Stump the Priest

Church/State

2012-02-13T04:24:00.001-08:00

We have recently experienced a strong confrontation betweenthe Catholic Church and the US Government, initiated by a mandate from theDepartment of Health and Human Services that all insurance plans must includecontraceptive coverage. The Churchsees this mandate as government interference in the practice of religion and,thus a violation the First Amendment. The government sees the Church’s positionas a matter of not wanting to be mandated to provide its non-ministerialemployees birth control coverage, an benefit that covers what is contrary toChurch teaching, but which the government sees as essential for women’s healthand a way to cut down radically on the number ofabortions performed each year.

As of this writing, a compromise has been proposed, withmixed reactions across the board. The Catholic Bishops insist that removing the requirement that Catholicnon-ministerial agencies provide birth control coverage, but that the insurerswill have to only hides the cost on the Catholic agency’s books, but the agencyis still paying for it. So thematter of religious freedom is still not addressed., they say.

One question seems to be whether or not the federalgovernment can ever interfere witha religion’s practice at all. There are precedents, in cases withwhich most Americans would agree: Christian Scientists have been jailed for not taking children to doctorsbecause of their beliefs; Mormons were forced to drop their practice ofpolygamy. In both cases, thegovernment put what it considered the over all good of the nation and itscitizens over the rights of religious practice. The position is that or thesake of women’s health and to cut down on the number of abortions used as aform of birth control, prescriptive birth control must be available to anycitizen The Bishops counter that the presenting issue is not about birthcontrol; it is about the government restricting religious freedom.

There are no winners in this crisis. Even if they come tounderstand each others’ position, neither will surrender to the other,. As long as they see birth-control as an intrinsic evil, theBishops will not change their stance. And the government is in no position to disregard what it sees as amajor health—not moral- matter. You are reading this ten days after I havewritten it, so you have that much more knowledge of the situation than I donow. I predict it will end up inthe courts.

The Church leadership has to come to terms with its ownresponsibility for this crisis. In short, since 1968, the teaching church hasignored the sensus fidelium (sense ofthe faithful) regarding artificial means of controlling birth. Although his own commission almostunanimously agreed with the majority report stating that artificial means ofbirth control is not intrinsically evil, four members filed a minority report, saying that if the Church evertaught otherwise, it must always teach otherwise. To do otherwise would be tosay that morality is relative.

There have been many unintended consequences to the 1968 discardof the Papal Commission’s recommendation, which was based on the minorityreport. One might wonder if thePope had integrated the findings of his own commission into his teaching, thecurrent crisis would exist. As wehave seen from the abuse scandal, when leaders do not follow their ownestablished procedures, much harm can be caused. I agree with the bishops’ contention that the issue here isnot birth control. Butneither is it a matter of religious rights. If they believe that religiousfreedom is for everybody, inside and outside the Church, maybe the bishopsneed, at last, to really listen to the sense of the faithful. It is easy tomake rules for a group to which one does not belong. But is it moral? Is it just?

2012-02-08T14:24:00.000-08:00

I’ve made up my own creation story: The Creator has an idea., so gathers together the whole heavenly host to present it. But the hosts of heaven have their doubts. The Creator is very excited and says: ”I am going to make this great world where all the creatures will share in my whole being. Won’t that be great?” The host reply: “Why would you want to do that? Give the creatures your own life, next thing you know they will think they are you. Let’s just leave things the way they are.”

Now, the Creator could say: “I am in charge and this is the way it will be and if you don’t like it, go build your own kingdom.” Or the host could say: “Why do you want to create a world?” and the Creator could respond: “I don’t know. I just have all this energy and I have to do something with it.” Some of the heavenly host say they will help. Others go off to build their own kingdom. Those who stay help by pointing out potential pitfalls, since the Creator really had no sense of limits. But they share his delight in the final product and play key roles in how the creation grows and develops.

I imagine you have heard the expression: “There are two types of people in the world…”The speaker then inserts his or her philosophy of the moment. Most often, the formula is so simplistic that it really doesn’t mean much. I made my own cliché, as a joke: “There are two types of people in the world: those who fit into two types, and those who do not.” But recently, an experience with a diversified group considering whether or not to take on a new venture led me to another formulation, one that strikes me as pretty accurate: “There are two types of people in the world: Those who start at no and reluctantly move toward yes; those who start at yes and only reluctantly move toward no. ” In starting a project, brainstorming an idea or entering a new relationship, how we

deal with each approach goes a long way in determining our outcome.

While I am fully wedded to my approach (guess which one it is, if you can), I had better not proclaim it to be the better approach. It is just the approach I prefer. So if I am intolerant of frustrated by and impatient with the other approach, my arrogance assures that the project will not succeed in a way that it will be enjoyed by everyone involved.

This is where our spirituality comes to play. Both approaches need to respect the other. When they do, argument becomes dialogue. One party brings the vision and

enthusiasm. The other assures forethought and care. But neither discounts the other. There’s a huge difference between “No! You are wrong,” versus “Let’s be sure to consider…” if you start at no, and between “You have no creativity” versus “Why don’t we give it a try step by step, with you monitoring each step until we find for sure whether or not it’ll work.” if you start at yes.

