Pages Menu
RssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Sep 9, 2010

“Love your enemies” does not equal “Burn their holy scriptures!”

Today’s Gospel reading is from Luke’s account of the Sermon on the Plain. It’s the section that begins, “To you who hear me, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you and pray for those who maltreat you.” (Lk 6:27-28)

The reading spoke loudly to me today because of Pastor Terry Jones’ announced plan to have a burning of the Qur’an ceremony on September 11, the anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center and attack on the Pentagon, a date that this year also coincides with the feastive end of the penitential season of Ramadan. The plans sparked protests from believers of all faiths, leaders of Christian and Jewish faith communities, and governments around the world. Reports are that the burning has been cancelled because plans to build a mosque near the “ground zero” site in New York have been cancelled.

Both the threat to burn the Qur’an and the opposition to the construction of a mosque, a place of prayer, near a site of unspeakable tragedy for people of all faiths speak to me of a huge lack of faith among us as Christians. How can we possibly reconcile “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” with the idea that all members of another faith are enemies because a few of their number carried out acts of terrorism? And even if all members of that faith were our enemies, we would not be justified in responding in kind if we are to be faithful to the new command given by our Lord.

The kind of spouting of hate filled rhetoric that we have seen in recent weeks is not consistent with the love of God. It comes from the Deceiver, who whispers coyly to us about how we have been wronged and how others can only be trusted to harm us and how all members of another community wish us harm or are evil. It all sounds so smooth and reasonable, especially when we see wars being waged and combatants couching their actions in religious language overlaid with centuries of injustice and misunderstandings.

The desired effect of the Deceiver’s whispering has already been attained, even without a single text being burned. People all over the world are stirred up. Protests are raging. Hatreds are reignited. It matters not a whit that leaders of the United States and of all major religious have condemned the plan. Extremism doesn’t deal in facts or the distinction between truth and falsehood, regardless of which extreme is in question. I can just imagine the delighted smiles on the faces of the evil spirits involved in this huge deception.

The example of St. Peter Claver, whose feast we celebrate today, speaks to us still today. Working in Cartagena, during the early 17th century, caring for the slaves who arrived from West Africa and serving as their advocate with their new owners, Peter Claver did not ask people about their religious beliefs before ministering to them. Once their illnesses had been treated, their wounds healed, their needs for nutrition and shelter addressed, he spoke to them of the love of Jesus and many became Christians because of the love he and his helpers extended to them.

The slave trade itself was “justified” by a series of Papal decisions based on the ongoing conflict between Christians and Moslems. Basically, the reasoning was that peoples living in areas of the known world where they might have had the chance to become Christians but did not do so could be enslaved as punishment/consequence for their failure to accept Christianity. Moslems were the original target of these rulings, but they were extended to include the peoples of the entire continent of Africa on the assumption that missionaries might have reached them. The peoples of the Americas eventually were specifically protected from enslavement for the same reason. Missionaries had not reached them before the voyages of Christopher Columbus and the Europeans who followed him.

Peter Claver and his helpers rightly reasoned that it didn’t matter in the least whether a slave was a Moslem or a beliver in a tribal religion or a believer in no religion at all. That individual was a human being, a brother or sister who deserved care and respect. Through that outpouring of love, care and respect, God reached out and touched thousands of people.

May we have the courage as people of faith to do the same.

St. Peter Claver, pray for us.

Read More

Posted by on Apr 15, 2010

Tax Day 2010 – We’re All In This Together

April 15 is the deadline for Americans who have received income from any source in the prior year to pay any taxes due on that income. Needless to say, it is not the favorite time of year for most people. Generally there is a certain amount of hullaballoo about the whole thing. People complain about how much is taken from their wages, how people who don’t work still get help from the government, that they never personally agreed to the taxation, that people should be responsible for taking care of themselves, that some other generation is not doing its share or being appropriately responsible finacially, and so forth. The list of complaints goes on and on.

