt's more than 80 million people. Even now, Coptic Christians are severely under-represented at all levels of government in Egypt, even in places, like Alexandria, where they are concentrated. So, as euphoric as we tend to get when we see popular, democratic uprisings, our euphoria must be tempered by reality, which is what keeps it from turning into the opposite of what we'd all like to see. Another crucial factor to consider when thinking about political change in Egypt, not to mention Jordan, where King Abdullah seems to be panicking, is Israel.
Nonetheless, even on the religious front there is, to quote the title of Sandro Magister's most recent Chiesa article, A Glimmer of Light in an Egypt in Revolt. Specifically, on 24 January there appeared on the website of an Egyptian magazine- Yawm al-Sâbi (i.e., The Seventh Day), something called Document for the renewal of religious discourse. Accordng to Magister, by the night of 24 January this document appeared "on more than 12,000 other Arab websites."
This document bears the signatures of 23 important Egyptian Islamic intellectuals, including Nasr Farid Wasel, former grand mufti of Egypt and Gamal al-Banna, brother of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The document is concise, consisting of 22 bullet points that lay out an ambitious plan for reforming Islam, seeking to counter those who have turned it into a religion of "superficial and external practice." The goal of the signatories is not to accomdate Islam to modernity, but make it truer to itself, that is, more authentic.
Magister provides a translation made by the Egyptian-born Jesuit Islamic scholar, Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, for the Vatican-operated Asia News:
1. Reexamine the collections of the Hadith [the sayings traditionally attributed to Muhammad] and the commentaries of the Qur'an, to purify them.
2. Subject to analysis the political-religious vocabulary of Islam, for example the gizah [the special tax required from the dhimmi, the non-Muslim minorities subjected to limitations].
3. Find a new practice of the concept of interaction between the sexes.
4. Clarify the Islamic view on women and find convenient forms for marriage rights.
5. Islam is a religion of creativity.
6. Explain the Islamic concept of jihâd [inner and outer holy war], and specify norms and obligations that regulate it.
7. Stop the invasion of external religiosity and the extraneous practices that come to us from nearby countries.
8. Separate religion from the state.
9. Purify the heritage of the first centuries of Islam (Salafism), eliminating the myths and aggressions against religion.
10. Give adequate preparation to the missionary preachers, and in this field, open the doors to those who have not studied at the university of Al Azhar, according to very clear criteria.
11. Formulate the virtues common to the three revealed religions.
12. Give guidelines on Western customs, and eliminate incorrect behaviors.
13. Clarify the relationship that must exist among members of the different religions through schools, mosques, and churches.
14. Modify the presentation of the biography of the Prophet in a way adapted for the West.
15. Not keep people away from economic systems with the interdiction of dealing with banks.
16. Recognize the right of women to become president of the republic.
17. Combat sectarian claims, [emphasizing] that the flag of Islam [must be] one.
18. Invite the people to go to God through gratitude and wisdom, and not with threats.
19. Make the teaching of al-Azhar evolve.
20. Recognize the right of Christians to occupy important positions [including] the presidency of the republic.
21. Separate religious discourse from power, and re-establish its connection with the needs of society.
22. Improve the connection between the da'wah [the call to conversion to Islam] and modern technology, the satellite channels and the market for Islamic recordings.
Each of these points are discussed in detail by the signatories of the document, which makes Fr. Samir's analysis for Asia News a must read for anyone who is interested in what is happening. None of these reforms is a given, especially in a chaotic overthrow of Mubarak's government, which would find the Muslim Brotherhood well-positioned to seize control. This would be an utter disaster on many fronts.
Stated simply, we need to be careful before draping the mantle of righteousness over a movement that might yet spell disaster, especially for Egypt's Christians.
Deacon Tom and Tekton Woodworks
I awoke this morning to find in the Salt Lake Tribune an article by Kristin Moulton of the Trib, who remains a very good religion reporter, a species of reporter that is rarer and rarer, on Deacon Tom Tosti and his chosen craft of building furniture. Tom was a classmate of mine with whom I was ordained seven years ago this month:
Read the rest of Moulton's 'Deacon Tom' builds faith and furniture.
Before he begins building any piece of furniture — an altar, a pulpit, a desk, a chair — Tom Tosti prays.
He asks God to help him do his best work and help him turn the wood into a thing of beauty and function. But mostly, and always, he asks for humility.
“I pray that it’s for his glory, not mine,” says Tosti, an ordained Catholic deacon who is carving out a reputation as a designer and craftsman of liturgical furnishings.
As his son, Dominic Tosti, puts it: “It’s more than just a cabinet shop.”
Indeed, the name of the family business, housed in a shop 20 yards from the family home in the Summit County town of Oakley, is the first clue it’s not a typical furniture factory.
Tekton Woodworks gets its name from the Greek word for craftsman in wood, metal or stone. Tosti chose the name to honor two carpenters from Galilee: Jesus Christ and his stepfather, Joseph.
Photo by Chris Detrick for the Salt Lake Tribune
On the first day of the new year, Tosti has a presider’s chair with rich tapestry and green marble ornamentation sitting in his office, ready to deliver to a Catholic church at the University of San Diego.
A modern altar with Romanesque arches, made of quilted oak and maple with a medallion of bird’s-eye maple, rests on a dolly. It will be loaded into a van and delivered to the Shepherd of the Mountains Lutheran Church in Park City later on this New Year’s Day.