When we pass over from rigid adherence to our own way of doing things to

collaboration with others without negating our preferences, we acknowledge that the Spirit of God is with us all. We work as a community and the kingdom does come.

2012-02-08T14:19:00.000-08:00

There is a video that has taken off on the web and been seen by tens of millions of people. It has generated much controversy among religious groups. The title causes controversy from the very beginning: “Why I Hate Religion and Love Jesus.” In it, a young man, Jefferson Bethke, shares through a poetic rap he wrote his view of a great contrast between Jesus’ perfection and religion‘s hypocrisy. His contention seems to be that because religion is man made and Jesus is divine, the two are totally incompatible: See the video here.

As you would expect, I do not agree with that contention, which is not consistent

throughout his poem. He strongly advocates Christianity, but misses that it is a religion.

But I do find the video to be of great merit and not deserving of all of the defensive responses it has received from advocates of various religious traditions. Alternative videos have been made with titles like: “Why I hate your poem and love religion.”

The original video, if seen as a call to religions to evaluate themselves in light of the Gospel alone, is right on target with its declamation of all the unchristian positions and teachings of those calling themselves Christians. So it is the corruption of Christianity that Mr. Bethke really decries. We know that great sin has been committed in the name of religion and by religious people, including religious leadership, making it very hard to disagree with much of what he says while not endorsing all off the ways he says it.

The video’s merit is that it is the cry of a young person to move beyond hypocrisy to honesty and truth. In time, like us, he will learn that the human condition is not that simple, but the call to repentance is nonetheless valid. We do need to help our world move from hypocrisy to truth; from partisanship to collaboration; from isolation and elitism to community.

The roll of religion in that process is to make clear that we cannot make these

movements on our own. Bethke’s poem ends: And that’s why religion and Jesus are two different clans Religion is man searching for God Christianity is God searching for man.

In context, it is clear that he thinks only the second activity is of merit: God’s search for man. We know, as we hope he will as he ages, that it is both, and they are intertwined.

We are not called to a dependency relationship with God. We are called to believe that as much as we need God to be fully human, God needs us to be fully divine. We search for God, God searches for us, and the two of us meet in the person of Jesus the Christ, who God is and we are called to become.

Religion is the structure through which we seek and find. If any of us feels that we alone, without others, can do the seeking and the finding, our pride alone would prohibit us from doing either. We need each other to find the source of our being. Call it community. Call it Church.

2012-02-08T14:15:00.000-08:00

In part, the increased giving level of the appeal this past Advent was due to the addition of one thousand names to our parish data base. The appeal letter went some eight hundred former students with whom I lived at Notre Dame. Their return gifts were very generous, and I have let them know that the entire parish is grateful.

Beyond their gift to the parish, many of these former students gave me a gift that is truly more precious than gold—pictures and verbal descriptions of their families or, at least, their children. Wow! These are men I first met when they were seventeen or eighteen year-old kids, and now they are loving, doting parents. Their posts on facebook and other social media focus mostly on their new lives as parents. I can almost experience what grand parenting must be like.

At the time I met these young men at Notre Dame, they were not thinking of what they are experiencing now. They were then focused on studying, partying and football. Now, their focus is parenting, working and football! They had and have a deeper sense and understanding of living in the moment than I remember that I had at their age.

My tendency was and, to some extent still is to see each moment of life of life as a time of waiting, waiting for the next moment, when things will really be real! I have always tended to focus more on the future than on the present.. There was always something just ahead, and the present time was its waiting room

Unlike my young friends, I had difficulty focusing on the moment. I would always be thinking of –even yearning for—whatever came next. I think I missed out on a lot of my own life because of that.! Any given moment is so full of purpose and meaning that to miss engaging in any given moment is a loss that cannot be reclaimed. Now, though, as I realize what lies ahead, the present moment is much more appealing, and I am better able to live in it and experience it on its own terms.

The current period of the liturgical calendar is called ordinary time . It is the time when it is not Advent, Christmas, Lent or Easter. It is the majority of the year, lasting thirty-four weeks. It the time we mean when we say normally or usually. It is the time when we live out what we celebrated during the Christmas and Easter seasons.

In the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus made time stand still. He left to die, and he left us the Eucharist which allows him to stay among us alive, with body and blood. Every moment is the same moment in the new creation he left us as a covenant of love. What we have now is all we need and long for. There is no need to wait for anything—it is all here. Now! What we saw as a distant future for which we were impatient is always right here, right now. It is the new norm—it is the ordinary. So, we can live fully in this new and eternal moment, and leave time to itself. Ah, freedom!

2012-02-08T14:11:00.001-08:00

On just about all gift-giving occasions, as a child, I would receive the

latest Hardy Boys mystery thriller. My older brother (by eleven months)

would receive Tom Swift books. I never read his books. I don’t know if he

ever read mine. My avoidance of Tom Swift had nothing to do with the

fact that he was my brother’s, but that the books were science fiction. It

was obvious to me that I was mystery to his science fiction. I did not

need science fiction to fulfill my quest for the mysterious. Life here on

earth did plenty of that for me.

