Interfaith Leaders Denounce Bigotry Against Muslims.

FLASH- UPDATE Benedict speaking in the UK about freedom of worship, and strongly supports the call to ecumenical dialogue and for respect for other religions and faith communities. 0-17-10.

After nine years, the 9-11 memorial in New York remains unfinished. Apart from any technical difficulties, there have been many kinds of disagreements, squabbles, even fights over the memorial. All of these differences and disagreements pale in light of the polarization that characterizes this nation today over plans by Muslims to build a Muslim Center (which will contain a Mosque and prayer space for those of other religions).
It is very understandable that some, perhaps very many, of the survivors, their families, and close friends would carry resentment, even hatred, toward the terrorists and by extension Muslims or Islam. All of us are human after all.
The question is, why have so many other Americans become so upset and angry over building the Center; even to the point of willingness to abrogate key portions of the US Constitution?
It seems to me that the “causes” are many and complex. Some of the things that have affected this outpouring of opposition and even hatred include:

1. A general frightening feeling that “America,” has or is loosing it’s preeminent status as the “world power.”
2. Confusion and frustration over two “wars” that have produced partial military solutions but without viable political solutions even after the deaths of thousands of people and spending millions and millions of dollars prosecuting these “wars.”
3. The tremendous US and international economic collapse we are suffering, with loss of jobs, many of which will never return, the inadequacy of healthcare reform, and gridlock resulting in a lack of faith in the recovery and re-attainment of secure jobs.
4. The seeming exploitation of the economic “recovery” by politicians and media for their own political gain or increased ratings.
5. Woefully inadequate knowledge of the history of the Middle East and even a more abysmal lack of understanding of Islam.
6. and perhaps most of all the development and use of extreme “Christian” anti-Islamic attitudes and actions against Islam. Think of “burning Korans” or marches with nasty signs in Murfreesboro, TN. 

An Interfaith Response.
.
On September 7, 2010 representatives of Mainline Protestant (Eg. Methodists and Episcopalians, the Orthodox) Christians, Roman Catholic Christians, Evangelical Christians, Jewish, and Muslim religious leaders met to present a very strong and positive message, calling all religious people witness to their one God of Love, justice, and mercy.
The statement begins with these strong words:

As religious leaders in this great country, we have come together in our nation’s capital to denounce categorically the derision, misinformation and outright bigotry being directed against America’s Muslim community. We bear a sacred responsibility… to promote a culture of mutual respect and the assurance of religious freedom for all… we announce a new era of interfaith cooperation. (Emphasis in original).

The statement continues to make several points:

1. There is support for the Constitutional and traditional Freedom of Religion. They claim the right to, “give witness to our own moral convictions in the public square as well as individual, “freedom to worship in congregations of our own choosing.
2. That rather than give in to, “the anti-Muslim frenzy that has been generated over the plans to build an Islamic center and mosque… near Ground Zero,” the Interfaith group proposes that we, “…not… debate the the Park 51 project [center and mosque] anew, but rather respond to the atmosphere of fear and contempt for fellow Americans of the Muslim faith that the controversy has generated.
3. That as Americans and people of faith, “We stand by the principle that to attack any religion in the United States is to do violence to the religious freedom of all Americans.”
4. Realizing that in a globalizing world religious differences must not “…lead to hostility or division between communities… that no religion should be judged on the words or actions of those who seek to pervert it through acts of violence… that bearing false witness against our neighbor – something condemned by all three of our religious traditions – must be counteracted by truly seeking to understand “the Other” and building on our common belief in a God of love, justice and mercy.
5. That, “Leaders of local congregations have a special responsibility to teach with accuracy, fairness and respect about other faith traditions” and to discover ways to extend interfaith collaboration into common action through interfaith, “education, inter-congregational visitations, and service programs that redress social ills…”
6. That as the diligent work of our scholars has shown, “Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all see an intimate link between faithfulness to God and love of neighbor; a neighbor who in many instances is the stranger in our midst.” It is by beginning at the point we all can agree on –love of God and neighbor- that we can live in harmony in a diverse, global world.

A few observations.

