Thoughtful Reflections on Religious Experience
Saint of the Day 12/23- St. John of Kanty (Cantius) by RandyPozos on Tuesday 23 December 2008 2:44 pm PDT

St. John of Kanty (June 24, 1390 -  December 24, 1473) was born in the town of Kenty near Oswiecim (Auschwitz) in the diocese of Cracow, Poland. St. John of Kanty had an easy going personality and a brilliant mind. At the age of 23 he enrolled in one of the oldest universities in Europe, the Cracow Academy.

St. John of Kanty spent most of the rest of his life studying philosophy and theology and becoming head of the department of philosophy. The only time he was away was a brief period during which he had been fired as a result of unjust charges brought by his rivals. He served for eight years as a parish priest, winning the hearts of his parishioners, who begged him to stay with them when his position at the University was restored. As a result of this experience, he is sometimes seen as a patron for those who are out of work or seeking work.

Founded in 1364, the Cracow Academy was renamed in 1817 as the Jagiellonian University to commemorate a Polish dynasty.  Copernicus registered at the Cracow Academy 80 years after John of Kanty first registered. Several centuries later another Polish philosopher at the Jagiellonian University, Carol Wojtyla - Pope John Paul II,  would look to St. John of Kanty as a patron. In his 1997 visit to his homeland, Pope John Paul II prayed at the tomb of St. John of Kanty as he had when he was a student. His address to professors of the university was based on the theme that summarized the life of St. John of Kanty -  knowledge and wisdom seek a covenant with holiness.

De Vita: Toward a Christian Philosophy of Life by RandyPozos on Thursday 4 December 2008 6:02 pm PDT
Madonna by Ralph & Shelly Neibuhr

Latin Baby by Ralph & Shelly Neibuhr

 

In an interview on National Public Radio yesterday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee offered a very intelligent and fluent presentation of the pro-life position. While being interviewed about his new book, Do the Right Thing, he stated clearly and succinctly that life has to be seen as sacred and valued and that humans cannot be wantonly discarded when they are inconvenient or an economic liability. The big danger, as Mr. Huckabee pointed out, is that if we teach our children that certain marginal people are disposable, we ourselves may become disposable once we are old and infirm.

One of the listeners emailed a questioned about the consistency of an anti-abortion position and one in favor of capital punishment. Mr. Huckabee allowed that there might come a point when the case could be made to eliminate the death penalty. Even as he praised those who participated in candle light vigils outside the Governor’s mansion protesting the execution of criminals, Mr. Huckabee said that the taking of such lives occurred not at the whim of an individual mother but after an exhaustive judicial process. He made the point that some crimes are so severe and the danger to society is so great that killing people is the one definite way to make sure that such people will never commit this crime again. He added that the death penalty is a deterrent that benefits society.

His presentation was very sincere, yet there was something that made me uneasy about it. Is re-criminalizing abortion truly a pro-life position? Abortion still occurred when it was illegal. Making it illegal once again will not stop the practice. Philosophically, a true pro-life position requires supports and incentives for the care and nurturing of all - at every stage of life. An acceptance of abortion can represent a coarsening of the public’s view of unborn children and human life.  An acceptance or a toleration of abortion is seen by many as leading to a debasement of the human fetus and of motherhood itself.

Nevertheless, if we criminalize abortion, we won’t stop it. We can “enjoy” taking the moral high ground, but I think that this is an illusion. What happens when women do not have safe and legal access to abortion? The mother and child relationship becomes socialized without the benefit of the social and economic supports necessary to lead a life of worth and dignity.

If we accept the view that birth control is also immoral, we are holding to an idealized view that sex only occurs in marriage and that in natural family planning, reason and ovulation always win out over human passion.

Although well intentioned - that great pavement on the road to perdition - the movement to re-criminalize abortion does not represent a well integrated philosophy of the dignity and worth of life. Criminalization could very well return us to a public policy that moves us away from a humanistic and Christian philosophy of life.

Morally, one can advocate an idealized Christian lifestyle focused on virginity, abstinence, and separate beds for married couples, but pastoral applications of moral theology have always been more about actual living - and dealing with the messiness of life.

Perhaps, what we are really wrestling with is the notion of what it is to be inhuman. Interrupting an otherwise healthy pregnancy without a very compelling reason still appears to have a lot of support as being an inhuman activity. Then again, the notion of placing a woman at risk of death because she does not share our beliefs or because she perceives she has no other choices also appears to have widespread support as something that is inhuman.

Can you have a secular policy that permits abortion and even physician assisted suicide? It is hardly a Christian position. Then again, perhaps the Christian witness is better seen in public policy that makes these choices less necessary and less desirable. If we insist that public policy has to be Christian in a post-Christian civilization, we may be doing something that is not really very Christian - we may be claiming (against the teaching of St. Paul) - that the law can save us.

(Image taken from Shelly Niebuhr’s home page: http://shellyn.com/pageForLarger.html)

Marriage and Matrimony - Aren’t they the same thing? by KathyPozos on Friday 31 October 2008 1:46 pm PDT
Todd Alan Studio Designs

Todd Alan Studio Designs

In California this election year, we’re asked to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that claims to be for the “protection of marriage.” The proposition, in fact, is one that would take away the legal right of homosexual men and women to enter into the legal contract of marriage. The right was established earlier this year when the California Supreme Court ruled that laws to the contrary were un-Constitutional because they deprived same sex couples of equal protection under the law. (The Court found that domestic partnerships and civil unions did not provide all of the protections of legal marriage.) Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment that would require a vote of 3/4 of the Legislature to overturn if at some later date we realize that it was a mistake to enact.

There have been a lot of arguments raised on both sides of the issue. Supporters of the proposition claim that marriage was established by God at the time of Adam and Eve, when they were instructed, in the second story of creation, to cling to each other and become one body. (Gen 2:24) In the first story of creation, the un-named humans were instructed to “Be fertile and multiply …” (Gen 1:28) The fact that the creation stories (two of them) in the book of Genesis were culturally based explanations of how things “came to be,” rather than historical or scientific accounts as we know them today, seems to be beside the point. Somehow, granting a legal right to share a life of committed love - with the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage - to non-heterosexual couples is seen as a threat to the lives of commited love of heterosexual couples who have married.