As I’ve grown, my recreational reading has continued to have a bias for

mysteries. So, to a degree, does my serious study. As Anonymous, that

prolific pundit of all time, has said, “Life is a mystery to be lived, not a

problem to be solved.” I don’t read mysteries for solutions; I read them for

the journey to solution, with all of its twists and turns!

Currently, it seems, many people do not tolerate ambiguity. We demand

solutions we can understand and accept as feasible. When we’ve

finished the book or the experience or even life itself, we relish the neat

and tidy ending. As the poet Robert Browning wrote: “God’s in His

heaven—All’s right with the world!”

But let’s not crave a solution; let’s crave infinitely deepening

understanding. Let’s live our faith as a mystery: A baby is born amidst

rumors of divinity. Everyone from kings to shepherds hears about the

child. Temple groupies see him as the fulfillment of all sorts of promises.

Power wants him dead. Once he is an adult, no one completely

understands most of what he says. He is murdered. Then things really

get confusing.

As we continue our mysterious journey of faith, there are at least two

things to remember: we are moving toward a solution; we will never fully

arrive there. Still, we stick with the journey relishing it as it is and in no

great hurry for it to be over. We come to love the trip for its confusions

and surprises, its advances and retreats. We don’t want it to end, and

are promised that it never will. But we do want it to continue challenging

us.

So we keep journeying, knowing it is the quest more than the

understanding that keeps our lives expanding for eternity, and thenl we

and the mystery are one.

2011-12-18T12:57:00.000-08:00

You might find this exchange of emails of interest:

6 of 3109

(no subject)
Inbox
x
DTC
x

Rev Donald Spitz Glory2Jesus@armyofgod.com via downtownchapel.org

10:19 AM (2 hours ago)

to newton

I just saw your church listed as a GAY friendly church on gaychurch.org.

To accept sexual deviancy as normal is a sin.

You put your soul in danger of eternal damnation for welcoming unrepentant homosexuals into God’s house. You blaspheme the Name of God.

Homosexuality should be criminalized. Homosexuals commit crimes against God, against nature, against the Holy Bible and against the human race.

Because of your church, I now know why God wrote:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell
because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins
and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and
take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.armyofgod.com

Stephen Newton newton@downtownchapel.org via gmail.com

12:48 PM (4 minutes ago)

to Rev

Rev. Spitz, I am saddened to see those letters before your name, since they are meant to suggest a person trained in the compassion, love and teaching of Jesus. I had never heard ofgaychurch.org. Nor had I heard of armyofgod.org. I would imagine we might be listed on the one because someone came here and found him or herself welcome, and no one checked their sexuality before letting them in. Nor did anyone presume to know whether or not they were repentent or even in sin (I don't know which is your denomination, but ours teaches that there is nothing wrong with having a particular sexual orientation, whether gay, straight or celibate).

More likely, whoever might have listed us might have appreciated hearing the Gospel preached and a call to reconciliation, repentance and just relations, including the mandate to take care of the beam in one's own eye before concerning oneself with the speck in someone else's. In your own faith, do not the scriptural demands like judge not lest you yourself be judged, love your neighbor as yourself, let the one without sin cast the first stone and many more about love of neighbor than there are about the entirety of sexuality of any sort count at all?

So I cannot say why we might be listed as a gay friendly church, but I would feel it very problematic if we were considered gay, straight, rich, poor, well, ill, hungry, imprisoned, thirsty, homeless or clothed unfriendly. Now, having written this response, I will familiarize myself with both sites, with an eye toward seeing if either is Jesus friendly.

Meanwhile, enjoy your continued surfing of gay websites, if that is still your choice.

2011-10-30T07:01:00.001-07:00

There was aletter in a Catholic paper recently that was intended to vilify people whooppose the death penalty. The writer’s point of view is that horrible crimes deserve horriblecrimes require a horrible response and that repealing the death penalty is notan urgent Pro-Life cause. The only reason given for the second argument is thatbabies are being aborted. Yes, they are, and yes, that is truly horrible. Butwhat does it have to do with the death penalty? I have no idea.

Thecontroversy is hot, even within the Church communities. Secular arguments play out as follows:

Arguments Against Death Penalty

Arguments For Death Penalty

Financial costs to taxpayers of capital punishment is several times that of keeping someone in prison for life.
It is barbaric and violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of Rights.
The endless appeals and required additional procedures clog our court system.
We as a society have to move away from the "eye for an eye" revenge mentality if civilization is to advance.
It sends the wrong message: why kill people who kill people to show killing is wrong.
Life in prison is a worse punishment and a more effective deterrent.
Some jury members are reluctant to convict if it means putting someone to death.
The prisoner's family must suffer from seeing their loved one put to death by the state, as well as going through the emotionally-draining appeals process.
The possibility exists that innocent men and women may be put to death.
Mentally ill patients may be put to death.
It creates sympathy for the monstrous perpetrators of the crimes.
It is useless in that it doesn't bring the victim back to life.

