Responsibility For Orlando; Responsibility For The Future

We have met the enemy and he is
us.

I am stunned over the events in Orlando.  Ironically at the very moment the calamity was unfolding, I had been sitting at my computer writing the previous posting in which I wrote that I need to see that Islam—like the other religions, great and small of our world—produces people of wide vision, great tolerance, peace builders and reconcilers and not fall into the trap that only Christian trees bear good fruit.  And now, of course, the blogosphere is replete, once again, with anti-Muslim slogans that would indiscriminately slap the brush of hatred and violence over the hundreds of millions who find in their religion the roots of compassion, reconciliation, and human betterment. 

“Christians” in Nigeria or Uganda can attack and burn a hall where gay men and women gather to socialize and Pope Francis or the Archbishop of Canterbury, much less you or me, aren’t given the burden of blame for the violence.  Indeed some of the same blogs that are now targeting Islam as the ideological tinder that was behind the Orlando violence themselves are filled with hate speech for LGBT persons, claiming that they only have reaped what they have sown.  If all Muslims are to be blamed for the violence of the Orlando attack, then we Christians, in fact, share in the responsibility as well for the judgments we make about those whom we judge to be sinners.  But the problem is much wider than religion gone toxic. 

We need to stand back and see how responsibility for the violence in our world lies as our own doorsteps.  We live in a culture saturated in violence.   Whether it is Game of Thrones or Independence Day: Resurgence or even Bluebloods we lace our entertainment with violence and death.  No one dare take on the NRA and its political agenda funded by the gun industry to prevent at all costs a rational system of legislation to keep automatic and semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of those who lack the responsibility to protect a peaceful citizenry.  Of course we are a society that condones babies being ripped from the bellies of their mothers by the abortion industry—it is all part of a wild and savage cultural imagination in which black lives do not matter, blue lives do not matter, and in fact no life really matters.  The Pope tells us that Capital Punishment is State-sanctioned murder but we close our ears.  Kids are taken to gun ranges rather than golf driving ranges.  We are drunk with violence and while we may profess to be Christian and sing our Sunday hymns, our real religion is blood.  This is not the kingdom that Jesus of Nazareth came to reveal to us.  This is not the Divine ratio for the Incarnation.  This is a fraudulent and inauthentic Christianity and we will be fraudulent and inauthentic Christians until we reject the language, vocabulary, syntax and culture of Death that runs through our society.  Before we dare demonize others we need to take a long hard look at the demons in our own hearts.  Like the first Christians who thoroughly rejected the violence of the Graeco-Roman world with its lion and gladiator shows, with its State-sponsored cruelty, with its contempt for the lives of others and indeed for its own citizens, we must turn our back on this culture of death and construct an alternative world. 

One of the etymologies often given for the word “Devil” is that it is derived from the Greek διαβολος via the Latin diabolus and the French diable.  διαβολος itself is constructed of two words, to force and apart.  The devil is the one who divides us.  Divides us from God; divides us from one another.  We need to see that whatever divides us, in our imagination, from others: Muslim, Gay, Immigrant, whatever—is the work of the evil One.  In the Mind of God every human person is his son or his daughter and his plan is to bring us together—in Christ, we Christians believe—into a conscious sharing of his Divine Nature.  This culture of unification must be our alternative to the Culture of violence and death which is eating out our world from within like the most vicious cancer. 

Earlier today, in looking up an article on Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, I found a reference to the Chemin Neuf Community.  It was founded by Jesuit Father Laurent Fabre in 1973—at the very end of the Paul VI/Vatican II papacy of hope before so much of our Catholic Church descended into the retreat from Vatican II in the protection of the more recent tragically ambiguous papacies of his successors but one.  The Chemin Neuf (Literally New Road) is an authentically Catholic (i.e. canonically recognized) movement.  It was give official recognition by Cardinal Alexandre Renard, archbishop of Lyon, in 1984 and later given the canonical status as a Public Association of the Faithful by Cardinal Albert Decourtray, Archbishop of the same See and Primate of France.  While canonically Catholic, it welcomes and includes members of a wide variety of Christian churches from the Evangelical and Charismatic to the Orthodox Churches of the East who wish to work together, hand in hand, to spread the Gospel.  To spread the Gospel: not to provide apologetics as to why we are right and everyone else is wrong, but to announce the Εωαγγελιον, The Good News of Jesus Christ, a message that calls our human family to reconciliation, peace, and unity.  The community, which follows Ignatian Spirituality, has an extensive outreach to families, including those who have been divorced and remarried.  It has provided a welcome experience of Christian community to many who have found that sense of community in Christ, to be lacking in more traditional Church structures. 