I attended a wedding last weekend. It was a lovely ceremony that united a young man, of whom I am extremely fond and proud, with a young woman who has become dear to me as well. One of the things that really struck me about the wedding was the degree to which the legal, contractual nature of the marriage was obvious. As soon as the couple arrived before the sanctuary, the celebrant welcomed the assembled guests and quizzed them regarding potential reasons why the couple might not be legally married. He charged each of the two persons seeking to marry to speak out if either of them knew of any reason why they might not legally do so. Then he asked each individually if they had come freely and of their own will to be joined in marriage. Only once these requirements for entering into a legal contract had been established did he move into the prayers and readings of the service.

The ceremony included prayers and blessings for the couple and promises from the families and friends to help and support them in the life they were choosing to enter. The young man and his bride promised to love and care for each other, through all the ups and downs of life, for as long as they both should live. Only then were they allowed to enter into the sanctuary, offer each other their right hands in symbolic handshake on the contract, and pronounce their vows. They exchanged rings as a sign of their promises to each other. The celebrant blessed them and sent them forth out into the world and a new life together.

For this couple, the marriage ceremony included two elements: the legal, civil contract and the blessing of the church community. For many couples, the ceremony includes only the legal, civil contract. In many countries, couples who seek to marry do so in civil ceremonies. If they wish to receive the blessing of the Church, they then go to the parish and enter into the sacrament of Matrimony in another ceremony.

In the United States, we have allowed the combination of the civil and religious ceremonies into one. That, I believe, is a fundamental part of the confusion that has resulted in such controversy. We call both the legal, civil union of the two individuals and the sacrament of Matrimony by the same name - marriage.

Marriage, from the perspective of a social scientist, is a social arrangement developed by members of a culture to cement alliances between families, establish economic units, and provide for the procreation and nurturing of children. In corporate families (see my explanation of this term in another blog post), the head of the family makes the decision about who will marry whom. Those to be married do not necessarily have any choice in the matter. It is a legal contract between heads of families, not between the individuals to be married.

Christians have traditionally taken a somewhat different approach to the matter. Christian marriage, or Matrimony, is a sacrament of the physical love between a man and woman, the union of their hearts and lives and the image of the relationship between God and humans. It was not a rite that required the blessing of a priest as witness until sometime in the twelfth century. The man and woman are ministers of the sacrament to each other. Because men and women are understood to be equals in the sight of God, women have had more rights within Christian communities, at least in theory. The sacrament of Matrimony cannot be valid unless both parties consent to enter into the union. If there’s any lack of freedom or consent, the sacrament does not happen. The legal contractual aspect is null and void. The parties are free to enter into the sacrament with other parties. If the sacrament is judged to have been valid, the contract is upheld and regardless of what civil authorities might rule, the couple is not free to enter into the sacrament with other parties.

One argument against allowing homosexual marriages is that existing civil arrangements, such as “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions” confer the same protection under the law. In fact, since American law is based on precedents from cases dating back hundreds of years, there is no equivalent body of law supporting and/or establishing the legal protections for these unions that are part and parcel of the laws regarding marriage. Domestic partnerships and civil unions are not legally the same as marriages.

(On a related note - Many Catholics have been married in civil ceremonies when their first marriage, blessed by the Church, ended in legal divorce. Do we deny them the legal protections that come with civil marriage contracts when they again wish to enter a committed, loving life together? Should we offer them domestic partnerships or civil unions as their only option?)

Our American legal system is based on the English laws brought by the first colonists. The fact that so many of them were members of Calvinist religious faiths is also of importance in understanding the conflict surrounding homosexual marriage. John Calvin and his followers dropped most of the sacraments of the Church when they separated from the Roman Catholic Church. They kept only Baptism. Matrimony ceased to exist as a sacrament for them. Marriage became a matter of civil law only. That was the way it came to the United States and was enshrined into the law of the land. As an accommodation to those of other religious traditions, ministers of those faiths are legally allowed to serve as witnesses to the legal, civil contract. However, no one is required to have a minister bless his or her marriage. And equally important, no minister of any religious faith is required to bless, or even serve as witness to, the marriage of someone who does not qualify to marry under the laws of his or her faith tradition. That’s why we have a Justice of the Peace for civil ceremonies.  Yet religious communities rightly feel a responsibility to monitor, support and encourage couples who choose to enter into a married relationship. So even when they don’t recognize the sacrament of Matrimony, they want to establish rules to regulate marriage - mixing theology with legal protections.

The issues surrounding this question are complex. They go far beyond the questions of whether people choose their sexual orientation, whether certain behaviors are inherently sinful and whether the majority of adults are comfortable with sexual behaviors that differ from their own.

Legal systems are developed to protect the members of a society. Ideally they protect those with the least power, the minorities among us, those who are different or who cannot protect themselves - the Biblical “widows and orphans” or “God’s little ones.” As our understanding of human psychology and biology has developed and changed and as we’ve learned more about our universe and our place within it, Church teachings have changed. We no longer believe that slavery is OK. We insist that women and children are not the property of their families. We agree with Galileo that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth. And we are finding more and more evidence that sexual orientation is not a choice but rather is established before birth. If God created people not just as Adam and Eve, but also as Adam and Steve and Anna and Eve, who are we to deny them the same legal protections for their relationships and lives together as we grant to ourselves?

Fidelius and Diabolus: The Not So Gay Marriage Dialog by RandyPozos on Monday 20 October 2008 5:24 pm PDT
Image taken from oneyearbibleimages.com

Image taken from oneyearbibleimages.com

Diabolus: How’s it going?

Fidelius: You know we can’t talk - why do you persist?

Diabolus: That might be true if I were the Devil, but what if I’m your conscience?

Fidelius: There are no views but those of the Church.

Diabolus: True, but what about Church teaching, which acknowledges the “Sensus Fidelium” or Sense of the Faithful?