The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much.
It creates another form of crime deterrent.
Justice is better served.
Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims.
It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence.
DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.
Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill.
It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system.
It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.

I cannot respond to all the above points in one page, but dohave a Christian argument against capital punishment, which I have not seenanywhere else. My point iscompletely related to our Catholic faith: Death is not punishment. It is theentrance to a new and eternal life. It is a reward. That is theessence of the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus. It is the mystery of our faith. Death has no dominion. So how could Christians see putting someone to death as apunishment? Because we arespeeding up their sentence to hell? Is not abortion also speeding an unborn child’s entry into eternallife? We have never seen either asour job. Our job is to be Pro-Life,to support each life at every stage, no matter our judgment of its worth.

2011-09-27T08:13:00.000-07:00

Here I am again, in an airport, writing the weekly column. It’s my last trip until Christmas, I am happy (merry?) to say. Since the plane back to Portland has been delayed, I think I have the time to begin and finish this missive.

Time is weird. Take children, for example (please). From their perspective, ten years are like eternity. From mine? Wow! “How did you grow so fast? years? Seems like yesterday. How time flies”.

No, airplanes fly; time passes. And depending on our experience and point of view, it seems to pass at varying speeds. It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that. So if time is relative, is there such a thing as objective, or true, time?

I am not writing a science column (nor could I). But I will suggest that there is an objectively true time, and that it is called NOW. The eternal now, if I may. There is no past. There is no present. There is only now. The past is a memory; the future is a dream. Now is the only real time. Have you ever been present in any time that was not now?

If we are to live authentic lives, we have to live them in reality, rather than in memories or dreams. We need to live in true reality rather than in time that is temporary. We need to live in eternity, which is also called God's time.

What might that be like? Let's use our imaginations. If there is no past, why would I not forgive? To resent or hold on to injustices against me would be to define my eternity, my eternal now, as one of hard-heartedness and even revenge. Letting go would make room for other actions, even virtue.

But, we might protest, not acknowledging the memory of past hurts would only lay us open to being hurt again by the same person in the same way! How many times are we to forgive? As many as seven? Oh.

If there is no future, why would we save for it? The better question might be why would we hold on to more than we could ever make use of in a whole lifetime of nows. Is that not greed?

They just announced that the plane is going to be an additional hour late. If I am focused on the future, I will be very agitated. Maybe even angry and upset. I live in the now, there's no problem. It is now now and it will be now when I arrive in Portland, so what difference does it make if I am what we call late? I'll still be there now!

These are my random thoughts from the airport. I hope they might help you reflect on living now. but maybe you're thinking it's a good thing I don't fly again until Christmas. Oh. I forgot. I have a trip in November. I bet you can't wait! Well, you don't have to, because then is now. My head hurts.

2011-09-27T08:12:00.000-07:00

I write from the airport, on my way to another wedding. This is the last one of the year, in a fact until next summer. This summer, I seemed to be off to a wedding every other weekend. These were mostly commitments I had made before being assigned to come to Portland. I have loved attending each wedding, but feel it has been unfair to Fr. Ron, the Associate Pastor. So I am grateful for the upcoming hiatus.

As I headed toward the departure gate, I saw a very large display ad with people wearing various types of clothing and the question: "What clothes show your power?" What a strange question! I could not make a choice from the display, as they were all women's clothing, but I also could not answer the question in terms of my own wardrobe. I dress for the occasion, not for power.

As a priest, of course, I sometimes wear garments that no one else is wearing, but that is about function, not power. I don't have any power. I have certain responsibilities and authority, but not power. I learned a long time ago that I am ultimately powerless over just about everything. That is, I cannot think of many things over which I have total and absolute control, with no room for doubt or error.

People certainly could attribute power to someone based on how they are dressed. Think of uniformed police, or a judge. Or even a priest in vestments or Roman collar. But that doesn't mean they have power. If power is defined as the absolute ability to control, with no possibility of doubt or error, does any human have real power? I do not think so. So why pretend?There must be some payoff for those who pretend: their egos are enhanced; they have the delusion of control; certain inadequacies are made invisible, at least to themselves.

Royalty, in most places, does not dress any differently than other citizens. Some workers wear uniforms for purposes of identity. I can think of only a few professions which dress to power: police; military; clergy. It is interesting to note that people in each of these professions are sometimes seen as being abusive. I cannot speak about police or military, but I certainly admit there are priests and seminarians whose insistence on dressing in a religious habit or cassock appears to be based on a desire to not be mistaken for a mere mortal!

There are many reasons for dressing in a uniform or religious garb that have nothing to do with a pretense of power, of course, but using what one wears as a way to pretend to be superior to others can be a subtle form of bullying, I fear. The hierarchical vestments in religion and the awe-provoking fanciness of a general's uniform do instill a sense of silliness, at times. The emperor's clothes help tremendously in the quest for power.Why is this my reflection for the week? That display in the airport really pushed some button within me, and I feel compelled to speak some truth to power.