It is a different approach but then it is time for new and different approaches.  Our self-imposed diversities are from the evil One.  They lead only to death and Christ is Lord of Life.  After Orlando I am more convinced than ever that the future requires people of any and all religious beliefs to work together in mutual respect with all people of good will in taking responsibility for making our world better. 

Rethinking God IX

Pope Benedict XVI visits the

Synagogue of Rome

I saw an article in the Catholic New York recently that said that Cardinal Koch, the key Vatican official responsible for Jewish-Christian relations, said that any Vatican rapprochement with the Society of St. Pius X, the “Traditionalist” movement founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, would not include an implied endorsement of the anti-Semitism espoused by several leading members of that movement.  
We often think that the major bone of contention with the Society of St. Pius X is the Novus Ordo—the liturgical changes introduced by Pope Paul VI in the 1970 Reform of the Roman Missal but in fact the even deeper issue is the stance of the Second Vatican Council towards non-Christian religions articulated in the conciliar Decree Nostra Aetate and in particular the revision of Catholic attitudes towards Judaism.  In fact, a consistent element of Catholic neo-Traditionalism, both in its more extreme forms of the Society of Pius X and (its even more extreme) various Sede-Vacantist factions, and in such voices who claim submission (on their own terms) to the Holy See such as Michael Voris and his many admirers among such carpers as Mary Ann Krietzer of “Les Femmes” and "Restore D.C. Catholicism" is a steady anti-Semitic bias. 
“Traditional” Catholicism and anti-Semitism share a common history long pre-dating the Second Vatican Council and its changed directions.  Lefebvre himself came from a French Royalist family with roots in the Action Française movement of the late nineteenth century which was notorious for its anti-Semitic rants.  The clarification at Vatican II that not only are the Jewish people not responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus but that the Covenant which God made with the People of Israel is still a valid covenant by which they can be saved outraged Lefebvre and won to his rebellion tens of thousands of other Catholics for whom their biased hatred of the Jewish People trumped the magisterium. 
Of course this issue of the status of the Jewish People and their Covenant with God is yet another area where we Catholics have been “rethinking God.”  It would have been considered heresy five centuries ago—and not only by Catholics but by Christians of the newly formed (or the Re-formed) Churches of Protestantism that God still had anything to do with the Jewish People.  Luther was as full of anti-Semitic rants as any contemporary religious demagogue today.  But we have changed—Catholics and most Protestants—and have come to realize that God does not fit into our narrow boxes and that we must not distort his Word in scripture to make God seem to say things as repugnant as some would have it.
But how will the Society of Saint Pius X be reconciled to the Church unless it repudiates not only its rejection of the Council but explicitly its tendencies towards bigotry?  And what about other forms of bigotry endorsed by factions in the Church? If we can’t hide behind our straw man of a deity any longer to justify our hatred of Jews will be still be able to hid behind him to justify our hatred of LGBT people.  (Just in case you are confused LGBT stands for Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transvestite.)   This is the danger of Rethinking God—once we stop using God to project our prejudices, all of a sudden anybody can come along and make a claim on his love.   The next thing you know, we will start thinking of God as a cosmic Someone who loves everybody and desires their salvation.  But don’t worry—we are probably five centuries away from such dangerous doctrines.  

Time For San Francisco Bishops To Kiss

Bishop Marc Andrus
Episcopal Bishop of
California

Well, San Fran Archbishop Cordileone pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of reckless driving (he had been arrested for DUI, a charge commonly reduced for first-time offenders) on October 1, three days before his installation in Saint Mary’s Cathedral, San Francisco.  Present outside the cathedral (where admittance was by invitation only) were the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a troupe of transvestites who favorite rig is nun-drag—dressing up in the pre-Vatican II style wimples and veils.  (Lots of super-orthodox Catholics would love to see those habits, just not on gay men.) The good “nuns” were protesting the new Archbishop’s public opposition to legalization of gay marriage, but even if he approved of same-sex marriage they would have been there anyway.  They never miss a Catholic party.  And who says there is a vocation shortage?  Somebody is just not recruiting the right folks.  Also outside the cathedral was a delegation of the neo-Catechumenal Way, a conservative movement within the Church, with banners thanking the new Archbishop for “teaching the truth about the family.”  The neo-Cats are an interesting group and we should do some entries on them so that you know more about them. 
One person who was not inside the Cathedral was Bishop Marc Andrus, the Episcopal Bishop of California.  Bishop Andrus had arrived late for the service and was not seated.  There are conflicting reports that the Bishop had been asked to wait until the liturgical procession had entered the cathedral and then would be taken to his seat among the VIP ecumenical and interfaith guests or whether he had been refused seating all together.  The first story sounds more credible but in any event he “left in a huff.”   To be honest I don’t know why he had bothered to come to the installation.  Catholic bishops never attend the consecration of installation of their Episcopalian colleagues—they send some junior-grade monsignor as their representative.  This would have been the perfect occasion for bishop Andrus to send Dr. Jane Shaw, the Dean of Grace Cathedral or one of the woman canons to represent him and score a point or two about the role of women in the Church.   