I’d like to offer a quick thought about the whole issue of taxation.

I seem to recall stories from our Judeo-Christian tradition in which the question “Am I my brother’s keeper?” arise in one form or another. Again and again, the response from God has been, “Yes, you are.”

From the earliest days of our tradition, through the Law and the prophets, to the days of Jesus and the early Church and up to the present day, we hear again and again, “We are all in this together.” We are to look out for each other. Yes, we are to do our best to take care of ourselves and those personally entrusted to us (spouses, parents, children, siblings), but we are also to take care of the widows and orphans among us (i.e., those who don’t have family or identity within the society). That means we are responsible for those who can’t work, even if they seem able-bodied, those who may not have proper legal documents allowing them to be here but who have had the misfortune to get sick or injured, those whose parents can’t earn enough to buy food, clothing, books, or health care for them, those elderly who have no children with whom they can live or who could afford to pay for shelter, food, and medical care for them, those for whom there is no job. Again, the list goes on and on.

We also share responsibility to pay the cost of keeping our communities safe, our roads, buildings and bridges safe, our educational systems safe and effective, our environment healthy, and those whose work is to serve the larger community paid a decent living wage, with access to health care and time off to renew their spirits and raise their families.

Some of us have been blessed with more resources. Some of us receive money for work done by others (parents, grandparents, etc.). Some have investments that provide income without the necessity of doing any physical or mental labor. Some have barely enough income to keep simple shelter overhead and food on the table. Some have enough for a comfortable lifestyle, without much left for the frills.

Whoever we are, whatever our circumstances, we are all responsible for each other. We’re all in this together.

So let’s pray for the grace to be willing to give of what we have. Some will receive more than they have paid in taxes as a refund this year. Believe me, when that happens to an ordinary family, they really need the money. They haven’t had a great year financially. It’s truly a gift from God to have enough income to have to pay taxes. There are so many deductions from taxable income, so many credits to help families and business owners, that if we still owe some tax, generally speaking, we have been blessed. It doesn’t always feel that way, but in the big picture, we have been blessed.

So today, as we send in our checks and our forms, let’s ask a blessing for ourselves and each other, a blessing for our country and our world, and a word of thanks to the Lord for the rich blessings of opportunity, environment and loving community that we have received.

Read More

Posted by on Aug 20, 2009

All a Big Game?

All a Big Game?

cheerleading

About a year ago I had dinner with a lovely couple who happened to be members of a different political party than I. It was not long before the 2008 election, and the handwriting was pretty much on the wall that it was not going to go well for their candidate. It could have been a tense experience, but it wasn’t. I grew up in a family whose politics tend to be quite different from mine, so it doesn’t surprise me that some people of good will think differently on a variety of issues than I do. And it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t have a good time together talking about many things!

At any rate, as the conversation went forward during the evening, the question of how one might choose a candidate arose. It was at this point that I was surprised. In my family and experience, candidates are chosen based on their stand on the issues and their record. At least that’s what most of us would say publicly. It’s definitely conceivable that a vote would go across party lines, though not common. We tend to be pretty independent even when we are members of a party.

However, the gentleman with whom I was dining expressed a totally different idea. He described politics as if it were a game. The analogy he used was of rooting for a college football team. In college football, the record and beliefs of the team members don’t matter. If one is a fan of, say Cal Berkeley, one cheers for Cal Berkeley. If one favors Stanford, then Stanford receives the cheers and allegiance. (These were not the colleges mentioned at the table, but to protect the innocent I’ve changed the names!) In his opinion, politics is also a game. If my team doesn’t win this round, the next starts tomorrow and I’ll do anything in my power to make sure my team wins next time.

I’ve been watching with dismay the controversy over the proposed reform of the health care system and I find myself wondering if it’s become part of the “game” of politics for some. 

