Compassion

The Parable of the Prodigal Son was the Gospel reading at Mass this weekend 3/13-14. For those who have not read it see; Luke 15:11-31.

After the younger son has traversed the world beyond his home and spent all of his inheritance, he decides to return home and seek the forgiveness of his father.

While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him , and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him. (Verse 20b).

In recent posts I have spoken, with some degree of sadness and anger about what I perceive to be a lack of compassionate pastoral response from many Church leaders.

There was the case of incompassionate response to the plight of a nine year old girl who had been raped and whose mother had her twins aborted.

There was the case of the Mexican Cardinal, who spoke out so publicly and harshly about LGBT people.

There was the case where a pastor, with the support of the bishop's later public statement, removed an elementary school child from a Catholic school because his caregivers were partnered lesbians.

Why is there no indication that the little girl, gay people, and the little boy were shown compassion? It would seem that these victims who have been the first to be protected from public attention. It seems that the innocent victims would have been shown pastoral care, love and support.

But we've been there not too long ago when the victims of pedophilia were paid little attention as traumatized human beings. Money was spent to "defend" the Church's reputation. A bunch of money was transferred to some victims for counseling and psychotherapy. But why were so many hierarchs unable or unwilling to meet one-on-one with victims and feel their hurt, fragility and justifiable anger at the Church with the compassion of God as proclaimed in this parable? It seems that the bishops (and many others) are more like the elder son who was "faithful" in following the Law, but jealous and incompassionate toward his younger  brother.

 I have deep faith in and hope for the Christian-Catholic community. However, particularly these days the  institutional bureaucracy of the Church is called to a continued repentance and to heed the Gospel call in the way it operates. There are those in the Church (both clergy and laity) who believe that the essence of the Church and Christian Life are to "follow the Law" as laid out in legal fashion as the means to spiritual growth and salvation. It is sufficient to know the rules and obey them. They have been called "Proclaimers of Certainty" because they believe they already know God's plan and can administer it. In many cases, those who believe this way are more comfortable with the words and images expressed in Deut: 21:18-21.

There are others in the Church, who by no means reject the value of Law and rules. However they see these as ideals to be striven for, but maybe never reached, in the attempt to be true to the Gospel, to Jesus; to be compassionate. Take for example,  Archbishop Quinn when he was in San Francisco. He was able to work out arrangements for the availability of heath benefits for gays who worked for Catholic agencies and to honor and keep to the Church's teachings about homosexuality. Those who believe this way are more comfortable with Psalm 103, especially verses 4, 8, and 12-13

What appears in some of my posts as anger, is really frustration and a call to take seriously the Gospel message and the teachings of Vatican II, rather than a view in which Law trumps compassion and Love.

Religion and the Millennials: Abortion (Part II)

Abortion (Part II) and homosexuality (Part III) are the most contentious issues in the nation's "culture wars" at this time. Here we will take a look at the Millennials'  attitudes toward abortion as found in the Pew Study.


Not quite half of all American adults (47%) agree that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. By age Millennials (18-29), are the most accepting of abortion. No other age group comes closer to them than the 30-49 and 50-64 year old age groups and this is because the older age groups have moved closer to the Millennials.

Affiliated and Unaffiliated
It is no surprise that those unaffiliated with any religion would be more tolerant or accepting of abortion. In fact this is the case as 68% of the unaffiliated but only 42% of those affiliated with a religion are supportive of abortion in all or most cases.

Very interesting is the fact that religiously affiliated young people, 18-29, are more accepting (45%)of abortion than those over 30 (42%) although the difference is marginal. Even more interesting, however, is that the unaffiliated the young (18-29) are less accepting (67%)  of abortion than is its older age group (30+) at (69%). Again, the difference is marginal. If this is not merely a statistical fluke or a one-time event, it will be very interesting to see where the unaffiliated track.

Protestants and Catholics.
This section presents data only on white Protestants and Catholics.

White Mainline Protestants are the most accepting (55%) of legal abortion in all or most cases. And there is no meaningful difference between the young (55%) and older (56%) older Mainliners.

White Evangelical Protestants are by far the least accepting (23%) of legalized abortion in most or all cases. This finding is somewhat anomalous since many conservative denominations traditionally accept or at least tolerate abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.

The data do not allow a younger-older comparison for White Evangelicals. It should be noted that other research indicates that the majority of young Evangelical adults oppose abortion but that there is a slight trend toward greater acceptance and, thus, the potential for a greater gap between generations.

Catholics' strict position on abortion holds that all abortion for any reason is always a "mortally sinful." True, The Catholic hierarchy has not emphasized its opposition to abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger of  death of the mother in order to cement relationships with other conservative groups to marshal forces to put forth a political coalition to get some anti-abortion/pro-life legislation passed. This does not mean that the Catholic Church has actually changed its moral position.

Less than half (45%) of Catholics accept legalizing abortion in all or most cases. They are only 10% less likely than Mainline Protestants at accept abortion and are almost twice as willing to accept legalization of abortion as Evangelicals (45% versus 23%). Of course, as mentioned above, the unaffiliated are much more accepting of abortion in most or all cases.

Young Catholics (18-29) are really no more accepting (45%) than older Catholics (44%) of abortion in all or more cases. Other research shows that a majority of Catholics are willing to support abortion in cases of danger to the life of the mother, incest and rape. With the recent enthrallment with Catholic Identity and a "reform of the reform" of Vatican II, a number of young Catholics are taking a more conservative position on many issues. See: "Young activists adding furl to anti-abortion side"

There is more to abortion than statistics.
Last year Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of  Olinda and Recife, Brazil  publicly announced an excommunication against the mother and doctors who performed an abortion, saying the abortion was "a crime in the eyes of the church."

