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!

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."

Same-sex Visitation rights and "Christians?"

Tonight the Washington Post reported that President Obama will issue an executive order to HHS to require all hospitals receiving Medicare and/or Medicaid to accept gay partners whose partner is hospitalized to grant them visitation rights the same as for family members. Hospitals must also accept partners with power of attorney on behalf of partners who have granted that power to them.

In the comments by readers there is much moaning and complaining about the "power of government" taking away the prerogatives of Congress, "telling" or "ordering" hospitals to do this instead of merely "allowing" hospitals to do this. It seems to me that this is just another example of the increasing anti-government malaise in the country at this time. It's another example of expressive individualism gone wild and a loss of a sense of the "common-weal"  or "common good."

Many of these people also need to study civics. The federal government in various ways, through Congress and the executive branch do have authority over the purse strings. Back in the 70s the federal government didn't order states to reduce speed limits to 55mph (to save gasoline). It merely said that if states wanted continued federal dollars, then they needed to reduce speed limits ("he who pays the fiddler, calls the tune."). Conservatives want government to restrict federal dollars if states or hospitals choose to perform abortions. That is their right . But why call the same procedure "unfair" in this case?


But more to the point of this post and the reason that "Christians?" is in the title. Every U.S. citizen has the right to favor or oppose this executive order. Period. However if anyone reads the reader "Comments" following the article one will discover that the majority of comments made (at the time I read them) were from so-called "Christians."  I say from so-called Christians because the comments were so vitriolic and hate filled. It was as if these people's "God"  was only a God of vengeance and that they were sent by God to separate the "sheep from the goats."

No Christian, even those who do not accept homosexuality or same-sex behavior, has the right to speak so hatefully as they have in the comments to this article. Yes to those conservatives, God is a God of Justice. But God is just as much a God of mercy, compassion and love!!!

I believe that I am a reasonably good Christian (I'll leave that judgment to God), but I strongly believe (as a Christian) that some same-sex relationships and same-sex sexual behavior are moral, just as I believe some heterosexual relationships and sexual behavior are moral.

My plea and hope is that more and more Christians will come to believe that "God is love," and will treat all "others" with love, compassion, and mercy, because what God has created is good  and all are the Children of God.

Having read the comments by "Christians," is it any wonder that so many people (and especially here, gay people) distrust, blow off and hate the Christian message in light of how "Christianity" and "Christians have treated them?

Think about it. Comments are welcome!

Reactions to Benedict's Letter to the Irish People

Before all else, people owe it to themselves to read the Pope's full letter.

There was never a question but that the Holy Father:'s  the letter would please some and anger others. In his letter:

• He shows his personal sorrow over the sex abuse charges.
• He speaks directly to those abused with words of comfort.
• He chastises the abusers and the bishops of Ireland.
• He asks for forgiveness for the abuse in the name of the Church.
• He says that he is currently setting up a "Visitation" (investigation) of the dioceses and Catholic institutions in Ireland.
• He directs the clergy and bishops to cooperate with civil authorities in bringing abusers to justice.
• He directs that "spiritual practices" be carried out in penance and petition for healing; he specifically mentions Eucharistic Adoration in every diocese, a mission for all the clergy, and year long petition and penance by all the Irish people.

No one who is fair-minded can deny that this is a positive step in the right direction. John Allen gives a number of instances in which, for a number of years, as Cardinal Ratzinger and as pope, Benedict has taken other positive steps to stop child sex abuse.

Today however, many remain critical of the pope and his letter to the Irish. The most salient criticisms seem to be the following:

• He placed all the real "blame" on the accused priests and local bishops alone.
• He did not discuss, what many believe is the crux of the problem: the systemic nature of Clerical power and actions or inaction of the higher clergy in hiding or covering up abuse.
• He did not address the increasing international sex abuse scandal, currently being investigated in Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Italy and Brazil.
• He, himself, didn't announce specific Vatican actions and programs for a "zero tolerance" policy similar to the program approved for the U.S.
• He didn't accept personal responsibility for the system nor say anything about his own role in these cases while he was archbishop of Munich.