There are many complicated issues that must be addressed, many differences of opinion about what services should be offered and to whom, many challenges regarding funding and affordability. Most are not being addressed. Instead, some opponents of the reform bills are circulating outright lies about the proposed reform bills and repeating them at the top of their lungs. They’re out to frighten rather than enlighten middle America. And, I hate to say it, but they seem to be succeeding. Fear wins out over reason every time!

It happened again one morning this week as I was reading the morning paper and its comics page (sacred reading in my book – generally sets the day off to a happy start). Our paper has both conservative and liberal strips, as well as the general funnies and serials. The conservative strip showed a caricature of President Obama saying that he is determined to get rid of people’s clunkers and has him holding a picture of an elderly woman. Talk about fear-mongering and outright lies! I was furious. Nothing in any of the bills comes anywhere close to proposing what the comic strip implied.

The same newspaper, the same day, included an article in the news section reporting on a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (about as conservative as they come). According to the article, so called “end-of-life counseling” improved the mood and quality of life for cancer patients. The study was not done anticipating the current controversy, though it’s an example of the types of studies of outcomes/best practices that are proposed in some of the bills under consideration. What is the best way to care for the ill, the elderly, the young, etc.? The author of the study, nurse practitioner and researcher Marie Makitas, noted: “They [cancer patients] seem to feel a whole lot better knowing there’s someone who’s looking at the rest of them and not just the tumor.”

Isn’t that what quality care should include? Isn’t that an issue of personal rights to decide on important questions such as who will make decisions for me when I no longer can? It seems pretty conservative and pretty obvious to me. Yet critics keep shouting words that frighten rather than discuss the deeper issues and challenges we all face.

The only way I can make any sense of all this to think that for some very powerful people, it’s either just a big game or they have a financial stake in keeping the status quo as it is. Maybe it’s both.

It’s certainly not a big game for the family that lost the rental property they expected would help support them through retirement when their son, through no fault of his own, sustained a major closed head injury in a car accident while in his early 20s. The driver who injured him was not insured and he was between health insurance policies, so his parents ended up paying full price for his care.

It’s not a big game for the woman who is battling ovarian cancer and is concerned that the company for which she works may go out of business, taking her health insurance with it. She would qualify for coverage through the HIPPA program, but it costs more and offers fewer benefits than she currently gets. If she’s out of work and/or medical leave, she’d have to find a way to pay the entire cost of the plan.

It’s not a game for the woman who doesn’t have insurance now because she has a pre-existing condition but can’t get help because there’s a small trust set up with her as beneficiary. No state or federal help for such people!  Her only option is a high risk plan sponsored by the state that offers only $75,000 in total benefits per year and costs 3-4 times what a normal, healthy woman her age would pay for $5 million in coverage!

It’s not a game for the family whose new baby will cost them over $300 per month to insure on his mother’s insurance plan. Dad’s unemployed and Mom has to return to work 6 weeks after his birth so she can keep her job. (Fortunately for that family, the baby qualified for a “big government” program – Medicaid. Thank heavens for “big government” and the vision of those who fought for Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.)

It’s not a big game for the family whose employer had to reduce costs and so changed the company insurance plan to a high deductible plan that requires the family to pay the deductible before they receive any real benefits from the plan.

It’s not a big game for the thousands of people who find their employers no longer offer health insurance or their doctors no longer accept their insurance plan.

In over 30 years of working in the health care arena, including design of services and facilities, translation of patient informational materials, comparative studies of rates and costs of providing services, and many other assignments, as well as over 10 years in the insurance industry, I’ve seen a lot of cases in which the existing system has not lived up to the promises and claims made for it. We’ve come a long ways towards providing care for all, but we still fall far short and the system is too expensive to be sustainable as is. It’s not a game for too many people.  

Perhaps those who are in favor of health care reform need to know that for at least some of their opponents, it may all be a big game or a question of ratings or of who will win the next election. It may not have anything at all to do with economic realities or morality or social justice or even good patient care! Is it really all just a big game?