This document was signed by 35 religious leaders (See last 3 pages of the statement) by a goodly number of Jewish and Muslim leaders and Evangelical, Orthodox, Mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic leaders (including Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, DC; Fr. James Massa representing the USCCB; and Mr. Nicholas Richardson, Communications Director of the Archdiocese of New York).
In light of this charged situation, these leaders spoke as prophets arising out of the best of their traditions.
They made the very wise decision to condemn violence and hatred. They went on to emphasize that the beginning of dialogue and action must arise from what we hold in common –Love of God and neighbor- and not from our differences (only a few of which are very serious and difficult to deal with).
Pope Paul VI, in Evangelii Nuntiandi, asked why do we send out missionaries? His answer effectively said not to “convert” others but to live the joy of the Gospel in such a way that some others would be attracted to the Faith by the action of God in their hearts. We might ask, “Why care about the Muslims? Isn’t our Christian task to proselytize them and convert them to Christianity? I would say, at this moment, we Christians ought to live our Gospel and love our Muslim Neighbor. We can leave the “converting” to God.

These leaders correctly, in my judgment, linked their religious message to the legal and Constitutional rights that Americans possess: the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I have seen time and again pleas or demands by conservative Evangelical Leaders and the recent popes that their missionaries and religious communities be allowed to live, worship and otherwise practice the Christian faith in other more closed societies (E.g. Saudi Arabia, Iran). But it behooves us to practice what we preach and what we desire from other countries, not only because it is the morally right thing to do, but because it will help Christians who want access to other countries.

Finally, the Leaders who signed this document were, again, wise to emphasize the need for dialogue and action at the level of the local congregation or parish. The bi-lateral and multi-lateral high level dialogues at the national and international level between and among denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Southern Baptists [with Catholics terminated by a decision of the SBC], has borne much fruit, although there remain many tensions within and between some groups.

However, “the rubber [really] hits the road,” so to speak, when actual people, people who live in the same or nearby communities, come together face-to-face and begin to listen to and learn from each other; when people of different religious traditions actually interact with each other, come to understand each others’ ways, act together, and, perhaps, come to trust each other, healing may occur to all, so that we become more faithful, Jews, Christians, and Muslims (and those of other faith traditions also).

Please feel free to comment on this or any other of my blog posts.

Lutherans +/- Catholics +/- Anglicans Dialogue or Debate

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States (4.6 million members), just approved and welcomed into the clergy, actively gay ordained ministers who are in committed relationships.

Recently the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC.   members) began the process of corporate union with the Roman Catholic Church as a “Personal Prelature.” 

Recently The Episcopal Church in the U.S. established a Committee to prepare  liturgical rites and resources to officially bless same-sex couples in an established relationship.

Because all three of these issues relate to homosexuality it would be appropriate to approach my commentary from that perspective. However, I have another interest for this post.

With Vatican II, the Catholic Church opened outward to engage in dialogue with other Churches and Christian “ecclesial communities.” For forty years theological discussions and cooperative activities grew and we saw ourselves as a growing mosaic of Christian communities in Christ. But I wonder how the different denominations will react to the kinds of events listed above, especially in light of recent moves in the Catholic Church to emphasize Catholic identity, increase boundary markers, and a theological focus on apologetics.

The Catholic Church is a central player in all of these issues. But there are serious internal stresses and strains within the Catholic Church and these other Christian communities.

As long as the current strong, centralized, even authoritarian, institutional structure of the Catholic Church maintains power, there is little likelihood that theological dialogue and advances will be made, for example in sexual ethics, women’s ordination  or the nature and suitability persons for ministry. In my state there are two Catholic and one ELCA dioceses. For a number of years the three bishops have publically affirmed a “Lutheran-Catholic Covenant” pledging continued dialogue and sharing (even facilities and some cooperative religious education programs). What is to happen now between the Church and the ELCA with approval of ordination and acceptance of active gays into the ministry? Will the “Covenant” be put on the back burner, shelved, or, less likely, become a key mechanism to maintain close fraternal relationships? It remains to be seen.

Perhaps the greatest hope  for continued ecumenical dialogue and cooperation rests on what happens at the congregational and parish level. Last evening the pastor of our parish and I attended a meeting called by the pastor of a Lutheran church (ELCA) in the city. Attending and participating were pastors and laity from the Episcopal, Methodist, Catholic, and, of course, the Lutheran churches. A Presbyterian pastor was not able to attend this meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to create a cooperative “College for Adults”  to develop, “…disciples through Christian educational opportunities that are: spiritually relevant, intellectually stimulating, and personally challenging”  and which assist Christian people to: understand their faith, live out their faith, and share their faith with others.