Two drop-leaf tables await their finishes. They are bound for the LDS Church-owned City Creek Center project in downtown Salt Lake City, where they will go in condos as sales models.
That commercial work is an offshoot of other work the Tostis have been doing for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Tekton custom-designs and builds baptistry desks that the Utah-based faith puts in its temples around the world.
Dominic Tosti, who works with his father and mother, Nancy Tosti, in the family business, says the LDS Church is the company’s biggest current customer.
And, seven years after turning his woodworking hobby into a full-time career, Tom Tosti is still a bit surprised by its success. Business was up 30 percent in 2010, and Tekton has a six-month backlog of orders, including work for several California churches.
Read the rest of Moulton's 'Deacon Tom' builds faith and furniture.
Veni adoramus
What does a liberated woman look like?
The U.K.'s Daily Mail reports on a study conducted by the British inter-faith organization Faith Matters that sets the number of Islamic converts in Britain at 100,000. In just the last twelve months 5,200 men and women in Great Britain have embraced Islam by publicly reciting the shahada (from the Arabic verb "he witnessed")- "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his messenger." Public recitation of the shahada is one of the five pillars of Islam. A good analogy is that the shahada is to Muslims what baptism is to Christians.
Last year in London alone 1,400 people converted to Islam. The average Londoner converting Islam last year was a white woman aged 27 years. According to a second study, conducted by Kevin Brice of Swansea University in Wales, the main reasons cited by converts for turning to Islam were drunkenness, "lack of morality and sexual permissiveness," along with "unrestrained consumerism." Perhaps the highest profile recent convert to Islam in the U.K. is Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of former prime minister Tony Blair, who himself converted to Catholicism after he left office. Unlike her brother-in-law, who shortly after becoming Catholic proceeded to lecture the church on sexual morality, using the tired trope of urging us to get with the times, Ms. Booth seems a humble adherent to her new faith. Since she converted in Iran, she presumably identifies as a Shi'ite Muslim, whereas the most of her fellow U.K. converts are Sunni.
For a long time now sociologists have been able to demonstrate that when it comes to religion the higher the level of commitment, at least up to a point, the more attractive it is at drawing and keeping people. This is one reason why watered down forms of Christianity that takes its cue from society stands no chance of being sustainable.
On that note, back in 2003 Eamon Duffy delivered the Cardinal Hume Memorial lecture in Newcastle, an extract of which, on corporately doing away with the discipline of fasting after Vatican II, was published in The Tablet. This extract begins: "The renewal inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council sprang in large part from the liberating discovery of the depth and variety of Catholic tradition. Yet paradoxically the post-conciliar reforms were sometimes implemented in a spirit of philistine dismissal of 'tradition' as nothing more than the dead hand of the past. In shedding a past perceived as sterile and oppressive, much that was profound and life-giving was also lost." This goes some distance to explaining the phenomenon of younger Catholics reviving many of these life-giving practices, often to the consternation of an older generation, which strikes me as a variant of the same dynamic leading many young people to embrace Islam in the U.K. and elsewhere. Another indication of this movement is the success of traditional women's religious orders, especially ones with active apostolates, like the Nashville Dominicans.
Oddly, it does not seem to me that the embrace of Islam and more traditional Catholicism by an increasing number of young women, albeit ones with some experience of the society that claims to have liberated them, to be a rejection of women's liberation, but a recognition that the liberation promised, at least as it is generally conceived, is not much of a liberation at all, but a reduction. One young woman, Lynn Ali, who is highlighted in a box in the Daily Mail article (taken from an earlier article in which she was featured), who is now 31 and who converted to Islam some twelve years ago, strikes me as fairly typical of such young women. Prior to her conversion she used to DJ in clubs and at parties. She describes going out with friends, getting drunk and wearing "tight and revealing clothing" in order to attract the attention of young men. She says now that "underneath it all, I must have been searching for something." It was her honesty about what she was searching for that ultimately caused her to recognize that she wasn't finding it in her partying lifestyle.
Lynn, as do many female converts to Islam, wears a hijab (i.e., Islamic head scarf, the Mail gets this wrong, calling what she wears a niqab- see my post Islam and the West: the wearing of the burqa for the differences and also for a good take by Peter Hitchens on some of the downside of this phenomenon) when she leaves home. She describes wearing her headscarf as "liberating." By living her faith, which includes covering her head in public, she proclaims that she is "no longer a slave to a broken society and its expectations."
It might interest people to know that very few of those who convert to Islam are radicalized, which means they do not convert for ideological reasons, Brice's study aptly demonstrates this. Somehow, I think there is a lesson in evangelization to be found in all of this.
Last year in London alone 1,400 people converted to Islam. The average Londoner converting Islam last year was a white woman aged 27 years. According to a second study, conducted by Kevin Brice of Swansea University in Wales, the main reasons cited by converts for turning to Islam were drunkenness, "lack of morality and sexual permissiveness," along with "unrestrained consumerism." Perhaps the highest profile recent convert to Islam in the U.K. is Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of former prime minister Tony Blair, who himself converted to Catholicism after he left office. Unlike her brother-in-law, who shortly after becoming Catholic proceeded to lecture the church on sexual morality, using the tired trope of urging us to get with the times, Ms. Booth seems a humble adherent to her new faith. Since she converted in Iran, she presumably identifies as a Shi'ite Muslim, whereas the most of her fellow U.K. converts are Sunni.