Read More

Posted by on Jul 13, 2009

All a Big Game?

Saint of the Day: St. Henry of Germany, Holy Roman Emperor

7_13_henry2Holy Roman Emperor = Saint  – Is that even possible? Apparently so.

St. Henry of Germany was born to the Duke of Bavaria (in south Germany) on May 6th 973. He was educated by St. Wolfgang, the Bishop of Ratisbon. In 995 Henry succeeded his father as Duke of Bavaria.

Emperor Otto III of the Holy Roman Empire was Henry’s cousin. Upon Otto’s death in 1002, Henry seized the royal insignia from Otto’s companions. His succession was strongly contested, but with the help of the Archbishop of Maniz, Willigis, Henry secured his royal election and coronation on June 7th, 1002. Henry was not crowned Holy Roman Emperor until 1014. He was the fifth and last emperor in the Ottonian dynasty.

As king, Henry worked on consolidating his power. He led successful campaigns against Poland and Italy. He became King of Italy in 1004, and established a lasting peace with the Poles in 1018.

Henry was convinced by Pope Benedict the VIII to make another campaign in Italy. In 1022 Henry set out to counter the growing Byzantine Empire. His objective was to capture the Byzantine Fortress of Troia in southern Italy. Henry used three armies in this campaign, but none of them were able to take Troia. One army, led by Pilgrim, Archbishop of Cologne, captured Pandulf IV, Prince of Capua and extracted oaths of allegiance from the principalityof Salenro and Capua. Henry sent Pandulf IV off to Germany in chains and put Pandulf of Teano in his place as prince. Although Henry failed to take his main objective, he was satisfied in knowing that western imperial authority still extended into southern Italy.

So, how much money did Henry have to bribe the Ministry of Magic with in order to become a Saint? (see Harry Potter for reference). Seizing royal insignia, arranging his rise to power, campaigning, all hardly seem to be Saint-like activities.

But Henry was not all about war and power. Henry was a prayerful man and was very generous to the poor. In fact, in addition to strengthening the German Monarchy, he also worked toward making a stable peace in Europe and helped to reform and reorganize the church. He strongly enforced clerical celibacy, but this was also for his own benefit, so that the public land granted to the church would always return to him upon the death of the cleric and not pass to an heir. This also ensured that the Bishops remained loyal to him (for he was the one to give them their power), which provided protection against ambitious nobles. Henry established multiple monasteries and arranged care for the poor. He built the Cathedral at Bamberg, which became a center for scholarship and art. Along with St. Odilo of Cluny and the other monks at Cluny (in France), Henry supported many religious reforms.  

At one time, Henry came down with an un-named illness and was miraculously cured at the Benedictine Monastery in Monte Cassino. From then on, Henry was very active in promoting Benedictine Monasticism.

Henry was married to St. Cunegund. They had no children and it is said that they had a mutual vow of chastity.

Henry died in 1024 and was canonized in 1146 – the only German king to be canonized. And no, he did not have to bribe the Ministry of Magic. A combination of securing and spreading Faith, caring for the poor, reforming the church, and remaining celibate and prayerful, Henry became a saint through his own actions. He is the patron of the childless, the disabled, Dukes, Kings, people rejected by religious orders, the handicapped, sterility and of the Benedictine Oblates.  

 

P.S If you  have not figured it out already, this post was not written by Kathy, but by her daughter Rosie 🙂

Read More

Posted by on Jun 5, 2009

All a Big Game?

The Feast of Pentecost and the Age of the Holy Spirit

Eastern Orthodox Icon of Pentecost

Eastern Orthodox Icon of Pentecost

The Feast of Pentecost falls 50 days after Easter. Pentecost was originally a celebration of the first harvest and people came to Jerusalem from all over the known world to celebrate the feast.