If the increasingly fragile fraternal relationships (I use this word because the power and leadership in these communities are dominated by males)  between the leadership of the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations / ecclesial communities  disintegrates there may be dire irreparable damage done well beyond the confines of these religious groups. Globalization of the world is increasing as a result of the rapid growth on new electronic, communication, and transportation systems. We used to say, “It takes a village to raise a child.” The whole world is rapidly becoming “the village.” Will there be any kind of “global ethic"?” Will the great religions of the world have any role in creating a world to assist in holding together the mosaic of cultures that will continue to exist? Or will the “ethic” be the crassest form of utilitarian ethics? God forbid, that we fall into a dog-eat-dog world or the “war of all against all.”

If Christians can realize they have more in common than the differences between them, they will be part of re-creating a renewed world. If Christians can reaffirm that those of “other faith traditions,” also seek to discover the Truth, there can be dialogue and cooperative action,especially regarding respect for each other and building a more peaceful world. We do have a common humanity and  a common search for the Ultimate.  All of us know only partially now;  and now only through many different perspectives or “faiths” in our search for Truth and purpose in life.  We have the opportunity, today, to live together in a more harmonious world. We no longer can allow differences to destroy the deeper realities of who we are together.

But for us here and now, we must maintain hope and openness to “the other” who can become our brothers and sisters, free to worship God by whatever name we give God and called to serve the world. So maybe in my case one beginning step to to help make this “College for Adults” a success. 

Sex Abuse and both/and ?

Can there be a middle ground in the ever widening sex-abuse scandal engulfing the Catholic Church? John Allen of the NCR asked this question yesterday and provided his judgment on that issue

I consider myself a Vatican II Progressive Catholic, but deeply impressed into my being is an appreciation of and commitment to the "both/and" characteristic (sacramentalism, analogical imagination) of Catholicism. I understand, but appreciate less, the "either/or" view of life. The world always appears in terms of gray, thus the both/and view is essential. However, we are sometimes (often?) called upon the make specific and clear choices.

The sex-abuse scandal is a complex situation and the issue of Benedict's action makes it more so. Those who have read my previous posts should know that I believe:

•  That the primary response of individuals and "the Church" must be compassion and assistance to the victims of abuse.
• That prevention of further abuse must occur even if that calls for dramatic or major changes in Church administration, internal procedures, and practices (E.g. optional celibacy, Married priests secrecy,).
• That abusers should also be treated with compassion, but should always be prosecuted to the full extent of Civil and Canon law. The goal must be the protection of the community (society) and not revenge. 
• That we must stop talking about "mistakes." Call things what they are: "illness" or "moral" evil as the case may be. In both civil life and the Church no one ever seem to do anything "wrong" these days. Everyone seems to only "make mistakes." Abusers my be ill; they make bad or sinful decisions. An adult doesn't just mistakenly abuse a child or anyone subject to his influence, authority or power.
• What has been said of abusers applies even more so to priests, bishops, and a system that neglects, covers up or "makes mistakes" about sex abuse. I have experienced the culture in which deviant behaviors (E.g. alcoholism, sexual behaviors)  were interpreted only as moral/spiritual problems. That is the culture that many Church leaders grew up in. However that day must pass.

I long for and struggle to discover the kind of both/and view and decisions that will move us forward. I must admit it's a difficult. Any of, you, my readers, have any insights or suggestions? Send a comment!!!

When it comes to the current crisis, especially regarding the Holy Father, John Allen asks whether there is a middle ground.  Based on his extensive knowledge and experience, he makes two points.

The two cases from Pope Benedict's past that have recently come to light, one in Munich and one from his years at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, raise important questions, and the pope needs to answer them in order to move ahead. (Emphasis added)

 We live in a new age, a time that requires, demands, transparency. Look at our political life. Think of Richard Nixon and Watergate, Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair, the whole debate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or recent accusations of "back room politics" and health care reform. People can no longer, and will never, accept "cover-ups, appeals to secrecy, etc.

People want, increasingly demand, the "truth" and admission of wrong doing from their leaders. Whether or not Benedict has told the "truth" or allowed or participated "cover ups," it will eventually become necessary to provide a credible explanation and, if necessary admission of wrong doing by commission or omission.