Most of the dailies (Washington Post, New York Times, National Post) reported on the letter with a mixture of fact and subtle interpretation none of which was particularly positive. That may be  because of the outrage over such hideous crimes. The "comments" by readers of the various articles were all disappointed or angry that the pope did not take a stronger stand. The comments made in  the three British dailies (The Guardian, The Times, and the Daily Telegraph) I follow expressed extreme anger over the sex abuse and how the Church has handled it. These comments were often vicious attacks on the Catholic Church itself.

Personally, I agree that the Church must discover and implement a process that is much more transparent and honest; a process that places the victims of abuse and the People of God above the "protection" of the institutional church's current manner of dealing with new issues.

Yes the abusing priests committed unspeakable crimes. Yes, the bishops made terrible "mistakes" as the Holy Father said in his letter. These men must accept the responsibility for what happened. On the other hand, the Vatican has fostered or allowed practices of secrecy, even directing all involved: Bishops, clergy, abusers, and very often the victims themselves to remain silent under the pain of sin or excommunication. Why?

The easy answer is "pure power" and maintenance of the the status quo. There is some truth to that argument. However there are other elements to consider. Most of the Cardinals and senior bishops come from a time and a culture in which alcoholism and sexual deviance were understood only as moral problems. In that culture it was sufficient to confess, do penance and renew one's prayer life. Such moral deviance was the province of the Church to cure or punish. It was never understood as something that related to secular authorties.

This view easily led to the idea of "protecting the Church" from "scandal." Although not right, it is understandable as part of the early defenses of the Church after the Reformation. The exercise of near absolute power by the hierarchy became "standard operating procedure."

But as 20th century theologians, liturgists and Scripture scholars began to understand and appreciate the situation of a Medieval Church facing the modern world, they suggested ways to speak to this new world. Pope John the XXIII was inspired to call Vatican II with its many changes. However, many old inadequate procedures continued. For some reason fundamental changes never came about.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the sex abuse scandals are forcing the Church to reassess its internal and external processes and methods of operation. The Church hierarchy are called to enact more transparent and collegial ways to lead the People of God; more compassionate ways that include justice tempered by mercy.

Denver Mess: Breslin, Chaput, two small children and gay moms

The issue that has emerged here has to do with the meaning of love. Is love heavy on compassion and light on judgment? Or does Christian love require vigilance and hard choices, separating eternal truths from passing fancies and misguided desires?  [Tom Fox, Editor, NCR]

Summary of the Mess in Denver.
The controversy over the dismissal of a young child from a parochial in Denver  because her parents were lesbians, should have been dealt with at the local level between the pastor and the girl's moms. As in the past there were a number of acceptable options for a wise, Solomon-like solution. Whether or not it was the "right thing to do," someone leaked to the press the decision to expel the girl from school.. The pastoral leaders ( Fr. Breslin and Archbishop Chaput) have "stood their ground" and "defended Church Doctrine," the parish is split over the issue and, in the meantime, the moms and children have been pushed pretty much out of the picture.

The moms agreed to an interview by the NCR. They detailed much about their lives and Catholic beliefs and practices.They described the whole procedure they went through to ensure there was common understanding between themselves and the school / parish regarding their daughters' school attendance. Even in his most recent statement, Fr. Breslin repeated the "official position" of the Church and implied that the underlying issue had to do with homosexuality. Although unstated, there was an assumption, without evidence, that the two women were sexually active. Nothing in Breslin's statement gave any indication of his having read any of the women's words. It seems to me that at least the pastor on the scene would have shown  at least some pastoral concern to hear and express understanding to the children and directly to the moms along with what they were saying.