For people in northern climes, the thought of a first harvest celebration in Spring may sound strange. After all, the snow has barely melted and crops are nowhere near ready to harvest. Even early crops like strawberries and lettuce aren’t ready yet. Nevertheless, in the Middle East, and by extension in that general latitude around the globe, many crops have already been harvested. Just go to a grocery store and you’ll see the fruits of our fields waiting for your table!

Within the Church, we celebrate the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the disciples – men and women who had been friends, family and followers of Jesus. This outpouring of the Spirit of God, the God Who is Love, gave birth to the Christian community that endures to this day. Jesus’ friends and followers were transformed from frightened “mice” into fearless “lions” who proclaimed boldly that Jesus had been raised from the dead, that He is the long awaited Christ, that God has made Him both Lord and Savior, that a new age has dawned and the Kingdom of God has begun.

These early disciples wasted no time in putting their beliefs into action. They shared what they had. They cared for and healed the sick. They took care of widows and orphans – the powerless ones of their society. They recognized the gifts of women who were leaders in their communities. They spread the Good News of the Lord to all who would listen. And they struggled to understand the implications for themselves and their society of the Good News and the freedom of God’s children. Who were God’s chosen ones? Who could be followers of the Way? What parts of the Law were non-Jews required to obey? How can the pastoral needs of the community be met? Who will look out for the powerless ones in our own communities? How do we choose leaders for our communities? How should Christian family members behave with each other?

For nearly 2000 years we have dealt with these issues as a community. Today we still face many of them, though in a much wider context, as a global, international community that includes peoples of all cultures. More than ever we must count on the continued outpouring of the Spirit to guide us and make us bold witnesses to the Good News.

Much of what we take for granted today is the result of the work of Christians who actively put their beliefs into practice and stepped out to make their part of the world a better place. Institutions such as hospitals, schools for poor and even middle-class children, education for girls, social safety nets, and many others have resulted from the Christian insight that God cares about all humans, even those who traditionally have been excluded.

The Christian belief that all receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit in Baptism and Confirmation also leads to the understanding that all are responsible to share the gifts they have received and bear fruit in their lives. Together we listen to the Spirit and share in the development and shaping of both our Church community and the world.

As we move through these days following Pentecost, we face many challenges. It’s a time of global financial challenges. Governments are moving quickly to try to minimize the harmful effects of the banking crisis on their people. Social service agencies and churches are struggling to offer aid to the increasing numbers of people coming to their doors. Here in California there’s talk of dismantling all state funded social services, including health care programs for children of low income families and the welfare to work programs that helped so many families keep roofs over their heads and food on their tables.

What will we as children of God, brothers and sisters, do to address these challenges in our communities, states and countries? Will we say, as so many do, “It’s not my responsiblity to care for the children of the poor. Why don’t their parents just go get jobs?” Will we say, “Don’t ask me to pay more taxes. I shouldn’t have to cut back my lifestyle to pay for other people’s mistakes.” Will we sit in judgement of people who are losing their homes because they lost their jobs? Will we smugly assume that we’ve saved enough money to keep us safe if we get ill or lose a job? Will we criticize the people who lost their savings to the stock market when the money should have been somewhere safer? I hope not.

This year the time from Pentecost onward can be a time in which we truly listen to the Holy Spirit’s call to build up the Kingdom by caring for the poor, the powerless, those who are ill and who are losing their security (whether as a result of their own errors or those of others). It’s a time to trust that if we give of what we have, share from our abundance or our need, God will make sure that our needs are met. Our ethic of life must include not only the unborn but also those who are here and in need. Womb to tomb includes all those days in-between as well. Let’s not forget that as a Church community.

Read More

Posted by on Jun 2, 2009

All a Big Game?

Late Term Abortion: A Mother’s Story

parents

Robin Young of National Public Radio’s “Here and Now” interviewed one of the patients of murdered late-term abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller.

“We speak with a former patient of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, the Wichita, Kansas doctor who was murdered on Sunday. She explains why the procedure was so necessary for her.”

