The Dalai Lama Gets It, Thomas Merton Got It, Will the Bishops Ever Get It?

Those who have read my blog posts will have noticed how frequently I have cried out for leaders in the Church to speak and act with compassion toward those who find themselves in difficult circumstances. No doubt some bishops are compassionate most or some of the time. But there have been too many public examples where leadership has not acted in a compassionate manner.

A recent reflection by the Dalai Lama reminds us of the centrality and importance of compassion.
He begins by recounting that as  youngster, “I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best--- and that other faiths were somehow inferior.” I too had a similar experience growing up in a predominantly Catholic town in a metropolitan area of over four million Catholics. We never fought with, or even said nasty things about “non-Catholics.” Because they were a minority we just lived as if they weren’t around. If, God forbid, we were invited to Sunday service, Bible school, or a wedding in a Protestant Church we proudly (or with eyes focused on the ground in embarrassment) replied, “I’m a Catholic, and we don’t (or can’t) go to other churches.

This highly defensive attitude began with the Council of Trent’s response to the Reformation and lasted until Vatican II attempted to renew our church by returning to our roots and engaging in a reality-based conversation with the modern world, including Protestants, the Orthodox Churches, and the major world religions.

As a sociologist, I fully understand any group, denomination or religion placing emphasis on its identity, marks showing who they are, and establishing group boundaries. This process, however, can lead to conflict and, “…dangerous extremes of religious intolerance”  between groups as well as to its opposite, mutual dialogue, understanding, and often acceptance and positive cooperation. The latter was the intent of the Vatican II Fathers. The Dalai Lama goes on to say,

Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets (There is a recent example of this in the US. also) and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.

The Dalai Lama goes on to say,

Such tensions are likely to increase as the world becomes more interconnected and cultures, peoples, and religions become ever more entwined. The pressure this creates tests more than our tolerance--- it demands that we promote peaceful  coexistence and understanding across boundaries…. While preserving faith towards one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions. [Emphasis added]

I know what the Dalai Lama means. After years teaching at a Baptist college, I was finally asked to give the devotional at the fall faculty workshop. Although I was familiar with and could do a passingly decent job “praying Baptist Style,” mine had to be a little more “Catholic.” I began, “I’m the Pope!!! One of the pope’s titles is ‘pontiff’ which means “bridge-builder.” I consider myself a bridge-builder. I’m a Yankee in the South, I’m a city boy in a pretty rural area, and a Catholic in a Baptist community.” I then explained this a little, quoted some Scripture (using my "New International" version of the Bible), bowed my head and led us in a spontaneous prayer. After the meeting a faculty member who was a preacher and very anti-Catholic came up and hugged me, saying, “Seb, I always knew you were a good Christian.” That day I had affirmed what I had been learning over the years: we can move from antagonism to tolerance and from tolerance to respect and acceptance. That preacher remained Baptist till his death and I’m still a Catholic, but we took steps toward respect and acceptance. We learned to have compassion on each other.

The Dalai Lama recounts his meeting with Thomas Merton, an American Trappist Monk in 1968, shortly before Merton’s death. The two holy men confessed to each other how much they had learned and grown from deep encounters with each others' religion. One of the things they learned and experienced together was the centrality of compassion in all the great religious traditions.

Whether within our own Catholic tradition, between Protestants and Catholics, or between Christians and the other great religious traditions, why can’t we begin with what we hold in common? It reminds me of political liberals and conservatives who sit down and tear each other apart fighting over “midnight basketball” versus building more prisons as the best solution to street crime. If they could really agree on the fact that both want to have safe streets, there might be cooperation and compromise that would lead to workable solutions that both sides could whole-heartedly support.

Just before the Dalai Lama gives a number of examples of compassion he says, “The focus on compassion that Merton and I observed in our two religions strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths And these days we need to highlight what unifies us.”