I am not as quick to discount Bishop Andrus’ account of being treated with less civility than due a bishop, even one of another denomination.  Bishop Andrus had written a somewhat barbed public letter “welcoming” Archbishop Cordileone to San Francisco.  While affirming areas of common interest, the Bishop admonished the Archbishop to remember his constituency and their special characteristics.  He also made it very clear that those Catholics who found Cordileone’s Catholicism a bit too narrow would find a friendly home in the Episcopal Church.  Here is part of his letter:

In working together with the Archdiocese of San Francisco, however, I will not change my course with regard to the full inclusion of all people in the full life of the church. I hope that public disagreements can be handled respectfully and that criticisms of public statements may be met with mutual respeect. Some Catholics may find themselves less at home with Salvatore Cordileone's installation and they may come to The Episcopal Church. We should welcome them as our sisters and brothers.
Even as we welcome those who may join us and look for ways to work with our Roman Catholic siblings in the faith, we will not be silenced in our proclamation of God's inclusion. Our ecumenical partnership should be founded in our following Christ and shared service. It is our Christian duty to take stands in public or from our pulpits when others - especially those of our own faith - are in error and trying to suppress the rights of others who, too, have been created in God's image.

Well of course Bishop Andrus welcomes refugees from Cordileone’s Catholicism.  Without disaffected Catholics and the occasional social-climbing Methodist, there would be no Episcopal Church. Although a firm supporter in the ecumenical movement, I think a little tension on the local level between Catholics and Episcopalians is a good thing.  The Episcopal Church is not just “Catholic Lite” and the more clear the differences between us—superficial differences to be sure, there being “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all” (Ephesians 4:5-6)—but important differences none the less, the more faithful we each are.  I think we Catholics stand as a reminder to our Anglican and Protestant “siblings” of the Tradition handed down and they stand to us as a reminder of the radical freedom granted by the Gospel that transcends the Law.   Without our voice, there would  be only moral chaos; with only ours Christianity would revert to the religion of the Pharisees. So you two bishops, kiss and make up and get on with the work of the Gospel.      

 

 

The Boy Scouts, the Catechism, and Homosexuality

Miranda Leitsinger for NBC News reported a story about Ryan Anderson, a young man who had completed all the requirements for his Eagle Scout rank but is being denied the achieved honor due to his scoutmaster’s refusal to sign off on the award because Ryan is gay.  The Boy Scouts of America have a policy denying membership in the organization to Gay boys and men.  Ryan has been in scouting since he was six years old—presumably before he (or anyone else) could have identified his sexual orientation. 

Troop 212 in Moraga California to which Ryan belongs is sponsored  by the Moraga Valley Presbyterian Church.  Just across the Bay from San Francisco, Moraga Valley Presbyterian is a member of the Presbyterian Church USA which, like most liberal mainline denominations, is “gay friendly.”  (In looking at their church website and seeing its evangelical tone, I had initially thought that Moraga Valley Presbyterian Church might have been affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America, a more conservative body, but its ties are with the larger and more liberal group.) 
The reason I bring up the story of Ryan Anderson is that the same day I saw Ms. Leitsinger’s story, one of my regular readers sent me the following paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358

The Catholic Church has a much more narrow interpretation of sexual morality, and the morality of same-sex relationships in particular, than the Presbyterian Church USA, but it also has a requirement that gays “be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”  What would happen if a gay scout in a Catholic sponsored troop was denied an award he had earned?  Indeed, can Catholic Churches even sponsor troops if they exclude gay men and boys from membership?  Hmmm.  This could be a real conundrum. 