Abortions past the 20 week “age of viability” are difficult to justify by pro-choice advocates. How could the loss of one of the three physicians who performs these procedures, which are less than 1% of abortions, represent any moral or clinical loss? The implications for the physical and mental health of families becomes evident in this interview. The values presented in this story are about the desire and wonder of having children, the anguish of carrying a doomed child, the inability of doctors to present the couple with any real alternatives.

An earlier ban on late term or “partial birth” abortions provides an exception for the health of the mother. Aren’t these just cavalier acts of barbarism by selfish women?

What would you do with a child that you wanted very much but who would not survive birth? What would be the most loving and caring thing to do? This is a very compelling story that should give us pause when we want to throw the first stone.

My Late-Term Abortion
President Bush’s attempt to ban partial-birth abortions threatens all late-term procedures. But in my case, everyone said it was the right thing to do — even my Catholic father and Republican father-in-law. This article provides another instructive example from 2004 published in the Boston Globe.

In this second case, the situation seems to be less clear cut since the birth of this child would have meant a short and very unacceptable quality of life for the child as judged by the parents.

In both cases there were voices which opposed the choices made by the parents. Reviewing both cases is useful in terms of gaining a more nuanced perspective on the ethical and moral issues involved and the struggles of these couples.

Read More

Posted by on May 18, 2009

We Are the Only Christians: Choice, Democracy, and Obama at Notre Dame

America Magazine, published by the Jesuits, has an interesting editorial on the controversy about pro-choice President Obama speaking at Notre Dame University’s commencement yesterday and receiving an honorary degree.

Another Catholic publication ( in the hands of lay people – no less) Commonweal has a more focused pro-Obama position in a post on its blog dotCommonweal.com by Paul Moses.

The issue according to these statements is the relationship of the Church as an organization, the faithful as a social movement, and the Government.

America’s editorial quotes St. Augustine in his criticism of the Donatists in his native North Africa and their refusal to have anything to do with the Imperial government. Donatism had other positions as well such as their rejection of Christians who had defected under persecution. “They believed that the church should be a community of saints not sinners.”

Even in the 4th century and earlier the politics of church and state caused a lot of controversy. Today at Notre Dame, President Obama like all of his predecessors holds some positions that do not agree with official Church teaching. George W. Bush invaded Iraq contrary to Pope John Paul II’s opposition to the policy of pre-emptive war.

The American bishops have championed a “seamless garment” pro-life agenda that opposes abortion and capital punishment. The bishops also advocate one primary solution which is legislation to once again make abortion illegal. The split in the Catholic community is over tactics. Many do not feel that re-criminalizing abortion will actually solve anything since it will only drive the practice underground.

In the 20th century there has been an attempt by Christians – in particular Catholics in the pews – to accommodate to a secular ethic of government. (Divorce, homosexuality, and birth control are now sanctioned by secular government even though these practices are contrary to traditional Christian teaching.) The broader issue is how does one advance a Christian agenda for social relations while supporting the secular ethic of not forcing one’s belief on another. In the abortion issue there is also the question over the best tactics for discouraging this and other activities that are not pro-life.

President Obama’s talk yesterday at Notre Dame proposes a pragmatic solution of providing incentives and support services for mothers to choose to deliver their unborn children. This seems to be the most effective approach to build a national policy of compassion and support for families and children. If our goal is to significantly reduce abortions this is probably a better tactic to implement such a Christian and humanitarian vision.

Read More

Posted by on Apr 3, 2009

All a Big Game?

Obama at Notre Dame: Why the Catholic Right is Wrong

notre-dame-indiana-dome1

The Cardinal Newman Society has launched a petition drive objecting to President Barack Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame University’s commencement this year. Here is another approach to the issue.

George B. York III sent this letter to the National Catholic Reporter. It is presented here by permission of the author.