Lauren Booth
For a long time now sociologists have been able to demonstrate that when it comes to religion the higher the level of commitment, at least up to a point, the more attractive it is at drawing and keeping people. This is one reason why watered down forms of Christianity that takes its cue from society stands no chance of being sustainable.
On that note, back in 2003 Eamon Duffy delivered the Cardinal Hume Memorial lecture in Newcastle, an extract of which, on corporately doing away with the discipline of fasting after Vatican II, was published in The Tablet. This extract begins: "The renewal inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council sprang in large part from the liberating discovery of the depth and variety of Catholic tradition. Yet paradoxically the post-conciliar reforms were sometimes implemented in a spirit of philistine dismissal of 'tradition' as nothing more than the dead hand of the past. In shedding a past perceived as sterile and oppressive, much that was profound and life-giving was also lost." This goes some distance to explaining the phenomenon of younger Catholics reviving many of these life-giving practices, often to the consternation of an older generation, which strikes me as a variant of the same dynamic leading many young people to embrace Islam in the U.K. and elsewhere. Another indication of this movement is the success of traditional women's religious orders, especially ones with active apostolates, like the Nashville Dominicans.
Some of the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia in Nashville
Oddly, it does not seem to me that the embrace of Islam and more traditional Catholicism by an increasing number of young women, albeit ones with some experience of the society that claims to have liberated them, to be a rejection of women's liberation, but a recognition that the liberation promised, at least as it is generally conceived, is not much of a liberation at all, but a reduction. One young woman, Lynn Ali, who is highlighted in a box in the Daily Mail article (taken from an earlier article in which she was featured), who is now 31 and who converted to Islam some twelve years ago, strikes me as fairly typical of such young women. Prior to her conversion she used to DJ in clubs and at parties. She describes going out with friends, getting drunk and wearing "tight and revealing clothing" in order to attract the attention of young men. She says now that "underneath it all, I must have been searching for something." It was her honesty about what she was searching for that ultimately caused her to recognize that she wasn't finding it in her partying lifestyle.
Lynn, as do many female converts to Islam, wears a hijab (i.e., Islamic head scarf, the Mail gets this wrong, calling what she wears a niqab- see my post Islam and the West: the wearing of the burqa for the differences and also for a good take by Peter Hitchens on some of the downside of this phenomenon) when she leaves home. She describes wearing her headscarf as "liberating." By living her faith, which includes covering her head in public, she proclaims that she is "no longer a slave to a broken society and its expectations."
It might interest people to know that very few of those who convert to Islam are radicalized, which means they do not convert for ideological reasons, Brice's study aptly demonstrates this. Somehow, I think there is a lesson in evangelization to be found in all of this.
Veni adoramus
Christmas at the Madeleine
From our Christmas procession and blessing of the Nativity Scene prior to the Noon Mass at The Cathedral of the Madeleine yesterday. This picture with Bishop Wester was snapped after Mass, which means that in their rush some of the children had already headed out. Anyway, a big thanks to Cathy, Tracy, and Yolanda and, of course, all the children, their parents and Bishop Wester, who is always very gracious with his time for the people of the Cathedral parish!
Veni adoramus
'The Deacon's Bench' is moving
If you're like me and just can't get enough of the ruminations of Roman Catholic deacons, then you need to know that Deacon Greg Kandra is moving his blog, The Deacon's Bench, from Beliefnet to Patheos. Until Monday he is blogging in both places, but come Monday only in the new location. So, adjust your bookmarks and links accordingly. For the convenience of both my readers, I have changed my link.
Maranatha
"Where is the world conscience?"
Last Wednesday, 10 November 2010, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Francis Cardinal George, OMI, archbishop of Chicago, wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to take measures to protect all Iraqis, especially endangered miniorities, like Christians in the wake of recent attacks.
Dear Mr. President:
The October 31 attack on the Syrian Catholic cathedral in Baghdad that killed 58 and wounded 75, together with the recent wave of bombings in Iraq’s capital, are grim evidence of the savage violence and lack of security that has plagued the Iraqi people, especially Christians and other minorities, for over seven years. Some reports even indicate that the October 31 attack may have been more extensive and the failures of security more egregious than originally thought. Enclosed you will find a press release by the Most Reverend Yousif Habash, Bishop of the Eparchy of Our Lady of Deliverance of Newark for Syrian Catholics.
In the recent Synod of Bishops on the Middle East in Rome, the bishops from Iraq spoke of the terrifying situation facing Christians and other minorities in that country. They recalled murders, kidnappings, bombings, and naked threats that have forced many Christians from their homes and businesses. Ironically, just two weeks before the October 31 attack, Archbishop Athanase Matti Shaba Matoka of the Syrian Catholic Church in Iraq, whose cathedral was the site of the October 31 attack, addressed the Synod: “The invasion of Iraq by America and its allies brought to Iraq in general, and especially to its Christians, destruction and ruin on all levels. … Seven years have passed and Christianity is still bleeding. Where is the world conscience? All the world remains a spectator before what is happening in Iraq, especially with regards to Christians.”