The Larger Picture.
It is very unfortunate that this particular situation has occurred at this time, when the Church leadership is returning to a very defensive posture because it feels so under attack by raging "secularism, " "materialism." and  "internal opposition" to Papal direction. This movement toward "apologetics" began under Pope John Paul II and has been championed by Pope Benedict XVI. One of the staunchest and most articulate spokespersons for this point of view in the U.S. Church is Archbishop Chaput of Denver.

So many of the "Catholic Culture Wars" today (E.g. the "reform of the reform" in Liturgy, making the old Latin Mass equal in legitimacy to the Mass of Paul the VI, control by the Vatican of the English translation of the Mass, the refusal  to even discuss clerical celibacy, homosexuality, or married priests [except Anglican priests and some Protestant ministers who "convert"], or women priests) derive from the Holy Father's and many bishops' fear of the modern and post-modern world; excessive fear of secularism, materialism, expressive individualism and perceived opposition on the part of the laity and some priests.

The actions of both the pastor and the archbishop seem so bound into an almost post-reformation worldview that they cannot even entertain the idea that "progressive" change is possible and necessary, and quite possibly from the Holy Spirit. At least for now the faith and hope of Pope John XXIII and Vatican Council II for a Church in dialogue with a beautiful, if wounded modern world, has not been lost, but stymied for awhile.

We need fewer "Proclaimers of Certainties" like Archbishop Chaput, and more Seekers after Truth like these two moms.

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.

Now it's not enough to be against gays themselves?

Today CNN reported on a young grade school student who was "disenrolled" (I.e. kicked out) of a Catholic Parochial School. Why? Because the parents were partnered lesbians!

Now a child will suffer for the "sins" of the parents. The pastor took the action, and was supported in a public statement by the Chancery (I.e the bishop) because the same-sex couple were violating the teaching of the Church forbidding same-sex sexual behavior.
 
How did the pastor or bishop know that the couple were having sex?

Regardless of their private behavior, was it appropriate to punish the child? And you better believe the child will be negatively affected.

Where is the compassion of Christ in this situation? I am distant from the actual incident, but at least as reported, I see no reaching out with care, love and compassion to the child.There seems to be no compassion offered to  the couple either. Again as reported, for church leaders to say, adults should know the teaching and obey it or suffer the consequences, seems hardly Christlike  [I will certainly will correct distortion of facts, if they are brought to my attention].

One has only to recall the Mexican Cardinal who uttered such hateful words about homosexuals. The Vatican had to remind the Cardinal that even the Catholic Catechism  requires respect for homosexuals. What about the often (usual?) formal, impersonal treatment or total neglect of sex abuse victims here in the U.S?

The argument about the hurtful outcome for the child and other children in the school and the "scandal" caused to the laity" are those commonly dragged out. Some churchmen must begin to realize that the laity are hard to scandalize. The most recent case I can remember of the laity being scandalized is at the cover-up behavior of bishops who hid the crimes of pedophilia.

Just think of what a Catholic/Christian response of love and compassion might look like. The clergy would plainly state there was a pastoral concern for the child and the couple. They could, personally and through others show deep understanding, support and love for the child. They could speak with (not to) the couple and at least appreciate their lives and love for each other.

Thirteen years ago when Cardinal Laveda was archbishop of San Francisco, he was able to work with others to discover a way for same-sex couples to share health benefits and remain employed by Catholic agencies without violating Catholic teaching or principles. Can't at least this kind of solution be arrived at?

We need to act with the love and compassion of Christ FIRST and then deal with the words we use to express the beliefs Catholics hold.

Earlier in the day I had been commenting on a friend D's joy and happiness over being a godparent; the hope he has to support, nurture and love DA, and the big celebration the family had. I shared with him my joy in becoming Confirmation sponsor for my nephew who is 14.

After hearing about the above "incident," I began to ponder what kind of Church these youngsters will grow up into: one showing greater compassion or one so bound to statements of "teachings" and "correctness" that love and compassion will wither. I do agree here with the Holy Father that what we need  is to maintain hope.