God and Man at Notre Dame

Notre Dame’s President, Fr. Jenkins, has extended
an invitation to President Obama to speak on
campus; the President has accepted. Some object,
asking, How could the President of Notre Dame
compromise with abortion? Closely observing
Jesus’ behavior in the Gospel of Luke, (7:40 and
following), I find Fr.Jenkins’ position consistent
with Jesus’ behavior, and in no way a compromise
with abortion.

In the story of Jesus’ evening in Simon’s
house an outsider, a woman, washes Jesus’ feet
with her tears and dries them with her hair. Simon
thinks, `Doesn’t he know what kind of woman she
is?’ Knowing what Simon is thinking, Jesus
surprises him by simply pointing to ways in which
Simon did not welcome Jesus; in so doing, Jesus
invites Simon to convert from hypocrisy to a
different way of judging and acting toward fellow
humans. While Jesus is uncompromising toward
misdeeds or sin, isn’t he also uncompromising when
it comes to accepting others, friend and foe alike, in
this case, welcoming the woman and challenging
but not rejecting Simon? Are humans defined only
by their real or supposed misdeeds?

About the strategy of some of his brother
bishops to `make war’ on abortion, South Dakota
Catholic Bishop Cupich told them: `…a prophecy of
denunciation quickly wears thin …what we need is a
prophecy of solidarity, with the community we
serve and the nation that we live in’. (quoted in
Commonweal Editorial, 5/12/08).

The way of implementing a prophecy of
solidarity is indicated by American Jesuit
Cardinal Avery Dulles. In commenting on
envisioning unity among Christians; he says, `The
first condition . . . is that the various Christian
communities be ready to speak and listen to one
another. . . . The process of growth through mutual
attestation will probably never reach its final
consummation within historical time, but it can
bring palpable results. . . . The result to be sought is
unity in diversity.’ (First Things, ’07)

Those are not just a Christian condition and
result; they are fully human. Does experience not
validate a claim that the better way between
different, opposed individuals and groups is one
leading to “unity in diversity”? Are exclusion and
isolation anything but impotent and sterile? Aren’t
Simon and the woman drawn within a more human
process? As a result don’t they depart from their
evening with their ability to hear reason and with
their freedom intact? In fact, is it not credible that
both Simon and the woman are invited, if not
actually drawn, closer not only to Jesus but also to
one another? Finally, to return to Bishop Cupich’s
solidarity, doesn’t `E pluribus unum’ mean unity in
diversity — union, not in sameness, but in
difference?

Such solidarity is impossible when one’s
starting point is that expressed in Simon’s initial
attitude: “Doesn’t Jesus know what kind of woman
she is?” Therefore, I have to wonder, Is it truly
Christian or even human to start, as some seem to
start, with a question like: “Doesn’t Fr. Jenkins
knowwhat kind of man Obama is?”

Isn’t the call to every Christian to put on the
mind of Jesus who Christians believe emptied
himself of power and the ways of power and drew
others neither by compromise with sin nor by
isolating rejection or coercion? To the extent a so-
called `prophecy of denunciation’ expresses a spirit
like that of the Pharisees (Simon’s initial attitude),
isn’t it a betrayal of the mind of Jesus? ? Isn’t such
prophecy animated by a spirit aiming at institutional
control, expressing a desire to force conformity in
the name of real or supposed truth? In the case of
NotreDame, doesn’t it express an ill-advised wish to
forceFr. Jenkins to dis-invite a supposedly unclean
Obama?

To the extent your answer is `Yes’, you see
why I say that Fr. Jenkin’s invitation to Obama
could be called a compromise with abortion only if
Jesus’ firm but friendly challenge to Simon could be
called a compromise with hypocrisy.

George B. York, lives in Denver. His
publication, `Michel de Certeau or Union in
Difference’ (2009, ISBN 978 0 85244 684 3),
concerns Faith in the understanding of a celebrated
French Jesuit historian.

Read More