Fidelius: Stop bugging me Diabolus.

Diabolus: How do you know that’s my name?

Fidelius: You’re tempting me to think for myself. You’re torturing me.

Diabolus: No one can control your mind and heart. What’s bothering you?

Fidelius: I will take my counsel from my confessor, not from a post-Pepperoni heartburn!

Diabolus: “Pepperoni.” What a great name! Why don’t you call me that?

Fidelius: You are what you are.

Diabolus: And what is that?

Fidelius: The Tempter, the Evil One.

Diabolus: Have I ever suggested that you do anything wrong? Did I set your eye to wandering or encourage you to blow up when the Angels didn’t make the pennant?

Fidelius: Good people are tempted under the guise of good.

Diabolus: So, you’re a good person?

Fidelius: Yes. Generally, that is.

Diabolus: So then, why are you thinking about “it” again.

Fidelius: What “it”?

Diabolus: You know. Your conflict about gays.

Fidelius: They’re disgusting, you know that.

Diabolus: That’s not an uncommon opinion.

Fidelius: They make me squirm - and now they want to get married!

Diabolus: So, you think that it would be better to encourage them to stay with promiscuity as opposed to having a life of fidelity?

Fidelius: There can be nothing good in an act that is “intrinsically evil”.

Diabolus: So, you mean that you and Cynthia have never done anything “kinky”?

Fidelius: Shut up. We’re married.

Diabolus: My point exactly. You know, pleasure in marriage used to be called concupiscence.

Fidelius: What’s that?

Diabolus: You know - messed up like everything else after the fall of Adam and Eve.

Fidelius: So now you presume to teach me moral theology!

Diabolus: No. You learned it at that expensive Catholic college. Remember - the one you drank your way through?

Fidelius: Yeah, but it was after Vatican II. They weren’t Catholic anyway.

Diabolus: You mean like old Father Sullivan, who came to class in his cassock with the old yellowed pages on St. Thomas Aquinas?

Fidelius: He was different.

Diabolus: Yeah - he made you sweat to get a “C”. Not like the easy liberal that you gave you a “B+” for some beer can “sculpture” you threw together at the last minute.

Fidelius: Yeah, he was real.

Diabolus: Wasn’t he the guy that told you to have a happy sex life when you got married?

Fidelius: How do you know that? That was in confession!

Diabolus: Remember? I was there.

Fidelius: All I felt was so dirty.

Diabolus: You thought that he was going to throw the book at you.

Fidelius: Yeah, but he didn’t.

Diabolus: But there was a sin you didn’t confess.

Fidelius: What do you mean?

Diabolus: You remember. The time you stopped your fraternity brothers from beating up David Farnsworth, the fag?

Fidelius: He wasn’t gay - besides, “fag” isn’t politically correct.

Diabolus: Yeah. That’s why you found him dying in the AIDS ward a few years later at St. Mary’s, when you were helping the administration get their finances in order! A young guy out of business school and you go through the wrong door!

Fidelius: He never had a chance.

Diabolus: What do you mean? We all have free will. We all make choices.

Fidelius: His only moral choice was not to have sex.

Diabolus: He could have had a partner. You know - spend their lives together and all that? Maybe adopt a kid?

Fidelius: It would have been one mortal sin piled on another. He’d be deeper in Hell than he is now.

Diabolus: You don’t believe that.

Fidelius: Well, I heard Fr. Sullivan got to him before it was too late. But Purgatory’s no picnic.

Diabolus: So why did you pay for the Plenary Indulgence for him?

Fidelius: I didn’t pay for it. I just made an offering.

Diabolus: Strange. All this good will. Did you have a thing for this guy?

Fidelius: He was a guy. Got it? Like anybody. He deserved some decency, some respect.

Diabolus: But not a home.

Fidelius: He wasn’t homeless. He was making good money as an attorney.

Diabolus: No one to come home to; just work, parties, the bars …

Fidelius: He knew marriage was for straights. He was a good Catholic.

Diabolus: Yeah right. A gay can be a good Catholic; as likely as the Good Samaritan.

Fidelius: The Samaritan was real.

Diabolus: Maybe - or was he just a way for Jesus to show up the “good” people who had no compassion?

Fidelius: We can’t encourage gay culture. We’d be undermining the family; the basis of society.

Diabolus: Right. We can’t encourage a culture of life and fidelity.

Fidelius: It’s wrong. Remember, God made Adam and Eve - not Adam and Steve.

Diabolus: An interesting piece of demagoguery, but it doesn’t seem very compassionate.

Fidelius: The kids’ll get the wrong idea. They’ll think it’s okay.

Diabolus: Is that why so many gay people hate themselves?

Fidelius: It’s not my problem.

Diabolus: David became your problem when you saved him from that pack of apes.

Fidelius: I would have done it for anybody. Nobody deserves that kind of hate.

Diabolus: So where do you stop on this slippery slope?

Fidelius: It’s easy. The Church says, don’t beat ‘em up but don’t let ‘em get married.

Diabolus: That’s why you and Cynthia have only 3 kids - after 20 years?

Fidelius: We couldn’t have afforded more kids. You know that. With Cynthia’s problems it probably would have killed her.

Diabolus: So you love your wife more than God?

Fidelius: There’s a difference between God and the Church.

Diabolus: So who’s being the Devil now?

Fidelius: It’s in the Apostles Creed… “I believe in God, the Father Almighty.” Toward the end it says “I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”

Diabolus: Conscience. That weasel thing you picked up from those liberal priests!

Fidelius: It was a Vatican II thing. I had to write a paper on it.

Diabolus: So you did learn something!

Fidelius: Only because Fr. Sullivan made me re-write it 3 times.

Diablolus: I can’t imagine St. Thomas being on the side of conscience. He was a real theologian - and a saint.

Fidelius: Yeah. It’s a big thing for him - like it was for those Moslems philosophers he studied.

Diabolus: They only blow up stuff.

Fidelius: Conscience. You know - ”formed according to the teaching of the Church.”