Archbishop Matoka’s strong words remind us of the moral responsibility that the United States bears for working effectively with the Iraqi government to stem the violence. Prior to the war, our Conference of Bishops raised grave moral questions regarding the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Iraq and warned of "unpredictable consequences." The decimation of the Christian community in Iraq and the continuing violence that threatens all Iraqis are among those tragic consequences.
Our troops have served with bravery and distinction, and we welcome the end of U.S.-led combat in Iraq; however, the United States has so far failed in helping Iraqis to develop the political will needed to deploy effective strategies to protect the lives of all citizens, especially Christians and other vulnerable minorities. More must be done to help ensure that refugees and displaced persons are able to return to their homes safely. Having invaded Iraq, our nation has a moral obligation not to abandon those Iraqis who cannot defend themselves.
The murderous attack on innocent Christians gathered for worship witnesses to the need for the United States to redouble its efforts to assist Iraq as our engagement enters a new phase. At a minimum, our country must strengthen its work with Iraqis and the international community to: enable the Iraqi government to function for the common good of all Iraqis; build the capacity of Iraq’s military and police to provide security for all citizens, including minorities; improve the judicial system and rule of law; promote reconciliation and the protection of human rights, especially religious freedom; rebuild Iraq’s shattered economy so that Iraqis can support their families; and assist refugees and internally displaced Iraqis.
To meet its moral obligations to the Iraqi people, it is critically important that the United States take additional steps now to help Iraq protect its citizens, especially Christians and others who are victims of organized attacks. Thank you for your kind consideration of this urgent request.
Sincerely yours,
Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Chicago
President
How many more reasons do yo need to fast, to pray, to give alms and live in solidarity with our brothers and sisters as we prepare again to celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord in safety and security? Alms for the Iraqi Church and all the churches of the Middle East are best given through the Catholic Near Eastern Welfare Association, a cause worthy of your support all the time.
The Psalm-prayer for this evening (Monday, Week I of the Psalter), expresses well our concern for our endangered sisters and brothers:
Lord God, you search the hearts of all, both the good and the wicked. May those who are in danger for love of you, find security in you now, and, in the day of judgment, may they rejoice in seeing you face to face. Amen.
Dear Mr. President:
The October 31 attack on the Syrian Catholic cathedral in Baghdad that killed 58 and wounded 75, together with the recent wave of bombings in Iraq’s capital, are grim evidence of the savage violence and lack of security that has plagued the Iraqi people, especially Christians and other minorities, for over seven years. Some reports even indicate that the October 31 attack may have been more extensive and the failures of security more egregious than originally thought. Enclosed you will find a press release by the Most Reverend Yousif Habash, Bishop of the Eparchy of Our Lady of Deliverance of Newark for Syrian Catholics.
In the recent Synod of Bishops on the Middle East in Rome, the bishops from Iraq spoke of the terrifying situation facing Christians and other minorities in that country. They recalled murders, kidnappings, bombings, and naked threats that have forced many Christians from their homes and businesses. Ironically, just two weeks before the October 31 attack, Archbishop Athanase Matti Shaba Matoka of the Syrian Catholic Church in Iraq, whose cathedral was the site of the October 31 attack, addressed the Synod: “The invasion of Iraq by America and its allies brought to Iraq in general, and especially to its Christians, destruction and ruin on all levels. … Seven years have passed and Christianity is still bleeding. Where is the world conscience? All the world remains a spectator before what is happening in Iraq, especially with regards to Christians.”
Archbishop Matoka’s strong words remind us of the moral responsibility that the United States bears for working effectively with the Iraqi government to stem the violence. Prior to the war, our Conference of Bishops raised grave moral questions regarding the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Iraq and warned of "unpredictable consequences." The decimation of the Christian community in Iraq and the continuing violence that threatens all Iraqis are among those tragic consequences.
Our troops have served with bravery and distinction, and we welcome the end of U.S.-led combat in Iraq; however, the United States has so far failed in helping Iraqis to develop the political will needed to deploy effective strategies to protect the lives of all citizens, especially Christians and other vulnerable minorities. More must be done to help ensure that refugees and displaced persons are able to return to their homes safely. Having invaded Iraq, our nation has a moral obligation not to abandon those Iraqis who cannot defend themselves.
The murderous attack on innocent Christians gathered for worship witnesses to the need for the United States to redouble its efforts to assist Iraq as our engagement enters a new phase. At a minimum, our country must strengthen its work with Iraqis and the international community to: enable the Iraqi government to function for the common good of all Iraqis; build the capacity of Iraq’s military and police to provide security for all citizens, including minorities; improve the judicial system and rule of law; promote reconciliation and the protection of human rights, especially religious freedom; rebuild Iraq’s shattered economy so that Iraqis can support their families; and assist refugees and internally displaced Iraqis.
To meet its moral obligations to the Iraqi people, it is critically important that the United States take additional steps now to help Iraq protect its citizens, especially Christians and others who are victims of organized attacks. Thank you for your kind consideration of this urgent request.
Sincerely yours,
Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Chicago
President
How many more reasons do yo need to fast, to pray, to give alms and live in solidarity with our brothers and sisters as we prepare again to celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord in safety and security? Alms for the Iraqi Church and all the churches of the Middle East are best given through the Catholic Near Eastern Welfare Association, a cause worthy of your support all the time.