Good Morning, Timmy, Time to Wake Up and Smell the Coffee

Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York. receiving
the Cardinal's biretta from H.H. Pope Benedict XVI
last February 18th  in Rome

I like Cardinal Timothy Dolan the Archbishop of New York.  I think we need more –plenty more—bishops like him.  He is personable, good humored, and down to earth.  But he is as out of touch as most of his fellow members of the American Catholic hierarchy. 

       They say that when one becomes a bishop “you’ve had your last bad meal and you will never hear the truth again.”   Somebody has got to get through to Dolan and wake him up to some basic facts.  His Eminence spoke last week at Holy Trinity Diocesan High School in Hicksville, Long Island regarding the Health Care mandate requiring all employers, including Catholic institutions, to cover contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. His Eminence is right to protest this and to educate the faithful about both the moral and political facets of this issue.  I have no problem with that—to the contrary I would be disappointed if the Cardinal and the other American hierarchs didn’t do their duty and alert the faithful to the import of this issue.  But according to newspaper accounts the Cardinal threatened to put the political muscle of 78 million Roman Catholics against the administration.  This is where I am wondering on what planet the good Cardinal lives.   

      In the first place, while there may be 78 million Americans who on the census list Roman Catholic as their religious affiliation, let’s say that there may be 50 million who attend Church with some regularity.  Of those 50 million there may be about 10 million who know who the Cardinal Archbishop of New York is (and less that care).  Perhaps there are 40 million who know who their own bishop is (and again, how many care is another issue).

       In the end, few Catholics will be swayed in their choice at the polls by the Cardinal’s—or any other bishop’s—urgings.  I am not saying that there won’t be many who vote against a second term for President Obama—there will be millions who vote against the President.  What I am saying is that those who will use their vote against the Obama administration will be overwhelmingly those who would not have voted the President a second term in any event.  There are some among them who will call for their fellow Catholics to heed the bishops’ advice and they may claim that they are making their political choice “to preserve the freedom of the Church” or to “protect religious freedom” in general, but you will find very few of these types who did not vote against Barack Obama in 2008 and had no intention of voting for him this time.  And there may be one or two million who will vote for the President simply because they are angry with the bishops for presuming to direct us in our political choice—or who are just angry at the bishops and see this as a way to strike back.   Those who do switch votes in 2012 will be doing it for reasons more personal to their own welfare than for the “good” of their Church.  Given that Obama carried the Catholic vote in 2008, I will be surprised if he does not carry it—admittedly by a smaller majority—again in 2012.  The Cardinal’s political muscle is limper than whatever shambles are left of his biceps in those flabby arms that go with the jovial face. 

      The Church needs a new strategy to rebuild its once-proud place in public life.  The sex-abuse scandal, and in particular the abysmal job many bishops did of handling the scandal, took away any pretenses of moral leadership.  The perceived bias against women in the Church has kicked down whatever teetering ruins of credibility are left.  American Catholics—even the most devout—are not getting on the homophobic believers’ bus as almost all of us have a gay child, aunt, brother-in-law, friend, co-worker, neighbor from whom we have learned to rethink this issue for ourselves.  In the estimation of most Americans, including Catholics, the president extricated himself neatly from the Health-Care obligatory coverage for contraceptives controversy.  The poor Cardinal is, like the emperor, parading down the street head held high but naked to his enemies (and friends alike).   Wake up, Timmy, and smell the coffee.  You are one of the few mitered brows that conceals a brain bright enough to know that there is a lot of rebuilding necessary and equally necessary is a new strategy to recover true leadership.    