Diabolus: So why did Aquinas end up on the list of forbidden books so long?

Fidelius: He was accused of subjecting God to human reason.

Diabolus: Well I gotta go. Time “to prowl about seeking the ruin of souls”.

Fidelius: What about me?

Diabolus: You’re hopeless!

Fidelius: Hopeless?

Diabolus: Just the opposite, I’m afraid. No sale here today.

Fidelius: What about gay marriage?

Diabolus: Deciding that by a crowd? I like lynchings. Remember? But you know, it’s not my thing. You should look at that WMD “weapons of mass destruction” bracelet you wear.

Fidelius: It’s WWJD! What would Jesus do?

Diabolus: Yeah. I wonder. Later dude.. out’a here..

Photo by Chuck Welch of Lakeland, FL

Over the past 12-18 months I’ve received a number of emails forwarded from friends and family that were related to the current Presidential election in the US. The majority of the emails purported to be sincere efforts to raise questions about the ability of a candidate to serve as leader of this country. However, in general, they were filled with statements that were phrased to sound alarm bells in the minds of “Middle America” about the candidacy of Senator Barak Obama.  Many make a big deal of Senator Obama’s name. Others raise questions about the validity of his decision to become a Christian as an adult. One, featuring a cute picture of a bear seated at a picnic table, raised again the old Republican campaign claim that the Democratic party would give money to people who didn’t really need it or were too lazy to work for it - a “socialist state” type of idea, with all the negative baggage such terms carry in this country.

I haven’t received emails of this nature from the other side. I did hear of a You-Tube video featuring a formal Navy officer who was also a POW during the Vietnam War. In that one the speaker explained his concerns about Senator McCain. But that’s the only one I’ve seen. There may be others, but my “liberal” friends tend not to send that kind of stuff to me.

I write about this because as we come into the final weeks of the campaign, the tenor of the rallies and the statements being made are becoming more worrisome. Some of the rhetoric is deliberately arousing negative reactions from the crowds. Use of Senator Obama’s middle name in speaking of him is leading crowds to “boo” and shout out threats against him. While the presidential candidates themselves do not endorse this kind of activity, at least one of their running mates has not stopped it at campaign rallies when it occurred. This is dangerous and un-American. It is also un-Christian. So I believe it is something that must be addressed in Theologika’s forum.

Accordingly, I offer reflections I sent to a friend who had forwarded one of those “hate” emails to me. It should be noted that my friend was sincerely asking for my input on the content of the email. (He sent my reply back to his correspondent with his statement that he agreed with what I had said.)

The piece in question asked specifically if Muslims could be good Americans and would go to fight for America if the need arose. The implication of the article was that they could not and by extension that Senator Obama, because of his name and family of origin, would not be a safe choice for President. My response was as follows:

How to begin!?!
 
I guess the place I begin is remembering when Kennedy ran for President when I was a child. The big question on many people’s minds was whether electing him meant accepting the Pope as leader of the US. Catholics were not trusted in the US for the most part up until that time. I remember having someone spit on me as I walked home from school for lunch, wearing my Catholic school uniform. I was about 7-8 years old. I’d hate to think that now that it’s become understood that we are not ruled by the Pope, we’d become bigots ourselves about those of another of the great faiths ‘of the Book.’
 
A second thought is of my Muslim ’sons,’ two now middle aged men who lived with us as our children in 1978 and early 1979. They and their family are honest people, whose religious beliefs guide them to be caring, respectful, thoughtful members of the communities in which they live. One of them told me one day, that the Christian teaching to forgive one’s enemies was something that Islam also taught, as a quality of the holiest of people. I would not hesitate to see them in public service in this country. They are very grateful for the US and for the refuge, welcome, education and opportunities they received as teenagers from an ‘enemy country’ (Iran) when they were young.
 
A third thought - Obama is Christian. This nonsense of saying that his Muslim name means he’s Muslim is just that - nonsense.  It’s like saying that any woman named Mary or man named Joseph is Jewish because those were names of Jews in the Bible! He’s named after his father. So’s my son. So what! Names are not destiny and do not equal religious faith, unless chosen as a religious name by someone entering religious community life.
 
Fourth - As Catholic Christians, we are members of a universal community, with first allegiance to the Kingdom of Heaven. The Pope and bishops continually remind us that we are not first and foremost Americans. Our decisions must be made in the light of broader, more universal concerns. What will this policy do to the least among us? The ‘preferential option for the poor’ that is rarely mentioned in American political discourse is the fundamental principle for us. Does that make us unfit for American office or citizenship? Some would argue that it would. I argue that as Christians, our call is to work for change within our society, not legislating it or criminalizing actions that are contrary to my beliefs, but to create support systems and encourage development of values on a broader scale that align American society and values with Kingdom values. We must keep this as a secular society, refusing to allow people of any faith to impose their own religious rules. A theocracy (society governed by religious law and leaders) is dangerous for all of us. As Christians, we’ve accomplished the most in bettering life for ‘the least among us’ when we began working as individuals and small groups to take care of the poor, the women and children, the disabled, etc. Those beginnings grew into larger movements and institutions, like the proverbial yeast of the Gospels. (Think St. Vincent de Paul, Mother Teresa, St. Camillus de Lellis, and many, many more. See http://blog.theologika.net for more examples.)

Fifth - I was raised in a family that more often than not votes Republican. I was always proud of the Republican belief that individuals can solve problems much more effectively in their own local communities than some ‘politician’ in the “East” could solve it for them. (We were from a western state.) But I’ve learned through the years that there are some things that can’t be handled or resolved effectively on a local level. And people who don’t have even flip flops can’t pull themselves up by their bootstraps. We’re in this together, as the melt-down on Wall Street has made abundantly clear recently. If a party can’t present its ideas and win the hearts of voters by presenting the issues and their best ideas about how to solve the problems of our nation without resorting to lies, fear-mongering and innuendo, then I’m not at all sure that party is worth supporting. I’m ashamed to see people of good will passing this garbage around and giving it credibility in the process.
 