The Psalm-prayer for this evening (Monday, Week I of the Psalter), expresses well our concern for our endangered sisters and brothers:
Lord God, you search the hearts of all, both the good and the wicked. May those who are in danger for love of you, find security in you now, and, in the day of judgment, may they rejoice in seeing you face to face. Amen.
All holy men and women, pray for us, especially the recent martyrs of Baghdad
"Fear is not the natural state of man" Aung San Suu Kyi
The release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest in Burma today cannot go without remark. Back when it actually meant something, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. She has been under some form of detention in Burma for 15 of the past 21 years. She is the daughter of the Burmese independence hero, General Aung San, who was assassinated in 1947, just six months prior to Burma attaining its independence from Great Britain. She went on to study at St. Hugh's College in Oxford, focusing on philosophy, politics, and economics, only returning to Burma in 1988, when her mother was terminally ill.
While she was in Burma attending to her mother, Aung San Suu Kyi felt compelled to take up the torch of democracy against the highly repressive regime, saying in a famous speech she delivered in Rangoon on 26 August 1988, "I could not, as my father's daughter remain indifferent to all that was going on." From that point she led the opposition to dictator General Ne Win. Her opposition to the brutal military government, led by Win, is the reason she was placed under house arrest for the first time in 1989. Political pressure brought by her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), finally forced the military regime into holding elections in 1990, which the NLD won handily. The results of the election were negated and martial law remained in force. She remained under house arrest until 1995.
Aung San Suu Kyi's politics are inspired by examples of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. While she was free in Burma in the late 1980s, her activities consisted of traveling the country, organizing mass rallies and publicly advocating for peaceful political reform and, above all, for free elections. She is what Francis Sejested, chairman of the Nobel committee that awarded her the prize, said she was: "an outstanding example of the power of the powerless."
The importance of this day for the people of Burma cannot be exaggerated, assuming Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom lasts this time, which, given the track record of Burma's brutally repressive military junta, is a huge assumption. Given her track record of fearlessness, she will undoubtedly pick up where she left off. In a rare interview she was given permission to grant in 2007 to British journalist John Pilger, she said- "No matter the regime's physical power, in the end they can't stop the people; they can't stop freedom. We shall have our time."
"It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it," Aung San Suu Kyi once wrote. Nonetheless, she continued, even under the "most crushing state machinery, courage rises up again and again. For fear is not the natural state of man."
While she was in Burma attending to her mother, Aung San Suu Kyi felt compelled to take up the torch of democracy against the highly repressive regime, saying in a famous speech she delivered in Rangoon on 26 August 1988, "I could not, as my father's daughter remain indifferent to all that was going on." From that point she led the opposition to dictator General Ne Win. Her opposition to the brutal military government, led by Win, is the reason she was placed under house arrest for the first time in 1989. Political pressure brought by her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), finally forced the military regime into holding elections in 1990, which the NLD won handily. The results of the election were negated and martial law remained in force. She remained under house arrest until 1995.
Aung San Suu Kyi's politics are inspired by examples of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. While she was free in Burma in the late 1980s, her activities consisted of traveling the country, organizing mass rallies and publicly advocating for peaceful political reform and, above all, for free elections. She is what Francis Sejested, chairman of the Nobel committee that awarded her the prize, said she was: "an outstanding example of the power of the powerless."
The importance of this day for the people of Burma cannot be exaggerated, assuming Aung San Suu Kyi's freedom lasts this time, which, given the track record of Burma's brutally repressive military junta, is a huge assumption. Given her track record of fearlessness, she will undoubtedly pick up where she left off. In a rare interview she was given permission to grant in 2007 to British journalist John Pilger, she said- "No matter the regime's physical power, in the end they can't stop the people; they can't stop freedom. We shall have our time."
"It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it," Aung San Suu Kyi once wrote. Nonetheless, she continued, even under the "most crushing state machinery, courage rises up again and again. For fear is not the natural state of man."
All holy men and women, pray for us
Praying for an end to "this absurd violence"
"I pray for the victims of this absurd violence, which is even more savage because it struck defenseless people, gathered in God's house, which is a house of love and reconciliation." PP Benedictus XVI 1 November 2010, the Solemnity of All Saints.
The following day, he sent a telegram to Baghdad as Catholics held funerals for two priests and several others among the 58 people killed in the violence.
"Deeply saddened by the violent deaths of so many faithful and of Fathers Tha'ir Saad and Boutros Wasim, I want to participate spiritually in the funeral while I pray that these brothers and sisters would be welcomed into the mercy of Christ in the Father's house.
"For years, this beloved country has suffered unspeakable pain, and even the Christians have become the objects of savage attacks which, with total disrespect for life, the inviolable gift of God, try to undermine trust and civil coexistence.
Our Lady and her Immaculate Heart, damaged by bullets, at the entrance of the Sayidat al-Nejat Cathedral in Baghdad
"I renew my appeal that the sacrifice of these brothers and sisters of ours may be seeds of peace and of true rebirth and so that all those who have at heart reconciliation and a coexistence marked by fraternity and solidarity would find reasons and strength to work for good" PP. Benedictus in a telegram sent to the Catholics of Baghdad on 2 November, All Souls Day.