USCCB Media Blog: Mass on 9/11: Scripture on the Mark

2011-09-11T13:41:00.000-07:00

USCCB Media Blog: Mass on 9/11: Scripture on the Mark

Reflections on 10 years after 9/11

2011-09-10T23:40:00.000-07:00

Everyone not in their early teen years or younger clearly remembers where they were ten years ago today. For those in their late sixties or older, it was the second time they experienced the horror of our nation being suddenly attacked, resulting in thousands of deaths. For the rest of us, it was a first, and we could not even imagine anyone daring to attack the US.
At the same time, though, there was a sense of déjà vu while watching television as the towers burned and collapsed. We had often seen such scenes in movies. Still, the horror got through, and continues.
Later, we learned of the heroes of 9-11, those who gave their lives for others-firemen, policemen, Father Mychal Judge, who has been called the saint of 911 and others. We commiserated with their families as we watched some of the over three thousand funerals and memorial services. Then, we became the attackers.
The truths behind how we invaded and why we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan are still somewhat vague, perhaps, What is not at all vague is that almost 3,000 American civilians were killed in the 9-11 attacks. In return, we have killed just about one million of Iraq’s and Afghanistan civilian populations. Somehow, though, that does not shock and horrify us. We have become inured to the notion of our country dropping bombs every time some country harms us, or even merely displeases us. It does not matter which party is in control of administering our responses. It is just what we do, without even much reflection.
We are so out of touch with our souls and consciences that while we are attacking and killing, many among us want to claim that we are a Christian nation, founded upon Christian principles and that, as such, we are exceptional. When we respond with a 300 to 1 overkill, that’s ok, because we are American Christians, and those we kill are not. In fact, some of them are barely human—they are Muslims!
Our national lack of reflection on and awareness of our sinfulness shocks me more than do the attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. Every time we react to an audacious insult or injury, we feel a need to attack and even kill someone—anyone. Do we not realize that repeating the same failed behavior over and over again is called insanity, and not Christianity? Who remembers the reaction in the past when anyone might hint that ours is a sick society? Defensiveness has never revealed truth. Only open reflection can. That is something we just do not do. Does any nation?
How many 9-11’s have we instigated? How have we justified them? National interest, national security. Has it ever been different? Will it ever be? Apathy and indulgence are among our biggest sins. When and how should we confront our sin? How do we get our politicians to move from acting like they are playing at some sport where all that matters is winning and losing to growing up and moving beyond self interest for the good, even the survival of the whole world? We have to demand it. And keep on demanding it.

Says it all!

2011-09-02T14:05:00.001-07:00

Shiny Shoes and Shiny Soul

2011-08-26T16:09:00.001-07:00

I was almost ready to leave. The only task left was to polish my shoes. Then I would be ready to set out for the wedding in Seattle, where I would be officiating. I was pretty sure I still had enough black shoe polish in the one bottle I remembered. I was right! So I shook it up, took off the cap and started the application. Immediately, black polish erupted from the bottle. Everything except the shoes turned black: my hands; the floor, a rug and toilet seat cover. It was so long since I had last polished black shoes that the application pad had completely deteriorated and the polish just spewed out. Luckily, I was, at least, wearing a black suit!

I got to Seattle and back. The wedding took place and was a great event. Back home for a week, I still see places where the polish settled after its eruption. It might still take a while to find it all and clean it up. In that endeavor, I’ve been thinking of the old Baltimore Catechism.

Some among us remember how that book presented the notion of sin to children. There were three milk bottles. One had white milk, one had spotted milk and the third had very dark milk (which we presumed was chocolate). The white milk was the soul in the state of grace. Spotted milk represented venial sin and the dark bottle represented mortal sin.

My bathroom is still coated in venial sin. I wanted mortal sin on the shoes! In religion, though, mortal sin is a state of being completely cut off from communion with God and God’s people. It is something so serious and so deliberately done that the sinner is saying: I do this to separate myself from all that is good, from all that is holy. Both the old Baltimore Catechism and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church state that these three conditions are necessary for a sin to be mortal: serious matter; full knowledge of the seriousness; full consent of the will in acting on the seriousness

For example, I am going to murder someone. I know that the Church teaches that murder is serious matter, and I think it is serious matter. I know that committing the murder will completely separate me from communion with God and God’s people. So, with all that knowledge and deliberation, I do the murder anyway, with great joy and conviction. I really want to be separated from God and God’s people. I willingly commit myself to hell—the state of being where there is no charity, no love.

Has anyone ever done that? I don’t know. But I am very certain that many people who believe they have sinned mortally have not. It is very hard to meet all three conditions, and many people stop at the first one: serious or grave matter. I did it; the Church says it is grave matter; I have sinned mortally. Pay attention to the next two conditions, and you might change your mind. Either way, God’s love and forgiveness is always there for you. I think I’ll buy some new shoe polish.

What a fool I was, what a dominated fool

2011-07-30T19:27:00.000-07:00

I ran into an older gentleman a few days ago who knew me from my previous time in Portland, 1977-86. “You were that wild guy,” he said. That’s not at all how I remember myself, of course, so why he would have remembered me that way? As our memories become more distant, often enough, we gain perspective on who we are and are becoming and how far we still have to go. “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” So says Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard.