As you can see, I’m a bit passionate about all of this. We’ve come so far. We can go so much farther. But we keep diving back down into bigotry and hatred. The saints and angels, as well as the one God and Father of us all, must be in tears.

I offer these thoughts to you, my readers, as well. In choosing our leaders, we must move beyond the politics of fear and of creating barriers where they don’t really exist. We must look at the issues before us, evaluate them based on our values and understanding of our faith, and then make our decisions responsibly and prayerfully, remembering that God has given us the gift of our minds so that we can use them to make this a more compassionate, just, and secure world for all who share it.

For more on the idea of secular societies vs theocracies, see http://blog.theologika.net/2008/09/11/theocracy-or-secular-society-reflections/.

For information on Islam, a classic from the field of anthropology is Islam Observed, by Clifford Geertz. There are also good pieces in Wikipedia on Islam and the many forms it takes.

The following are works I cited in another blog post, but in case you missed them, they’re well worth reading, so here they are again!

God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215, by David Levering Lewis 

The Voice, The Word, The Books: The Sacred Scripture of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, by F.E. Peters

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin

Secularity and the Gospel: Being Missionaries to our Children, by Ronald Rolheiser, OMI

Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace … One School at a Time, by Greg Mortensen

St. Robert Bellarmine - September 17 by KathyPozos on Wednesday 17 September 2008 7:55 am PDT

Once again, the feast of St. Robert Bellarmine is upon us. Last year, Randy wrote a post about Bellarmine’s life and contributions. This year, I thought it would be interesting to hear what a few Jesuits might have to say about him. I wrote to several schools and other institutions named after Robert Bellarmine and to the Jesuit communities at several Jesuit universities. I received responses from people at many of them. Not all had comments they wanted to share, but these men did.  I offer their responses in order received, with my thanks to all those who took the time to respond.

From Alan Yost, SJ - Formerly of Bellarmine Preparatory School in Tacoma, now working in a parish in Yakima, WA.

I don’t necessarily WANT people to know this about Roberto Belarmino, but since it’s true, and in a spirit of transparency, he was one of the main protagonists in the whole Galileo affair, arguing for the Church and against Galileo regarding the earth-centered vs. sun-centered model of the universe. In retrospect, it’s a little embarrassing, but we have to remember that he was a man of his time and that he was ardent in defending his beliefs and the beliefs of the Church at the time. Recall that Pope John Paul II offered a public apology to Galileo about 400 years after the fact.

From Rev. Clyde F. Crews - University Historian, Bellarmine University

We have had as our university motto, from the very beginning of this institution, the words taken from the introit of the Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine:  In Veritatis Amore.  To be truly engaged “in the love of truth” in all its dimensions, joys, tasks, and responsibilities remains a central part of our mission.  We are also struck by the fact that St. Robert was widely known – in the context of his times – for his tolerance, fairness, kindness, and generosity – especially to those in need.

From Fred Mayovsky, SJ - Math teacher at Bellarmine Preparatory School in Tacoma

St. Robert Bellarmine defended Galileo.  OK, Bellarmine was the Pope’s man, but he handled GG with love and gentleness, guiding him (GG) as he (SRB) was telling him what he (GG) could and could NOT state.  SRB was a dove and not a hawk in bringing the Pope’s directives.  In that same vein, when I teach math and demand neatness and organized thought, I will explain HOW to do the homework and not merely expect my students to do what I “expect” but as I “direct”, so that they assimilate knowledge.

Yes, my reflections on Bellarmine, I teach at a school named after him, I teach in a spirit of which I think he would approve.  Sorry I do not have the time to ground and defend my reflections.  But they are MY reflections on a great man, and I have been trying to live by his spirit in HIS school.

From James Flaherty, SJ  Rector of the Jesuit Community at Marquette University

Bellarmine was probably the most important theologian of the Counter-Reformation era. You might check out the website of the Singapore Jesuits for further info. Just google them and look for their hagiographies on Jesuit saints.

My thanks to each of you for the insights you’ve shared. May the Lord richly bless your ministries.

 

Theocracy or Secular Society - Reflections by KathyPozos on Thursday 11 September 2008 4:56 pm PDT

September 11 used to be just another day in the ninth month of the year. But the acts of terrorism which were committed on this date in 2001 in the United States changed that reality. Now, in most countries of the world, September 11 is a day to remember and mark with speeches, prayers, visits to “sacred sites” and news reports. For some few, it is a day remembered as a great victory against the most powerful representative of secular society in the world. For most, it is seen as a great tragedy, in which lives of innocent people were lost, personal freedoms were threatened, and excuses provided for nations to go to war.

Believing with George Santayana that “Those who do cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” I add that those who do not understand the fundamental concepts underlying social systems are also condemned to repeat history. Accordingly, I offer some reflections as an anthropologist on structures and realities that shape societies and social interaction.

In a Nutshell

For those with only a few moments to spare, here are my thoughts in a nutshell.

We’re dealing with a clash of cultures, specifically in terms of family structures and political systems. The “corporate family” and “theocratic” political system that was the norm for most cultures throughout most of human history has been challenged by an upstart system. In this new system, it’s the “nuclear family,” with its focus on the individual and personal choice, as well as its “secular” political structure, that are the ideal.

Some of the first cracks in the old system began to appear around 2000 years ago, with the teachings of Jesus and His early followers. More followed as Christians began caring for the sick and teaching children (including girls) and insisting that women had rights in marriage. Still more appeared towards the end of the religious wars that followed the Reformation, as religious dissidents began to move to the New World. With the ratification of the Bill of Rights as part of the American Constitution, the secular society as a political system was born.

Today we’re dealing with a side-effect of that event. Secular societies offer the opportunity for people of all faiths to work together to their fullest potential, to make this world a better place for all. Unfortunately, not all human choices are made for the common good, under any social or political system, so we also see people doing things that are very wrong. Sometimes religious people get frightened by that and think we should just go back to religious law - theirs, of course. Splinter groups of them may turn to violence and terror, killing innocent people in an attempt to change a political system. That’s what the events of September 11 and other terrorist activities of the past century have been about - political systems and family structure. Often disguised as defense of religious beliefs - but at base a question of political systems and family structure.