Allen's second point is that:

Those questions, however, have to be seen in the context of his overall record on the crisis, and particularly since 2001, when John Paul II put then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in charge of reviewing the case files, there's a lot to be said for that record.

I believe any objective observer will agree that some positive change has occurred since 2001. The question is whether there has been enough "positive changes" and if they are the correct changes in the right places.
If you have an opinion leave a comment.

Sadly, Allen reports that response his article(s) has been divided between the two extremes: those who claim that he's part of the extreme Left and doing a "hatchet job" on the Church. At the opposite extreme, commentors  say things like, "Don't you ever get tired of being an apologist for the Vatican?"

John  ends by asking, about very controversial issues, "Is there room for a middle ground?"

My answer right now is "I don't know, but I hope so."

What about you, my readers? Do you have an opinion?

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.

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. 

Torture: Conservative and Liberal Catholics Agree!

Torture? Enhanced interrogation? Waterboarding? Most are by now familiar with the arguments over the legality of  these practices.  In a 26 February New york Times  article, Mark Oppenheimer discusses this issue again from a different perspective.

Marc A. Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush was asked by the President to write a speech explaining the CIA's interrogation program. Although in writing that speech, Thiessen says he considered legal issues, the moral dimensions were not in the forefront of his mind.

However in his new book, Thiessen, a Roman Catholic himself, says that, "...waterboarding suspected terrorists was not only useful and desirable, but permitted by the teachings of the Catholic Church."

Oppenheimer proceeds to tell us that immediately Catholic bloggers and writers of both the left and right roundly ctiticized Theissen's argument. In light of the "Catholic Culture Wars" over such issues as liturgical "reform," gay marriage, etc., it is very telling that there still are core beliefs and issues upon which the right wing and left wing can agree.

Oppenheimer does a very good job summarizing the arguments over Theissen's claims. He also quotes or links to  authors on the left and right. Examples of the conservative authors are: Conor Friedersdorf, Marc Shea and Joe Carter. Examples of more liberal authors are: Christopher O. Toollefsen, Paul Baummann, Jean Elshtain., and the self-proclaimed "conservative," author who in this case said that the Catechism of the Catholic Church condemns "...torture which uses physical or moral violence."

It appears that no well known Catholic theologian supports Theissen's argument. When asked which theologians supported him, Theissen mentioned the Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D, associate editor of Living Tradition. At the end of his 2005  twenty-page paper, Fr. Harrison said, "

My understanding would be that, given the present status questionis, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians. (emphasis in the original).

Theissen's chosen supporter admits that torture in not affirmed by the magisterium. His statement that the issue is still open to discussion by theologians, does not give moral legitimacy to acting upon this opinion in light on nearly universal rejection of it by theologians and Pope John Paul II.

In the end it is good to see liberals and conservatives speak the same word on such a critical issue. We need to formulate questions that get beneath current divisions to a core that all can work from. This has been one example. Deo gratias.

AVATAR and RELIGION?

I went to see Avatar six days after it was released. The theater was packed and the audience intense as the movie unfolded. I was gobsmacked  at the action and the out-of-this world special effects.

Partial Synopsis.
It was also, as many have commented, a "Good versus Evil" film, especially for those left of center. It was pro-environment, as seen in the way the Na' Vi,  people lived  in harmony with their planet, Pandora.  The "bad corporate guys" (Parker Selfridge) arrive with the military (really a private security force led by Col. Miles Quaritch, a retired Marine) to do the bidding of the capitalist exploiters (RDA Corporation). The search is for "unobtainium," (un-obtain-ium), a rare mineral, worth two million dollars a kilo. As Adriana Barton of the Globe and Mail says, "...many terrible things are [unleashed on Pandora]: greed, brutality and a bewildering array of savage beasts, not to mention a biotech means of going native..."

Jake Scully, an ex-Marine paraplegic, is recruited and agrees to undergo a new bio-tech process  that combines his DNA with Na' Vi  DNA to produce an "avatar" that is physically identical to the Na' Vi  but controlled by a genetic link to Jake. Jake is recruited by Col. Quaritch to spy on the Na' VI and report back the best means to defeat the Na' VI. As his avatar, Jake infiltrates the Na' VI.

At first Jake tries to fulfill Quaritch's orders to find the Na' Vi's weaknesses. After being  there for awhile and, especially after being saved from an attacking animal by Neytin, his eyes and heart are opened to the beauty of the Na Vi, their peacefulness and harmony with their planet. In religious terms he is converted.