It seems to me that within the Catholic Church also we need to reassert compassion for the other, whether it is between so-called ‘liberals / progressives’ and ‘conservatives’ or between the clergy and the abused. As I have mentioned in some earlier posts, in recent times most situations that clearly called out for compassion within the Church are related in one way or another to sexuality:

• The early stone-walling by the bishops regarding the pedophilia crisis,
• The lack of reaching out to victims with deep pastoral concern for the abused,
• Neglecting the nine year old girl whose mother secured an abortion for her after she was raped by her step-father and was carrying twins (I speak at this moment not about the abortion itself, but the lack of compassion for the little girl),
• Insufficient attention to the homosexuals who may be executed in Uganda if the Anti-homosexuality law is passed.
• Lack of attention to the small girls who were expelled/not admitted to a Catholic school because they had “two moms" (The “Phoenix Case). But notice that in the Archdiocese in a similar case, diocesan Catholic School Administrators said they will accept all children).

Perhaps the hierarchy can learn how better to respond to these intra-church situations and to inter-religious affairs by reflecting on the words of the Dalai Lama on Compassion. Of course all of us must be more compassionate!

Culture Wars in Perspective.

As part of another article, John Allen provides a long quote from the February 21st "encyclical" of Bartholomew, the Patriarch of Constantinople. In the Patriarchal document there is a positive, but careful, view of the modern world. He speaks often about the need for Orthodoxy to encounter the "modern world" and dialogue with other religious communities and other forces existing at this time in the world.

In a sense, Bartholomew's view and words are similar to those of Pope John XXIII who wanted to open the windows of the Church to dialogue with the modern world for the benefit of the Church and the world. Although aware of the defects and, yes, evil in contemporary culture, the Holy Father looked upon culture, at the very least, as a "glass half-full." The Holy Father then called the Vatican II Council which, by-and-large, succeeded.

The election of Pope John Paul II signaled a change in papal views of the Church and the World and their interrelationship. Under John Paul II, modern culture was seen more negatively. He viewed modern culture as primarily antagonistic to the Church. The Holy Father, in fact, called modern culture a "culture of death." He did not apply that phrase only to abortion, but to all of culture, so to speak, seeing modern culture as a "glass half-empty." What began with John Paul, is being implemented by Pope Benedict. This can be seen in the current emphasis on "the reform of the reform" in Liturgy, the reassertion of papal authority/control, and the almost extreme emphasis on "Secularism" and need to "re-Christianize" Europe.

Another view of modernization and modernity.

Some time ago a sociologist, Peter Berger and his colleagues wrote,  Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness (1974). Some points they made, I believe, are relevant to the apparent impasse we face today:

1. Technological change and concomitant economic development are the primary (though not sole) engines that account for changes in other aspects of society. For example, it was the development of the factory system that brought about the existence and spread of modern cities and the modern nuclear family (While we focus on our values, technology creates the parameters which constrain and limit our choice of values).
2. The secondary "carriers" of modernization and modern consciousness are the mass media and modern mass education (Not the family and the church)
3. In modern societies there is no longer an over-arching "meaning system" (E.g. Religion) that acts as a "glue" to hold society together.  (Religion loses it's "sacred" character).
4. The fundamental institutions of society (E.g. Economy, Politics, Religion, and Family) become separate and compete with each other; they create their own institutional "meaning systems and each competes for our loyalty."  We begin to wear "different hats;" We love our neighbor on Sunday. On Monday we follow the "dog eat dog" norms of business. At home we struggle to develop and maintain our "own" private family meaning systems.
5. Increasingly, individuals are free to create private meaning systems in the spaces, or interstices, not dominated by one or another institution. This, becomes what we call the private sphere.
6. All of these sociocultural changes create and foster "modern consciousness," an approach to understanding and acting in the world that sees reality as composed of inter-changeable parts among other things drawn from the economic system and human relationships based on the impersonal pigeon holes of political bureaucracy.

Modernization is an ambiguous process.

Modernization is a blessing because it has given humans greater freedom from the "vagaries" of nature. It has also give us "freedom" in the sense of greater options.

Modernization has been a curse because it has led to high levels of alienation ( a feeling of powerlessness and feeling separated from others and from the social fabric) and anomie (a sense of "normlessnes,"  loss of meaning, and aloneness, confusion and impermanence.