I am bereft at this and so relegated to passing along the Holy Father's words. This slaughter comes very shortly after the death of another martyr, Bishop Luigi Padovese of Iskenderun, Turkey. These 58 sisters and brothers of mine, led by their faithful pastors, Tha'ir Saad and Boutros Wasim, are surely martyrs and we should venerate them as saints. Above all, we need to begin caring about the plight of the Church throughout the Middle East. Their martyrdom occurred on what we observe on the Latin calendar as All Hallows Eve.
The following day, he sent a telegram to Baghdad as Catholics held funerals for two priests and several others among the 58 people killed in the violence.
"Deeply saddened by the violent deaths of so many faithful and of Fathers Tha'ir Saad and Boutros Wasim, I want to participate spiritually in the funeral while I pray that these brothers and sisters would be welcomed into the mercy of Christ in the Father's house.
"For years, this beloved country has suffered unspeakable pain, and even the Christians have become the objects of savage attacks which, with total disrespect for life, the inviolable gift of God, try to undermine trust and civil coexistence.
"I renew my appeal that the sacrifice of these brothers and sisters of ours may be seeds of peace and of true rebirth and so that all those who have at heart reconciliation and a coexistence marked by fraternity and solidarity would find reasons and strength to work for good" PP. Benedictus in a telegram sent to the Catholics of Baghdad on 2 November, All Souls Day.
I am bereft at this and so relegated to passing along the Holy Father's words. This slaughter comes very shortly after the death of another martyr, Bishop Luigi Padovese of Iskenderun, Turkey. These 58 sisters and brothers of mine, led by their faithful pastors, Tha'ir Saad and Boutros Wasim, are surely martyrs and we should venerate them as saints. Above all, we need to begin caring about the plight of the Church throughout the Middle East. Their martyrdom occurred on what we observe on the Latin calendar as All Hallows Eve.
All holy men and women, pray for us
"We love because he first loved us"
The recent highly publicized suicides of five homosexual young men, the most notable being Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers University student who jumped off the George Washington Bridge after having a sexual encounter with another male, which was clandestinely recorded, posted on the internet by a couple of his friends. On top of all this comes a talk delivered at this weekend's semi-annual General Conference of the LDS church by the President of their Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Boyd K. Packer. Personally, I think Elder Packer's comparing what he sees as the natural law with physical laws most unfortunate, a true case of comparing apples to oranges. "A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. Do you think a vote to repeal the law of gravity would do any good?" No, at least not within the earth's atmosphere. But then, as I live on earth, I have no choice with regard to obeying the law of gravity, whereas I have a choice with regard to obeying the natural law as he conceives it. My understanding is that homosexuality, with very, very few possible exceptions, is not chosen. The crux of the issue human freedom.
The Catechism states that homosexuality "has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained" (2357). The Catechism goes on say that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (2358). Now, before I field comments pointing out that the quotes I cite from the Catechism are "clipped," avoiding the more controversial parts, I plead guilty. My reason for doing so is that most of the time we focus on those parts to the exclusion of the parts I quote. I think Fr. Jim Martin makes much the same point in his post over on America magazine's All Things blog- What is a Catholic response to gay suicide?.
One distinguishing characteristic of Christian faith is respect for persons, not just respect, but reverence. We all bear the imago dei without exception. I was on retreat with my fellow deacons this past weekend. Fr Ray Carey was our retreat master. He brought this message home so clearly in our very first conference Friday evening, making it axiomatic for everything else he shared with us from his great learning and wisdom. For me, the tragedy of all this is how ideological, political, and polarizing sexuality becomes with one side wanting to reduce our humanity to our sexual orientation and the other refusing to truly see the other, the one who differs from me; this amounts to a genuine lack of empathy. These sides serve the common goal of separating us from each other by reducing faith to morality. Yes, being moralistic is something people on both sides engage in to the point of nausea, which is why this all becomes so heated, polarizing, so alienating. I think many young men who are experiencing a crisis with regard to their sexuality get caught in this crucible, which is why I think the most relevant thing Fr. Martin writes is "there is one life-changing resource in the Christian tradition that transform[s] those who feel unloved--that is, Jesus." Too often these tragedies are employed for ideological purposes.
I care infintely more about the well-being and happiness of young people, like Tyler, than I do about the political battle over marriage, or even to arguing about morality. I cannot repeat too strongly an insight by Fr. Timothy Radcliffe: Christians are not in the business of issuing moral edicts, or even discussing morality with anyone who does not know, who has not experienced for her/himself, God's love given them in Christ Jesus! We have to have faith in the Word of God, in the love of God, to change lives.
Jesus loves you is a cliché, but it isn't just true, it is the most important thing you can know! He loves us all so very much. He looks on each of us with such tenderness: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:18-19- ESV). This Scripture tells me that once I realize how much I am loved everything else will take of itself, as long as I make God's love for me central to my life. Let's remember that fear of the Lord is only the beginning of wisdom, not wisdom's end, which is loving God because He first loved me. My identity, who I am by virtue of my baptism, is a son of God, everything else about me is secondary at best!
Another problem is a genuine failure to respect the person of Tyler Clementi by his friends. The recording and posting of his intimate encounter does not seem to be motivated by anti-gay bias, like, say, the murder of Matthew Shepherd. Rather, their failure to respect their friend arises from a diminishing recognition of the right we all have to privacy. Another person's sex life, even their sexual orientation, is none of my business, unless they choose to share something with me as a friend, or as a pastoral minister. If somebody tells me they are sexually exploiting another, or being sexually exploited by another, especially a minor, I am required to report them to the appropriate authorities. In all instances I have to draw clear boundaries and to act responsibly, that is, ethically. In other words, I don't need to know everything, I don't want to know everything, especially when it comes to relations between consenting adults.