Fractured Leadership in the Amerian Church -1

Francis Haas, 1889-1953, Bishop of

Grand Rapids who championed the

rights of the working classes

You might remember from earlier postings (particularly March 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and April 5, and 10) that there was a strong division in the American hierarchy at the end of the nineteenth century between the “American” party and the ultramontanes or Europeanists.  The Americanist party, led by Gibbons, Ireland, and O’Connell (of the North American College and later Richmond) wanted Catholicism in the United States to adapt itself to American cultural patterns.   In fact, the Americanists thought that the American experience of democratic government, freedom of religion, and social equality had something to teach the old European hierarchical, monarchical, and religiously bigoted nations.  Rome was not so sure.  Well—that isn’t the whole story.  Leo XIII was of two minds as we shall see in a minute.  More to the point of this entry, the Americanists  in pushing their agenda of how great American institutions are, got behind the labor unions and were very outspoken in defending the rights of the working class (largely Catholic and immigrant) from the machinations of the industrialists (largely Protestant and blue-blood).  The Ultramontanes, on the other hand—led by Corrigan and McQuaid, took up the cause of Capital and championed the Social and Political Establishment.  They were more than surprised—they were left naked out on a limb—when Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum and clearly outlined Church treaching on the rights of labor.   Of course, Leo would later write Testem Benevolentiae which did not retract any of the social program he had laid out in Rerum Novarum but which did make it clear that American ideas of democracy and religious freedom where not to be exported to fan the ideological flames European liberals, especially the French. 
     Through the course of the twentieth century the American hierarchy has usually been of two minds regarding social matters.  Gibbons and Ireland found their heirs in such liberal prelates as John McNicholas, (1877-1950) Francis Haas (1889-1953), Edward Mooney (1882-1958), Bernard Shiel (1888-1969) and Richard Cushing (1895-1970) to name the more prominent.   There were also Monsignors John Ryan (1868-1945), George Higgins (1916-2002), and Geno Baroni (1930-1984).  Somewhat behind the scenes and usually not recognized for their support of liberal social reform, should be mentioned Cardinals George Mundelein (1872-1939),  Francis Spellman (1889-1967) and Patrick O’Boyle (1896-1987).  A key to this list is to not confuse social liberals for theological liberals.  Many of these prelates, and the last three in particular, were anything but theological radicals but they were very effective in championing social reform in their day.  O'Boyle merits special note for his desegrating the Washington DC Catholic Institutions when he became the City's second Archbishop in 1948. 
     Corrigan and his party found their heirs as well.  Cardinals Glennon of Saint Louis (1862-1948) and McIntyre of Los Angeles  (1886-1979) along with Archbishop Thomas Toolen (1886-1976) were notorious opponents of social change in general and racial integration in particular.  William O’Connell (1859-1944) and Denis Dougherty (1865-1951) were champions of the old East Coast Establishment that had no room for “ill-bred paddies” like themselves.   Ironically, you can even move Spellman from the social progressives (which he was in general) and lump him with Corrigan’s heirs when it came to how he treated Archdiocesan employees who went out on strike—not holding himself to the same standards to which he held others.   But don't we all do that.
     By and large by the mid-twentieth century the American episcopacy was liberal on labor, cautious on civil rights, and staunchly opposed to the first signs of the sexual-revolution that would strike in the late ‘60’s.  In this they reflected the values of their flock which were still for the most part from labor rather than management.  When the Civil Rights movement picked up steam in the ‘60’s the Catholic Church was slow to get behind it—embarrassingly slow.  When the picture of the Greek Orthodox Primate, the should-be-sainted Archbishop Iakovos, appeared walking alongside Dr. Martin Luther King at Selma in 1965 some Catholic bishops finally woke up and realized that we had better stand with the righteous on that issue or we would be left on the moral low road.  As the anti-Vietnam War movement then gathered speed Catholic participation was all the more difficult because most bishops were terrified of the wrath of Francis, Cardinal Spellman, who was not only Archbishop of New York, but Archbishop for the American Military as well and who was not without influence in Rome.  His death in December 1967 paved the way for stronger hierarchical leadership in the anti-war movement.   Catholics, at least led by the hierarchy, were late in coming to both these causes, but come they did eventually. 
     The sexual revolution provided the greatest challenge to the leadership of the Church and it merits multiple entries of its own.  For this entry let us simply say that the American Bishops have stood consistently with conservative social values, reflecting the universal magisterium of the Church.  The early battles were about birth control with the 1968 Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, but as the decades have passed the sexual revolution has become ever more complex  dealing with abortion, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate parenting, homosexual rights, transgender issues,  same-sex marriage, genetic engineering and dozens of wrinkles in each of these topics and more.  As if that was not complicated enough, the issue of Gender Roles is not confined to matters sexual but has raised serious issues both within the without the Church as the traditional roles assigned to women and to men are not so clearly delineated anymore. 
    Other challenges have risen as well with end-of-life issues involving nutrition and hydration protocols, brain-death, assisted suicide and a host of incredibly complex questions.    The growing international condemnation of the Death Penalty has demanded moral response from Church leadership—a response that is often muted, whispered, actually non-existent.  The excesses of American wars ranging from Vietnam down through our various covert and not-so-covert operations in Latin America and beyond to Iraq I and II, Afghanistan, and the war on terror have all cried for moral commentary.  Then there are environmental issues that have serious moral aspects and consequences.  I am sure that the bishops would love to return to the simple days of supporting the rights of labor but the moral complexity of our society requires serious study and clear teaching.  So where is it? and why is it so slow in coming?