Most people have become disenchanted with modernity, if not with all of modernization. Creating the "private sphere" to deal with the ambiguities of the modern situation has not worked.

Berger, et. al. suggest that there have been three responses to this disenchantment:

1. To work ever harder and harder to increase modernization and modernity, carrying it to its logical conclusion (the conservative approach).
2. To actually accept that modernization and modernity are here to stay and to selectively accept, reject or modify those aspects of them that will prove most helpful to ensure continued existence of human social and cultural life with a greater development of peace, justice and community. (The moderate and liberal approach).
3. To retreat from modernity as much as possible through new nationalisms, cult-like movements and communities, or, at the extreme, to sabotage and destroy existing social arrangements and material resources (The retreatist, nativest, approach).

Many observers and commentators  claim that we already exist in a "Post-Industrial," or "Post-Modern" world and society. I disagree. Certainly the creation of the computer, many new digital devices, sophisticated software and rapid and instantaneous communication, and the rapid transfer of goods and services across the globe are inevitably pushing us further and further in the direction of a post industrial / modern society, sometimes called the "Digital Society." But we are not there yet; we are still in the process of transitioning. We must continue to construct the Post-Modern society and culture, especially in a humane form. Personally, I hope that whatever form of society that we construct will be in harmony with Christian principles.

The culture wars that we constantly hear about in the Catholic community are a prime example of the transitional state of the world and the Church. How things will settle down if they ever do, is still open. So many of the currently discussed "conflicts" in the Church are symptoms of a much deeper divide among Catholics based on fundamentally different views of the world, society and the Church. Notice how many of these issues are cast into "us verses them" terms. Or "either-or" rather than "both-and" terms. All of the differences arise from the transition period within which we live. If we place what is happening in the Church within the context of the larger world, it should highlight the importance of the process and whether the "battles" can be resolved through common dialogue or if this is a zero-sum game.

So do you think modern culture is a glass half-full or a glass half-empty?

Do you think we are already in a post-modern society or still in transition?

If these ideas resonate with you, what's next?

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: What does the Catholic Church Teach?

In 1966 less than half of the American Population supported capital punishment. Today, 75% of Americans support the death penalty. Controversy over whether or not capital punish is moral, should be legal or not, and if it is legal when it should be applied splits America. Unfortunately Catholics in the pew are also split on the issue.

The official teaching of the Church states that in theory, capital punishment is the ultimate legitimate sanction available to the state, but must be applied only under very strict guidelines and only for self-defense of society when no lesser sanctions will be effective.

Recent popes while affirming this traditional position, have said again and again that, "only for self-defense of society when no lesser sanctions will be effective," must be seen in view of modern society's ability to administer justice and protect society through "lesser means," as, for example, using, "life in prison without parole."

Those identified as moderate or liberal Catholics are strong supporters of the Church's position and the pope's teachings on Capital Punishment.

What about Conservative or Reactionary Catholics? One might expect them to be more supportive of capital punishment as political conservatives are.

One site claiming to be "truly Catholic" exemplifies the most extreme reactionary position I have seen on this issue. It tries to accept the brief, general statements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. However,  this site, absolutely opposes the recent popes' teaching. They exaggerate a sound theological principle that there is a distinction between an infallible papal statement and other  papal statements that must be taken seriously by reducing the popes' statements on capital punishment to "just his opinion."

You, dear reader, owe it to yourself to read  the argument made on this site and form your own opinion.

No one will deny that Mother Angelica's Eternal Word Network represents a Conservative Catholic source of information and teaching. There is an article on this  "conservative" site that is very well written, logical, easy to understand, and it presents the teaching on capital punishment that any bishop or liberal catholic will find acceptable.  Read it. Compare it to the first statement.

If nothing else this post (especially the last link) should present the official teaching of the Catholic Church on Capital Punishment and show the diversity of thinking going on during these "culture wars."

Denver, Boston and Lesbian Mothers:- Diversity in the Church

On March 18th I reported under the heading of "Denver Mess,"what I re-cap below and I updated that post on 3/23/10, but just published it  today.