A violent response cannot stop violence of this type. In dealing with the problems that breed discontent and lead to social upheaval (unemployment, hunger, lack of safety, etc.), economic solutions are more often effective. Education, employment opportunities, health care, housing - all contribute to social stability and take the wind out of the sails fo the terrorists. That’s the response we should be offering to the world!

Now, for those who have a little more time.

Definitions and More Details

Begining at the begining - a few definitions and clarifications are in order.

Nuclear Family - The nuclear family is one that includes adults - generally but not exclusively a man and a woman - and their children, whether naturally born or adopted. It does not include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents or other friends.

In the nuclear family, the individual tends to be seen as having intrinsic value. Having an individual opinion and making personal choices is valued. Individuals are allowed to decide and act for themselves and it is expected that at a certain age and maturity, the individual will leave the nuclear family and live his or her own life. Many will enter into committed relationships, legally recognized by the society, and start new nuclear families of their own. The family in which they were raised is called the “family of origin” and is distinct from the family created upon reaching adulthood and entering into their own newly formed nuclear families. In American society, the nuclear family is the type of family structure that is the norm.

Corporate Family - A corporate family is like a business. It includes many more people than a nuclear family. It is multi-generational. It has an identity and existence of its own, apart from that of any individual member of the family. The continuation of the family takes precedence over the desires or even the sheer survival of the individual. Issues of honor are seen in terms of the larger family and individual lives may be sacrificed to maintain family honor. Marriage is a matter of alliances between corporate families - not something for two individuals to choose for themselves. One’s sexuality belongs to the family and one’s duty is to provide children for the continuance of the family. Individual opinions and preferences are not of deciding importance. In fact, the mere possibility of having an individual opinion may not enter the mind of a member of a culture in which the corporate family is (or has been) the rule.

Corporate families can take a variety of forms, depending on rules of inheritance and identification. In some, identity and property are passed through the male line (patrilineal) and in others through the female line (matrilineal). Somewhat more rarely, identity and inheritance can come from both lines. (This is more common in nuclear families, however.)

The vast majority of world societies take the corporate family model as the preferred model. It is only relatively recently that the nuclear family has arisen on the social scene of the world - and that in relatively few cultures. Nevertheless, with the spread of Western culture through the media, exposure to the nuclear family and the type of culture that accompanies it is increasing.

Theocracy - A form of political organization in which the legal foundations of the society are the laws of the dominant, governing religion or religious body. Theocracies have a long history in the world. Any culture, ancient or modern, in which religious rules are the ones by which disputes are resolved and individual or group actions judged as a matter of law is a theocracy.

Secular Society - A form of political organization in which the legal foundations of the society are distinct from the laws of religious organizations or groups of believers. The laws of secular societies may be, and generally are, based on certain principles drawn from the religious beliefs of their members, but religious law is distinct and carefully separate from the law governing the wider society. Secular societies have emerged relatively recently in the history of the world.

Freedom - The concept of freedom I will use is that which states that an individual can act or behave according to his or her conscience, to the mutual benefit of both the individual and other persons who will be affected by the action. In cases in which what benefits one does not benefit others, the one may not have the right to act or behave in the manner he or she desires. Sometimes the greater good or the rights of other people take precedence. Freedom does not mean license to behave however I choose and the rest be damned! Freedom entails a great responsibility to act for the common good, trusting that the larger good will also benefit the individual in the long run. In this, the concept of freedom draws much from the corporate family tradition, but it recognizes the rights of the individual to choose, apart from the interests of the corporate family, and to look at his or her own interests and those of the larger community.

So what does all this have to do with us today?

Corporate family structure and theocracy as a basis for political organization have been the dominant forms of organization during much of the history of human culture. Some of the first cracks in the system that we see historically resulted from the teachings of Jesus. When Jesus told the rich young man to sell everything he had, give the money to the poor, and come follow him, (Mt 19:21) that was demanding a major break from the corporate family. When Jesus told another young man to let the dead bury the dead, in response to his request for permission to bury his father before becoming a disciple, (Mt 8:22) that was an even greater break. 

The early church continued the process of separation. In the Acts of the Apostles, ( Acts 2:42-47) we see a community of believers who have sold all, combined their resources, and share all things in common. They have left their ancestral corporate families and joined into a new form of family - family still being needed for mutual support and protection. We know that not all went smoothly. There were disputes between Jews and Greeks, concerns over whether all resources had been contributed or not, complaints about fair distribution of resources, etc. The first persecution of the church in Jerusalem broke up the communal experiment and the Followers of the Way were dispersed, taking the Good News of the freedom of God’s children with them into the Roman Empire.( Acts 4-8)

In each community where the Gospel took root, communities formed. Christian community became a new social unit and each person’s gifts were seen as contributing to build up “the Body of Christ.” (Eph 4: 1-16) Individuals became important because the gifts they received built up the whole community. We’re still not to a nuclear family model yet in this understanding, but birth families were not primary in this scheme of things.

When religions become State sponsored or mandated, when religious law becomes the law of the land and all are required to become members of that religion (or at least live by its rules), some common patterns emerge. We see forced conversions, wars over definitions of points of belief, torture of those who do not believe “correctly,” and State sponsored executions of non-believers or heretics (those with beliefs deemed to be untrue). This pattern held true with the legalization of Christianity and its establishment as the religion of the Roman Empire. 

On large scale, we see destabilization of entire societies resulting from the persecution of non-conforming religious communities. In Spain, for example, both during the time of the Visigoths and the time of the reunification of the kingdoms under Ferdinand and Isabella, there was an attempt to enforce unity in religion, political governance, and military might. In both cases, the society was ultimately destabilized by the creation of persecuted minorities. During the Visigothic period, those minorities welcomed the invading Muslim forces which overthrew the Visigothic kings. (Ironically, Muslim rule itself was undermined in Spain by the 12th century as the result of a turn towards fundamentalism.) During the 15th and 16th centuries, the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain resulted in the loss of large numbers of people with valuable skills and professions - banking, medicine, science - not fields a successful nation can manage without. The Inquisition, which did not originally begin in Spain but was a force there for far too long, was a terrible example of what can happen when religious beliefs become the legal norm.