What a shame. How much easier and less embarrassing it would be the other way around. If only true understanding preceded behavior! In my early twenties, for example, I was convinced of my own infallibility. Whatever I might do, think or say was absolutely correct, because I possessed absolute wisdom. I had little tolerance for people with differing points of view. I knew I was right.

Such rubbish! With today’s better understanding of the whole, what I know best now about my twenties is that I didn’t know much. I can see, understand and repent the arrogance of the past, yet I also know that today is tomorrow’s past. Will I also be embarrassed then by what I am convinced of now? Yes and no, I think. Now I know what a self-righteous fool I was then and still can be. But as time goes on, I become less and less convinced of my own infallibility, so my embarrassment about the immediate past lessens. Instead of thinking myself a fool then through my insights now, I know to expect to see mistakes as I look back. But I have grown in accepting that I am not the perfection I used to think I was. So instead of focusing on my embarrassment and hating who I was then, I can admit that I was wrong a lot sooner, and then focus on how to live now.

It is not that we become less certain of ourselves. It is that we become more humble, living the present while knowing it and the past are only part of life’s journey. We acknowledge that we are still on our way. We accept that we are still becoming our true selves: the image and likeness of God. We reconcile the past are then able more quickly to see our signposts into the future. And I am not sure that I could have known all this in my twenties and saved others and myself from experiencing the pain of who I was then. Probably not. Still, I am sorry, and I move on.

Emerging Realities

2011-07-22T01:43:00.000-07:00

Stunning. Absolutely stunning. That’s what they would call their yacht, and I would agree with them completely. But we would each be using the word differently. You do not have to work for the poor to be stunned by the fact that someone just had a $4.5 billon dollar private yacht built for himself or herself. It is half gold, half platinum with amenities that make one wonder why they don’t just stay home, if they need all that stuff with them wherever they go.

I could not have been more stunned if I had been tasered to learn not only that such a thing could be made functional, but that someone would actually have it made. Why? Forget what 4.5 billion dollars could do in the world. Forget the difference it would make in the lives of those who don’t even have shelter, much less a rowboat. The first reaction is a question: “Why?”

I spent a week recently painting our kitchen cabinets and counter because they needed freshening up and each attempt to clean them made them look worse. So I bought $20 worth of paint, and felt a twinge of guilt. Who would I—who would you have to be to not feel even the slightest twinge having such a yacht? Who does someone have to be to be comfortable having a yacht worth even a mere billion in a world where the only reason anyone goes hungry is not lack of food but inequitable distribution?

I don’t know. If I did, perhaps that is who I would be. I do not think it is unfairly judgmental to say such a person might not have a soul, or such a person could not possibly profess any of our beliefs related to communion and service. But where should one draw the line? A million? One hundred thousand? Having a yacht at all?

The parish is getting a vehicle to help with all of the pick up and delivery and getting here and there that we do. I looked at one today that really fits the bill. It is within the budget we had set for the purpose. It is not made of gold and platinum. But the standard package includes such necessities as illuminated cup holders and an auto dimming rear view mirror with compass. And did I mention the camera to see what’s behind when backing up? Nice. But necessary? I guess so, since it cannot be bought without those amenities and even more.

It is not reality that demands that such things be standard. It is us. No manufacturer would make such things commonplace if consumers had not demanded them. So where do we draw the line? Will we expect our transportation to come standard with automatic pilot before we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, and so on? Will we first need our gold and platinum yacht? Who are we becoming?

What does it mean to be Catholic?

2011-05-25T16:11:00.001-07:00

Ah, Bishops. “We can’t live with them and we can’t live without them”. Well, maybe. But they do often cause head scratching. It’s good to give conscientious thought to what they say and do, because they are leaders of a local Church. But sometimes it can be very difficult to discern if their message is based on faith or on politics.

Two years ago it was announced that President Obama had been invited to be the commencement speaker at the graduation ceremonies of the University of Notre Dame and, as is the custom, to be awarded an Honorary Doctorate. This upset the then local bishop, and he announced that he would not attend the ceremonies. His reasoning was that in one important aspect of Catholic teaching - that of abortion- the President has repeatedly stated that he does not support criminalization. The bishop’s position was that a Catholic University should neither invite as a speaker nor honor anyone who holds a position contrary to Catholic teaching.

Even though President Obama is not a Catholic, the bishop had every right to absent himself from the ceremonies for this and perhaps, any, reason. Notre Dame is located in the diocese he headed. He had a responsibility to give witness to the Gospel. He felt obligated to speak out, and was within his rights. He had no authority with regards to the University, but was responsible to uphold Catholic teaching within his diocese.

Soon,82 of the 450 US bishops made public statements criticizing the Notre Dame offer to the President. They based their authority on an earlier statement by the US Bishops’ Conference that Catholic institutions should not honor politicians who hold views contrary to church teaching, a provision that many bishops felt Notre Dame violated. None of those bishops had even the remotest authority in relationship to Notre Dame. The Vatican stayed silent on the matter, but the 83 bishops suggested that Notre Dame forgot what it means to be Catholic.