Denver Recap

In Denver, a pastor of a parish Catholic school refused admission next fall to two small girls because their mom's were lesbians. Both moms were physicians, have grown up Catholic, participated in the parish, had spoken to the school administrators about their situation and been given the go-ahead to enroll the older girl in the school last fall. The action of the pastor brought up a major controversy about what was the moral / ethical thing to do.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput intervened in the situation and supported the pastor's decision. Among the things I posted in my original post were two questions: 1) Where was compassion shown to the children? and 2) Could not a more equitable solution without publicity be arranged between the archdiocese, the parish pastor and the parents of the two little girls. Apparently no other arrangements have been made to settle this issue with more equity and compassion.


Enter Boston

The NCR reported today that things happened very differently in the Archdiocese of Boston. The incidents appear to be similar in that a parish pastor, Fr. James Rafferty ,at St Paul School in Hingham, MA reportedly denied admission to an eight-year-old Catholic boy because his parent was a lesbian.

However, the response from the Boston archdiocese, has been quite different than that in Denver. Mary Grass O'Neill, an offical of the Boston  Archdiocese said,

We believe that every parent who wishes to send their child to a Catholic school should have the opportunity to pursue that dream..... The archdiocese does not prohibit children of same sex parents from attending Catholic schools." .... We will work in the coming weeks to develop a policy to eliminate any misunderstandings in the future.

The superintendent of schools,  Mary Grass O'Neill, met with the pastor and school principal and the boy's parent. Arrangements were made that the Archdiocese would help arrange for her son to be enrolled in another Catholic school in the Archdiocese. According to O'Neill, the boy's parent. "...indicated that she would look forward to considering some other Catholic schools that would welcome her child for the next academic year."

The differing responses to these similar events does show that there  is some diversity between dioceses. I am sure that both bishops accept the basic teachings of the Church about same-sex unions [we cannot add "and behavior," because we don't know what does or does not happen in the the bedrooms of these parents]. And we must remember that each bishop governs and pastors by virtue of his own ordination and not merely as a delegate of the Holy Father.

The approach in Boston appears to be a wise pastoral decision. There seems to be a focus on the whole situation and attention to the people invloved in it. Perhaps something has been learned from the sex-abuse scandals in the diocese or from the leadership of Cardinal Sean O'Malley. But for whatever reason there is room for compassion and a public witness value to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Cynics, may say that the response in Boston was merely to avoid being in the lime-light for another controversy. But I say, present the evidence before you make that judgment.

The approach in Denver, at least to my way of thinking, appears to be a legal/theological decision; in other words upholding of the Law based on a particular understanding of theology. In this manualist understanding it is taken-for-granted that there are clear, uniform positions held by the Church [even those which are in no way defined as infallible] that are in every way and everywhere objectively true and universal. From this perspective there is little room for emphasis on "person" and "relationship" [with God, others and self] as a significant element in moral judgment. Thus it is more difficult in this theology to focus on victims [whether of sex abuse or of innocent children suffering for what their parents may have done].

The Church and the world are always changing. However, as Alvin Toffler so aptly put it in 1971 human beings no longer deal only with "culture shock," but now also with "future shock." In the midst of all this change, John XXII, Vatican Council II and Paul VI tried to ready the Church to modify its stance in many areas and to enter into dialogue with the contemporary world as well as to challenge it to hear the Gospel message spoken in words and theologies that they could understand.

Today there has been a return to a more defensive stance by much of the hierarchy, some theologians, ever larger numbers of the faithful [some of my earlier posts speak to some of these trends]. What does this have to do with Denver and lesbian mothers as well as those in Boston and all over the country?

For lesbians and other LGBT persons, progressive Catholics, many orders of sisters, those of our clergy formed in the spirit of Vatican II, and many others it may mean 40 years in the desert. Archbishop Chaput is one of the most articulate leaders of the "new" defensive Catholicism and it's use of apologetics as the primary initial approach to preaching the Truth of Catholicism. There is no doubt that there are moments and on some issues that the Church must defend itself. But a generalized defensive, apologetic vision and practice will only lead to "more Denvers."