Fr. Martin ends his post with a beautiful prayer. I won't post the whole thing because I want you to read his post, but it begins:
"Loving God, you made me who I am. I praise you and I love you, for I am wonderfully made, in your own image.
"But when people make fun of me, I feel hurt and embarrassed and even ashamed. So please God, help me remember my own goodness, which lies in you. Help me remember my dignity, which you gave me when I was conceived. Help me remember that I can live a life of love, because you created my heart."
The Catechism states that homosexuality "has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained" (2357). The Catechism goes on say that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (2358). Now, before I field comments pointing out that the quotes I cite from the Catechism are "clipped," avoiding the more controversial parts, I plead guilty. My reason for doing so is that most of the time we focus on those parts to the exclusion of the parts I quote. I think Fr. Jim Martin makes much the same point in his post over on America magazine's All Things blog- What is a Catholic response to gay suicide?.
Tyler Clementi
One distinguishing characteristic of Christian faith is respect for persons, not just respect, but reverence. We all bear the imago dei without exception. I was on retreat with my fellow deacons this past weekend. Fr Ray Carey was our retreat master. He brought this message home so clearly in our very first conference Friday evening, making it axiomatic for everything else he shared with us from his great learning and wisdom. For me, the tragedy of all this is how ideological, political, and polarizing sexuality becomes with one side wanting to reduce our humanity to our sexual orientation and the other refusing to truly see the other, the one who differs from me; this amounts to a genuine lack of empathy. These sides serve the common goal of separating us from each other by reducing faith to morality. Yes, being moralistic is something people on both sides engage in to the point of nausea, which is why this all becomes so heated, polarizing, so alienating. I think many young men who are experiencing a crisis with regard to their sexuality get caught in this crucible, which is why I think the most relevant thing Fr. Martin writes is "there is one life-changing resource in the Christian tradition that transform[s] those who feel unloved--that is, Jesus." Too often these tragedies are employed for ideological purposes.
I care infintely more about the well-being and happiness of young people, like Tyler, than I do about the political battle over marriage, or even to arguing about morality. I cannot repeat too strongly an insight by Fr. Timothy Radcliffe: Christians are not in the business of issuing moral edicts, or even discussing morality with anyone who does not know, who has not experienced for her/himself, God's love given them in Christ Jesus! We have to have faith in the Word of God, in the love of God, to change lives.
Jesus loves you is a cliché, but it isn't just true, it is the most important thing you can know! He loves us all so very much. He looks on each of us with such tenderness: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:18-19- ESV). This Scripture tells me that once I realize how much I am loved everything else will take of itself, as long as I make God's love for me central to my life. Let's remember that fear of the Lord is only the beginning of wisdom, not wisdom's end, which is loving God because He first loved me. My identity, who I am by virtue of my baptism, is a son of God, everything else about me is secondary at best!
Another problem is a genuine failure to respect the person of Tyler Clementi by his friends. The recording and posting of his intimate encounter does not seem to be motivated by anti-gay bias, like, say, the murder of Matthew Shepherd. Rather, their failure to respect their friend arises from a diminishing recognition of the right we all have to privacy. Another person's sex life, even their sexual orientation, is none of my business, unless they choose to share something with me as a friend, or as a pastoral minister. If somebody tells me they are sexually exploiting another, or being sexually exploited by another, especially a minor, I am required to report them to the appropriate authorities. In all instances I have to draw clear boundaries and to act responsibly, that is, ethically. In other words, I don't need to know everything, I don't want to know everything, especially when it comes to relations between consenting adults.
Fr. Martin ends his post with a beautiful prayer. I won't post the whole thing because I want you to read his post, but it begins:
"Loving God, you made me who I am. I praise you and I love you, for I am wonderfully made, in your own image.
"But when people make fun of me, I feel hurt and embarrassed and even ashamed. So please God, help me remember my own goodness, which lies in you. Help me remember my dignity, which you gave me when I was conceived. Help me remember that I can live a life of love, because you created my heart."
Veni Sancte Spiritus, Veni per Mariam
Burning the Qu'ran is not the way a Christian acts
As we rapidly approach the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, we are also approaching pastor Terry Jones' self-declared Burn a Koran Day, slated for Saturday, 9/11/10. Jones says he continues to pray about whether to stage a burning of the Muslim holy book at his church in Gainesville, Florida this Saturday. As a Christian, I do not need to pray about what Scripture clearly sets forth. So, I recommend this passage from St. Paul to Jones:
As a Catholic Christian, I affirm with the words of the fathers of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council that "[t]he Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God" (Nostra Aetate, par. 3).
One temptation that has be resisted by Christians is the temptation to say, "I don't see why Muslims would get that worked up about a small Christian congregation, led by a publicity-seeking extremist, burning a few copies of the Qu'ran. I wouldn't care that much if a bunch of hard-line Muslims burned the Bible." This temptation must be resisted for two reasons. First, Muslims revere the Bible, both the Jewish Scriptures and the New Testament. Second, the relationship of Christians to the Bible is very different from that between Muslims and the Qu'ran, or between Jews and the Tor'ah. I suppose there are those Christians who view the Bible in a similar way, but this is not the historic Christian approach. After all, we are not, properly speaking, a people of the Book, but the people of the resurrected and living Lord!