Advance two years—to the present. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, a Catholic, is invited to be commencement speaker and honored with a doctorate at the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. Catholic University was founded by the US Bishops and is the national university of the Catholic Church in the United States. Rep. Boehner is in full agreement with the Church’s teaching on abortion. He does not uphold any other Catholic teaching on Justice and Peace and, in fact, is committed to doing all he can to make sure those teachings do not become law or, if they already are law, they be rescinded. Not one Catholic bishop had anything to say against this selection.

A tale of two politicians, one Catholic, one not: The one not a Catholic, President Obama, has repeatedly said he is against abortion and committed to doing all that can be done to get rid of the reasons for it but is against changing the law and making it illegal. This is clearly not the position of the Catholic Church. The other, a Catholic and Speaker of the House John Boehner, agrees with the Church’s position on abortion but has one of the worse records in Congress when it comes to voting on Catholic social teachings and care of the poor. Eighty-three bishops protest the first case loudly, which is happening at a University over which they have no authority. They have nothing to say about the second, happening at a University that is their own. Who forgot what it means to be Catholic?

2011-05-21T21:03:00.000-07:00

Wonderful people whose lives intersect with ours are a tremendous blessing.
That is the best part of life as I have experienced it, and a gift that can
keep on giving. Facebook allows more contact with friends from the past than any other medium, but personal contact is the best, and this continues to be quite a year of that for me. Being back in Portland allows reconnection with friends and
associates from twenty-five years ago. And I am experiencing a lot more reconnecting
than that!
I was a Rector at the University of Notre Dame for eleven years. I left there for
Africa eleven years ago, but still officiate at the weddings of former students,
and every wedding is a mini-reunion. This year, I have been at 4 such weddings
and have four more such commitments before year’s end. A cousin is getting
married in the fall, so there will be a reunion on the grand scale, with an extended
family membership of several hundred!
It has been 50 years since eighth grade, and I have not one, but two reunions
this summer! St. Nicholas was my educational patron from kindergarten
through sixth grade; St. Edmund watched over my seventh and eighth grade
years. I remember most of my classmates from both schools, and look forward
to consecutive weekends with them.
This summer members of the Congregation of Holy Cross get together
at Notre Dame for a week -- another four hundred or so friends with whom to
reconnect. Basically, this year has the potential of allowing reconnection with
every person I have ever known who is still living! And, of course, I am still
meeting new people, some of whom will have as profound an affect on my life
as the many who came before.
Reunions are great. When we are able to relate the truths of our lives to those
who helped form those truths, we enter a level of communication free of pretense
and agenda. We let ourselves be known as we truly are, and we experience
others the same way. Whether it is at a peak life experience like a wedding
or funeral, or a routine one like a reunion, we get one more chance to discover the incarnate God in the other and to let others discover God’s presence in ourselves.
And we learn that a large part of God’s agenda, too, is that we all just be—
together.

2011-05-06T20:01:00.000-07:00

A friend from Africa wrote this week:
“I would like to propose that religious beliefs be placed in the DSM (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) as a category of mental illness for the following reasons:

(1) Hallucinations - the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear these friends.
(2) Delusions - the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.
(3) Denial/Inability to learn - though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behavior, each time expecting different results.
4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.
(5) Paranoia - the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is "evil," "the devil," "an agent of Satan".
(6) Emotional abuse - ¬ religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional "baggage" which can scar the
psyche for life.
(7) Violence - many patients insist that others should share in their delusions, even to the extent of using violence.

I don’t know if it was meant to be a spoof or a serious statement of where he is with religion, but here is how I respond: “I would agree that each of those seven points is evidence of religious pathology, but also know that there is such a thing as healthy religion. Mine, Catholicism, could also have its seven points:
1. We know that we do not know all there is to know and that there is a Reality beyond us that became one of us in order to show us Itself and invite us beyond ourselves to Himself.
2. We believe that all the powers of the universe can act in ways beyond their knowledge, because we have experienced that, whether directly or indirectly, so we express our hopes, wants and needs, open to the Truth of the Ultimate.
3. We understand that we are responsible to make efforts to change evil and injustice in the world, and that the results are not in our control.
4. We respect the wisdom of those who came before us, searching for meaning and passing it on to those who follow.
5. We understand that the Holy can be approached in diverse ways, and that there is something to learn from other religious traditions.
6. We know ourselves to be imperfect, but also that we can constantly grow in union with all that is good, and we know the power of forgiveness.
7. We consider the use of violence to be the complete opposite of everything we hold true, and try to become as non-violent as is possible.
There are, of course, many other things we hold true:

8. We believe in the eternal sacredness of all life.
9. We believe ourselves to be invited to unity with the ultimate Reality, which we call God.
10. We believe that all humanity is in the image of God, which makes us all brothers and sisters.
11. We know that the way to live is to others, not merely ourselves.
12. We have an obligation to be onwe with all, especially the most vulnerable.
13. We need to be good stewards of the earth.
There are even more, but I t I’ll stop there to prove I have no fear of the number 13!