The religious wars that accompanied and followed the Reformation finally were resolved with a great compromise. The religion of the ruler of a nation would be the religion of all his or her subjects. So, any time the religion of the ruler changed, everyone had to change religions. It sounded good on paper, but if one truly believes that one’s faith is the one, true, unchanging faith, one can’t just change it because a new ruler has come into power! Fortunately, a New World had been discovered, and dissidents could go there and have their own colonies, with their own religious beliefs. And so it happened.

The English colonies in North America did not begin as places with freedom of religion. That developed much later. In a couple of colonies there was tolerance of different beliefs. One colony was set up as a refuge for Catholics. But by the time of the American Revolution, Catholics were not allowed to vote in any colony. In fact, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was not a voting “citizen” of his own colony until the mid-1770s when the laws excluding Catholics were repealed. It was only with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 that the separation of Church and State in the United States was enshrined as the law of the land. A secular society was born.

So what does all this have to do with September 11 and the acts of terrorism in the United States?  I’d like to say it’s simple, but it’s not. The actions of those who planned and carried out the attacks were those of terrorists, acting out of misguided religious beliefs perhaps, but still terrorists. Their goals were not religious conversion. They were from a group that promotes theocracy as the preferred political structure, specifically Islamic fundamentalist theocracy. (This is not to be mistaken for a mainstream Islamic faith.) The United States, as the largest and most powerful secular society in the world, was a natural target in an essentially political battle.

Terrorism is not an act of religion. It is a political act, whether seen in Northern Ireland, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, New York City, Sudan, or in the bombing of abortion clinics or the homes of scientists engaged in animal research studies. It is an act of political violence. So the question becomes, how do we respond to political violence? One school goes back to the old, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (revenge).  Another says, “give them a little bit and maybe they’ll go away happy” (appeasement). Another says, political issues must be resolved with social solutions and tools. Look at the core issues - economics, healthcare, education, jobs, security for families, safety from violence. The Peace Corps initiative of the Kennedy administration is an example of this approach, which has resulted in much positive change in the world.

The response to the events of September 11, the military invasions of two countries claimed to have been responsible in some form for the actions of the terrorists, has not been a success. It will not be easy to undo all the harm that has resulted from those actions. But as we go forward, as Americans, as Christians, as people of good will in an increasingly tiny world, it is critical to be aware of the past, of the differences between societies based on corporate families and those based on nuclear families, of the danger of placing religious law as the law of the land, of the great protection members of all faiths receive from living in a secular society, and of the resulting freedom to work for the betterment of social conditions and life for people throughout the world. Secular societies can be welcoming places for people of all faiths. Together, protected by freedom of religion, we can do great things.

For related information, see:

God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215, by David Levering Lewis 

The Voice, The Word, The Books: The Sacred Scripture of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, by F.E. Peters

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin

Secularity and the Gospel: Being Missionaries to our Children, by Ronald Rolheiser, OMI

Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace … One School at a Time, by Greg Mortensen

Post edited and revised Sept. 26, 2008 by the author.

Saint of the Day: St. Maximilian Kolbe - August 14 by RandyPozos on Thursday 14 August 2008 1:44 pm PDT

St. Maximilian Kolbe, a Conventual Franciscan, is widely known as the saint of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz, where he voluntered to take the place of a young husband and father who was one of ten innocent men condemned to death by starvation as a reprisal. As courageous as this was, he is also considered a martyr because of the abuse and torture he endured when he affirmed his faith in Christ.

Born Rajmund Kolbe (1894 - 1941), to a working class family in what is now Poland, he took the name of Maximilian when he entered the Conventual Franciscans. He had doctorates in philosophy and theology and founded a thriving monastery at Niepokalanow near Warsaw. St. Maximilian Kolbe was also a missionary to Japan and is remembered for his respect for Japanese culture and tradition as he created a thriving center near Nagasaki.

He lived a life of true Franciscan poverty, often living in very difficult circumstances, but always depending on God for the resources he needed for his apostolate. St. Maximilian Kolbe used publishing and radio to promote the Gospel and to defend the Church. He landed in Japan with a couple of companions and no money. They began their work sleeping on the ground in an improvised hut. Within a month he had a press and was publishing a weekly newspaper. He ventured into India where he wanted to create another foundation, but his superiors recalled him to Poland because of his ill health.

In 1939 the Nazis invaded Poland. St. Maximilian Kolbe and his fellow Franciscans sheltered 3,000 refugees at Niepokalanow including 2,000 Jews. On February 17, 1941 he was arrested by the Gestapo after publishing a defense of truth in the face of Nazi propaganda. In May he was transferred to Auschwitz, where he continued his ministry despite inhuman conditions and beatings. It was in late July that a prisoner from his cell block disappeared and he volunteered to take the place of one of the ten men selected to be executed as a reprisal for the missing prisoner. After three weeks of hunger and thirst, during which he encouraged the other men and led them in prayer, he was murdered by a lethal injection on August 14.

St. Maximilian Kolbe had a powerful effect on a young Polish man, Carol Wotyla, who as Pope John Paul II would declare him a saint.

St. Maximilian Kolbe has also inspired Operation Kolbe, a group in Colombia, to offer themselves in exchange for those who have been kidnapped by rebels. They can be reached at: operacionkolbe@hotmail.com.

Saint of the Day: St. Edith Stein - August 9 by RandyPozos on Saturday 9 August 2008 11:24 pm PDT

Sr. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, a Carmelite nun, was born Edith Stein in 1891in Poland and was killed in Auschwitz on August 9, 1942. Edith and her sister Rosa, along with other Jews who had become Catholics, were arrested by the Nazis occupying the Netherlands in retaliation for the denunciation by the Dutch bishops of Nazi anti-Semitism.