The abortion was performed  on the woman's nine year old daughter who had been raped by her stepfather and who was pregnant with twins. The incident caused a national and international sensation.

Later last year, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of The Pontifical Academy for Life (appointed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2008), wrote an article about the "Brazilian abortion excommunication" issue in which he did not condemn or argue against the excummnication itself. However, he claimed that the Church's credibility was harmed by a "hasty" excommunication.

Fisichella also said the girl,  "should have been defended, hugged and held tenderly to help her feel that we are on her side." In other words the Archbishop was expressing the compassion of a pastor for a victim of horrible abuse. (Personally, I believe he should be praised and honored for his courageous stance).

Before and during the February 11-13, 2010 meeting of the Academy in Rome, there were internal political issues and dissension on the part of conservative members of the Academy. Some members of the Academy, unhappy over Fisichella's original article and a statement he made during the meeting, pressed that he be replaced as president. On February 16th five conservative members of the Academy (One priest and four laypersons) published a letter asking that Archbishop Fisichella be removed as president of the Academy. Although they were not permitted to reveal Academy business, they published the letter in Rome, and on Feb. 18th an American member sent an email copy to the Catholic News Service here in the U.S.

One of the five signatories, Msgr. Michel Schooyans, wrote an article shortly before the Academy's February' meeting. Quoting Fisichella's article, he called the Archbishop's statement, "bogus compassion."

At this moment my concern is less with the morality of abortion and more with the almost vicious attack on a leader who had the courage to call for personal, direct, pastoral compassion by a cleric. Much too often bishops and priests live in a world of "objective realities," the "letter of the law" and rules. What the People of God need and desire from the hierarchy is a compassionate, pastoral concern.

See: "Move to oust head of Pontifical Academy for Life"  and the five additional links at the end of that article.

NOW and THEN: Kennedy, Califano and Conscience

NOW !!!

 Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) is a supporter of a just society. Recently he criticized of the outspokenness of the nation's Catholic bishops in opposing any new health care reform that included Federal funding for abortion. On October 21st, Mr. Kennedy said, "...how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time [health care reform], adding that that the bishop's position was fanning, "...flames of dissent and discord."

Kennedy and the hierarchy have tangled before on a woman's right to choose an abortion or not based on her conscience; and because she has this right to choose, it is appropriate that publice funds be available so that women, especially poor women, can exercise choice.

Beginning during the pontificate of John Paul II and very evident in the views and actions of Benedict XVI, and now evident in the actions of the American bishops, there is what John Allen has identified as an Evangelical Catholicism. Among the characteristics of this orientation are:1) a strong opposition to "secularism" and much of Western culture (the "culture of death") 2) a need to reclaim a "Catholic Identity" based on clear markers which differentiate being "Catholic" from other religions, 3 ) a defensive posture as exhibited in a new emphasis on apologetics and of episcopal authority and power over the laity and in the public square, and 4) a change from inter-religious dialogue to "inter-cultural" dialogue.

The tension between Mr. Kennedy and his bishop, Thomas J. Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, can be understood best in light of this changing church.

Ostensibly because of Kennedy's stance on abortion, Bishop Tobin sent Mr. Kennedy a private letter on February 27, 2007 in which he said, "In light of the Church's clear teaching, and your consistent actions, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving holy communion and I now respectfully ask you to refrain from doing so." Because of Kennedy's continued stand on abortion, especially his concern that the bishops' lobbying might kill the entire health-care bill, the issue has become public once again and Bishop Tobin has taken a stronger position.

"...Bishop Tobin has accused Mr. Kennedy  of 'false advertising' for describing himself as a Catholic."  He also said, "If you freely choose to be a Catholic, it means you believe certain things, you do certain things." And, "If you cannot do all that in good conscience, then you should perhaps feel free to go somewhere else."

Most recently the bishop said, I will absolutely respond publically whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the Church or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry."

THEN !!

Joseph Califano is a Catholic layman who served as chief domestic advisor to President Lyndon Johnson and as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare for President Jimmy Carter. Under Johnson, Califano was responsible for enforcing Johnson's aggressive policy to promote family planning in the United States and internationally. Johnson ordered that contraceptives be made available to the poor and Califano was to enforce the policy.

Johnson's policy was attacked by the Catholic bishops as "coercing the poor to practice birth control;" Johnson told Califano to "work something out" with the bishops so as not to lose their support for his anti-poverty and civil rights legislation and programs. Califano met with Archbishop (later Cardinal) John F. Dearden (Detroit), leader of the American Bishops, and members of the Bishops' staff. They worked out differences by rephrasing words (E.g. from "contraceptive" to "population control") and re-writing the policy to include the, Church approved, rythm method of family planning. With this the bishops toned down their stinging criticism.

Both Jimmy Carter and Califano personally opposed abortion. However, Congress approved funds for abortion if the life of the mother was in danger (which the bishops tolerated) and, in addition, in the cases of rape and incest (which the bishops opposed) which were "promptly reported." Califano was tasked with the responsibility to define "promply." He defined this as "sixty days." The American Bishops were livid and went on the attack, but it was never suggested that Califano be denied the Eucharist.

At this time of increasingly assertive behavior on the part of the bishops, it would be wise to follow the words of Joseph Califano:

"As Catholics and as citizens, we have a right and obligation to assert our convictions on public issues clearly and vigorously -- to hope and work that they should prevail. To expect less from a public official would ask that he leave his conscience at home...."

"Where we cannot find unanimous answers, there is at least one point on which bishops and Catholic politicians can find common ground: insistence that those who search for the right answers are doing so with integrity and sincere conviction. That was what the church leaders I dealt with in the 1960s and '70s recognized, as their successors should today."

Do they? Will they?