There's no question but that the Na Vi are deeply connected to the natural elements in their world. In fact they communicate and receive energy by touching the ends of their long tails to fronds of the native vegitation, a practice that also connects Na Vi to each other. There is also no question that the tree over the deposit of unobtainium is sacred and alive, in a way similar to the ent Trees in LOR. This film has a spiritual/religious theme and message. So too, the "Force" in Star Wars ("The Force be you" reminds Catholics of  "The Lord be with you" spoken at every Mass). Jake's need to decide whether he will stand against or with the Na Vi, is similar to choosing the red or blue pill in 1999's The Matrix. Comparisons to other religiously themed modern movies is entirely appropriate.  Is Avatar exhibiting a pantheistic spirituality? Does it "preach" a fringe, extreme eco-religion?

Vatican criticism of Avatar.
Apparently that is what the Vatican thinks. Gaetano Vallini, writing in L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican's official paper) expressed neither outrage or enthusiasm over the film in general. He did, however, strongly suggest that Avatar portrayed a form of nature religion or "pantheism." Immediately blogs began debating how "religious" or "spiritual" the film is.

There should be no debate as to whether the film has a definite religious/spiritual message, whether intended or not. It does, and many, many in the audiences perceive a religious theme. But they differ on what it is. [See other article links at the end of this post].

The divinization of man [sic] and universal consciousness.
Why has the Vatican seen pantheism in the film? Isn't this a matter for dialogue? Christians, at least Catholics, appreciate Francis of Assisi's  view of a sacral quality of nature in his Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon. True, Francis distinguished between God and creation/creatures. But one can not deny that for him, creation/creatures are sacred.

The Church, especially the Eastern Church has always emphasized the "divinization of man [sic]," humankind progressively participates in divine life-- we "become gods."  In the Twentieth Century Roman Church, Tielhard de Chardin speaks of Christ as the Alpha and Omega and the evolution of all of creation to consciousness. De Chardin was a visionary French Jesuit priest, palaeontologist, biologist, philosopher, and theologian. His major works are:
The Phenomenon of Man,
The Divine Milieu, and
Toward the Future.Is this"pantheism?" Let's dialogue over it.


There certainly are forms of religion and spirituality that deny a transcendent God, but accept a transcendent universe. Others deny any transcendence to a this-worldly existence. We often apply "pantheism" to each of these. It seems to me that the Vatican too quickly assumed too great a gap between traditional Christian views and a vague reference to "nature religion." Why can't there be dialogue between those who view things differently. The "fault" or "blame" if there is any in this lack of dialogue, falls on both/all sides.


Why is the "Church" so often critical?
My concern is with my own Catholic community. So very often official or semi-official statements are very critical and seldom praise ideas, events, behaviors and modern worldviews. The "Church" often looks upon contemporary culture and sees only a glass  half-empty. If the hierarchy would assume that modern culture is essentially good, at least a glass half-full, there could be a rapprochement with seeming opponents.

In the case of Avatar, why not speak positively about the film and offer dialogue over "religion" and "spirituality?" Instead of acting in a defensive mode, it might be better to raise questions and enter into dialogue, even debate, over how to grapple with the questions in a search for truth.

Very many modern films have religious/spirituality themes. The Church would be wise to take them seriously and grapple with the issues they raise. Yes, there is a spiritual hunger out here, especially among the young (True a small number are trying to identify with  Christianity and Catholics  through rather superficial identity markers) who find "religion" irrelevant to their search for meaning  and life.


Can we reach out to the other?
In the end all I can say is, "Let's give the 'other' the benefit of the doubt and assume s/he has something worthwhile to offer. Let's not assume that the 'Church' is always right and only needs to repeat and repeat it's position and that others will accept and follow along. The People of God have never validated Paul VI's position on birth control. More than half of all Catholics accept the legitimacy of being gay and support at least civil unions. There is overwhelming support for married clergy and strong support for ordination of women. The Vatican says these are un-discussable issues. Doesn't this illustrate extreme defensiveness and, maybe, a fear that much of the logic of their argument is unsound?

Questions for you, my blog readers!!
Is the Church speaking a language you can hear and listen to?
Do you feel that the Church listens to people like you? 


On Avatar see also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/movies/20avatar.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

http://community.livejournal.com/tothehometree/