A French friend posted something on Facebook this morning that indicated that Terry Jones' Qu'ran burning was typical of people in the U.S. today. By comparison, the U.S. is far more tolerant and even indulgent of religion than is France. Several other Europeans concurred and added their own disparaging comments about Americans. Adding irony to irony, they are engaging in the same kind of tactic as Terry Jones. To wit: burning the Qu'ran is not a "very American" thing to do in these times and to assert against all evidence that it is is to demonize people the U.S. the same way Jones demonizes Muslims. The truth is that most people in the U.S., especially those who are religious, are appalled and offended by Jones' uncharitable foolishness. I find it far more offensive that people think most of us here in the U.S. approve of this kind of obnoxious behavior. At the end of the day, this is just another iteration of Fred Phelps' anti-Christian "God hates fags" campaign. If "God is love" (1 John 4:8.16), then God cannot hate anyone, lest God cease to be God.
While it is ill-advised and appalling, this one pastor and his very small congregation, only made significant by an irresponsible news media who took Jones' weird little gesture viral, are free to do this. Because one is free to do something doesn't make it good or right. I am always amused by people who say morals can't or shouldn't be legislated by the state and then turn around and insist that the state legislate morality, usually in a disturbingly totalitarian manner. My personal position on this, oddly, is much the same as my opposition to building the proposed Islamic Center, which will feature a mosque, so near to Ground Zero: I don't question Jones' right to burn the Qu'ran, he is on firm constitutional ground in so doing. Neither do I want to enact laws that restrain freedom as a result of this escapade. I just think it is unwise, deliberately inflammatory and unnecessarily divisive. In the case of Jones' proposed bonfire on inanity, I also think it objectively un-Christian on strictly scirptural grounds.
It is appropriate to end this post with words from our Lord, Jesus Christ, that can be applied to those who feel offended by Muslims, among whom I cannot be numbered:
"Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' To the contrary, 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:17-21-ESV).Besides, it should go without saying that not all Muslims have offended us, that is, not all Muslims are complicit in the 9/11 attacks. In fact, as the Holy Father takes every opportunity to point out, people of faith, especially Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have more in common with each other than we do with the prevailing secular, instrumentalist, and empiricist mind-set, which is so reductive of the human person. Much of what Muslims find objectionable about the West is also offends believing Christians.
As a Catholic Christian, I affirm with the words of the fathers of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council that "[t]he Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God" (Nostra Aetate, par. 3).
One temptation that has be resisted by Christians is the temptation to say, "I don't see why Muslims would get that worked up about a small Christian congregation, led by a publicity-seeking extremist, burning a few copies of the Qu'ran. I wouldn't care that much if a bunch of hard-line Muslims burned the Bible." This temptation must be resisted for two reasons. First, Muslims revere the Bible, both the Jewish Scriptures and the New Testament. Second, the relationship of Christians to the Bible is very different from that between Muslims and the Qu'ran, or between Jews and the Tor'ah. I suppose there are those Christians who view the Bible in a similar way, but this is not the historic Christian approach. After all, we are not, properly speaking, a people of the Book, but the people of the resurrected and living Lord!
A French friend posted something on Facebook this morning that indicated that Terry Jones' Qu'ran burning was typical of people in the U.S. today. By comparison, the U.S. is far more tolerant and even indulgent of religion than is France. Several other Europeans concurred and added their own disparaging comments about Americans. Adding irony to irony, they are engaging in the same kind of tactic as Terry Jones. To wit: burning the Qu'ran is not a "very American" thing to do in these times and to assert against all evidence that it is is to demonize people the U.S. the same way Jones demonizes Muslims. The truth is that most people in the U.S., especially those who are religious, are appalled and offended by Jones' uncharitable foolishness. I find it far more offensive that people think most of us here in the U.S. approve of this kind of obnoxious behavior. At the end of the day, this is just another iteration of Fred Phelps' anti-Christian "God hates fags" campaign. If "God is love" (1 John 4:8.16), then God cannot hate anyone, lest God cease to be God.
While it is ill-advised and appalling, this one pastor and his very small congregation, only made significant by an irresponsible news media who took Jones' weird little gesture viral, are free to do this. Because one is free to do something doesn't make it good or right. I am always amused by people who say morals can't or shouldn't be legislated by the state and then turn around and insist that the state legislate morality, usually in a disturbingly totalitarian manner. My personal position on this, oddly, is much the same as my opposition to building the proposed Islamic Center, which will feature a mosque, so near to Ground Zero: I don't question Jones' right to burn the Qu'ran, he is on firm constitutional ground in so doing. Neither do I want to enact laws that restrain freedom as a result of this escapade. I just think it is unwise, deliberately inflammatory and unnecessarily divisive. In the case of Jones' proposed bonfire on inanity, I also think it objectively un-Christian on strictly scirptural grounds.
It is appropriate to end this post with words from our Lord, Jesus Christ, that can be applied to those who feel offended by Muslims, among whom I cannot be numbered:
"But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you... If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same... Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (for the entire passage see Luke 6:27-36- ESV).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)