There has often been criticism of the silence of the Church with regard to the Nazi extermination of the Jews. Before he became Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli had been the papal nuncio to Germany during the 1930’s and negotiated a treaty, or concordat, between the Vatican and Nazi Germany. Gerard Noel has published a new book, Pius XII: The Hound of Hitler, which focuses on the crushing conflict the Pope experienced within himself and the deep personal toll it took on him.

Pius XII’s fears for the Church were only increased by the Nazi extermination of Jewish converts to Catholicism in the Netherlands. A broader analysis of the Pope’s situation makes it seem almost impossible. Events were beyond the ability of any one person to change or control. Mary Doria Russell, in A Thread of Grace, portrays the complexity of the Italian resistance to the Holocaust. The sheer caprice of war annihilates and spares individuals and communities at random. Most Italian Jews were saved by their neighbors and complete strangers. Unfortunately, this was not the pattern in the rest of Europe.

St. Edith Stein could not justify the horrendous evil that was to be visited on her people in any theological sense but that of the cross. In her final few days at Auschwitz, Edith and her sister Rosa made an indelible impression on some of the children. As the survivors tell it, many mothers were so traumatized that they collapsed emotionally. Edith and Rosa comforted and held the children and did what they could to meet their needs. Edith Stein’s contribution to the philosophy of experience was the notion that our identity is created not through an Ego that apprehends others. Rather, the Ego arises out of our identification with the needs, desires, and feelings of others. We come to be, as self-conscious beings, through compassion.

In her final days, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross showed that her philosophy of compassion was not just an intellectual construct but the framework of her life and legacy to us.

Saint of the Day - St. Dominic - August 8 by KathyPozos on Friday 8 August 2008 10:07 am PDT

For the feast of St. Dominic, I asked several Dominicans what they would like people to know about the founder of their order, the Order of Preachers. These were responses I received in the order received.

From Timothy Radcliffe, OP, Blackfriars, Oxford: 

I would say that one of the things that struck people about St Dominic was his joy. One has the impression that he delighted in talking to people, whoever they were. He had an immediate empathy with people, with their sorrows and joys. It was said that he laughed during the day with his brethren, and wept at night with God. This joy is the beginning of all preaching. The early Dominicans all compared the gospel to new wine, which makes you drunk!

From Thomas McDermott, OP, Kenrick-Glennon Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri

Here’s something that you might be able to use:

“Two distinctive features of Dominican spirituality are study and preaching.  St. Dominic situated his religious communities not in the countryside, as in the case of monks, but in the center of university cities.  Manual labor was replaced by study and the friars could be dispensed from attending parts of the Liturgy of the Hours for purposes of study.  What were they to study?  Truth–sacred truth.  The motto of the Order is Veritas.  Study was to inform the contemplative life of the Dominican friar and preaching, in all its forms, was the overflow.  Another motto is, “To preach, and to share with others the fruits of one’s contemplation.”  The official name of Dominican order is the Order of Preachers.  Democracy has always been a hallmark of the Dominicans. Major and local superiors are elected by the friars themselves.  General chapters of the Order take place every three years to respond to current needs and keep the Order’s legislation up to date.”

Here’s a good source for biographies of St. Dominic and other OP saints, http://www.domcentral.org/trad/

From Michael Fones, OP, Co-director, Catherine of Siena Institute

I would want people to know that he was in such love with God that it was said of him that “he was always either talking to God or talking about God.”  I say this is a sign of his great love of God because we naturally want to be in conversation with our beloved, and he or she is always so much on our mind that we inevitably talk to others about them.

 From Sr. Barbara Long, OP, Holy Cross Parish, Santa Cruz

St. Dominic’s ministry is as contemporary today as it was in the 13th century. Dominic realized that we need to meet people where they are at. He didn’t wait for people to come to him, but encountered them in the every day activities of their lives and shared the Gospel message.

My thanks to these and other dedicated brothers and sisters of St. Dominic for sharing your gifts and insights.

Categories

  • Angels (3)
  • atonement (13)
  • Christian Unity/Ecumenism (3)
  • Communion of Saints (7)
  • Conversion (25)
  • Doctor of the Church (19)
  • Edith Stein (2)
  • Eucharist (6)
  • Ever Ancient / New (46)
  • everyday revelation (69)
  • Faith and Reason (51)
  • Faith in Action (98)
  • Fathers of the Church (8)
  • Feasts - liturgical (54)
  • Festive recipes (3)
  • Forgiveness (12)
  • God in All Things (36)
  • Gratitude (16)
  • Holocaust (3)
  • Incarnation (21)
  • It's to laugh (1)
  • Jewish / Christian Relations (3)
  • Korean Martyrs (1)
  • Liturgical year (42)
  • love (35)
  • Marriage (5)
  • Ministry (1)
  • Miracles (13)
  • Missions (10)
  • Mother Teresa (3)
  • Mystics (11)
  • Pagan/Christian Relations (1)
  • Pope John Paul II (3)
  • Pope John XXIII (2)
  • Pope Paul VI (1)
  • problem of evil (9)
  • Sacraments (9)
  • Saints (107)
  • Salvation (24)
  • Second Vatican Council (5)
  • Site logistics (4)
  • Social Justice (31)
  • spiritual growth (67)
  • spirituality (53)
  • St. Augustine (1)
  • St. Faustina Kowalska (1)
  • St. Francis of Assisi (2)
  • St. Ignatius Loyola (2)
  • St. Jerome (1)
  • St. John Chrysostom (1)
  • St. Joseph of Cupertino (1)
  • St. Matthew (1)
  • St. Robert Bellarmine (3)
  • St. Therese of Lisieux (3)
  • St. Vincent De Paul (1)
  • St.Thomas of Villanova (1)
  • Theodicy (2)
  • Thomas Merton (1)
  • Uncategorized (10)
  • Virgin Mary (6)
  • Vocation (2)
  • Yom Kippur (1)
  • Youth Ministry (1)
  • Monthly Archives

  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • Recent Posts

    Recent Comments

    RSS Subscription

    Subscribe by Email

    Enter your Email


    Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

    Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page

    Creative Commons LICENSE

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.