Even if these 13 statements of faith are seen as pathological, they remain among all that we believe.

2011-05-03T14:26:00.001-07:00

I shared recently that I have difficulty remembering where I have left my keys, even though I have a set place to put them when I’m not using them. The problem is so bad that when I find them on the hook I installed for them, I feel that I have won a major victory.

First runner up in the saga of “where did I put it” is my wallet. I do not misplace it as often as I do the keys, but when I do, it is for a period of days, rather than just a few minutes. And that causes a lot of inconvenience—to me and to the parish community. In addition to my driver’s license and whatever cash I might have in the wallet, it also contains cards that are my access to parish and community funds. No wallet, no driving, no eating beyond what might already be in the house, no buying needed parish supplies.

I am not trying to elicit your sympathy here. I do know that there are people who would love to have a wallet, full or empty, and that there are even greater and sadder problems within ten feet of me at any time. Rather, I want to share my process of forgetting who I am when such a small thing happens in my life. It has the tendency to define my life. My self-definition during a recent episode of the lost wallet was “the man who can’t find his wallet”.

I lost all focus. Too many waking and sleeping hours were spent trying to find the wallet. I went through all my clothes, especially those I wore the last time I remembered having it. I called all the places I had been since I last used it. I tore the car apart and looked in places I hadn’t even been. And I obsessed. I was depressed. I forgot about all other things.

The issue grew larger. It wasn’t just about my lost wallet. I wondered how far along I was with Alzheimers. I wondered if I were loosing all competencies, that I couldn’t even find something I usually just took for granted. In brief, I let the missing wallet define my world and me. Then I worried about worrying too much about the lost wallet.

What a piece of work we are! How easily distracted and thrown by the smallest things, so much so at times that we can completely loose awareness of what really matters in life: “I can’t feed the hungry, I’m looking for my wallet. I cannot visit the sick; it’s my wallet, you see. Sure I’m praying. I’m praying to find my wallet”.

Then I found it. And I reflected: “ I just spent two days being defined by something that I would have found in time, whether I obsessed over it or not. And in the process, I stopped being faithful to what really matters in my life. I left my relationship with God and God’s people and withdrew into my own petty concern.” Those two days would have been much better spent if instead of self-defining by my lost wallet, I had been faithful to the definition given me by God: the beloved of God in whom God is well pleased. One called to enter into community with all God’s people, especially those entrusted to our care right here. I failed. I repent. I rise again.

And the wallet? It was in the slacks I had worn the last time I knew I had it and where I had already looked three times. I found it as I was putting the slacks on to go to the chapel, going to celebrate with others our true definition.

EASTER JOY!

2011-04-24T16:37:00.000-07:00

Happy Easter! Even though we don’t exchange gifts or send out cards, today is the
most significant day on the Christian calendar. It celebrates the day that death became irrelevant and eternal life became a fact.

Last week I introduced the theological question raised by Fr. John Dunne,
CSC: if I know that I will die someday, what can I do to satisfy my desire to live forever?

The glib answer is live forever. Now. No waiting period required! It’s not that
we deny death’s truth. Rather, we refuse to let death control our lives. We make
death irrelevant. People who have decided to live forever do not fear physical death.

They see physical death as a transition and are willing to take certain risks for truth orfor the good of others, even if such risks could result in their own physical death.In explaining his theory of the relativity of time, Einstein suggested putting your hand on a hot stove for 30 seconds. It seems like a lot longer. Spend 30 seconds with someone you really love. It went too fast. Positive experiences seem to end too quickly and negative experiences seem to last too long, while the actual length of time is exactly the same.
We can live our lives with our hands always on a hot stove or we can live them always in the presence of love. The second is what we mean by eternal life. When we take our hand off of the stove and have it treated by someone we love we have moved beyond death to eternal life. We come back from the dead. We rise again. Like Jesus,
we live our lives by loving everyone with whom we share the planet.
How does it happen? That’s for the Einsteins to figure out. We just have to experience it.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There were four separate ceremonies in the Archdiocese this year, welcoming those
who had decided to join the Church or confirm their membership in it. Each one filled the very large church building in which it was held. I found myself wondering why, in the midst of horrific scandals, so many people were looking to the very source of those scandals for meaning and completion. I imagine there are as many reasons as there are people, but among our parish’s own candidates, a few common themes emerge: looking for something deeper in their own lives; feeling an inner call; having had some sort of resurrection experience and wanting to take some action to sanctify it. Clearly, people are able to separate the sin of the Church from its basic message, or Good News.
The reasoning might be something like: “I know that some people, including some in
positions of leadership, have not lived the message of the Church, but that does not
detract from the value of its message.” There is a need or want to belong to something that transcends daily life. They have found that something in the Church that insists on Resurrection. So can we all. Let’s join our new members as we enter the realm of eternal life.

Holy Holy Holy Week

2011-04-20T10:06:00.000-07:00

As I write, it is Portland’s most beautiful day since November. It is warm and the sun is shining. The streets are full of smiling people getting off work and hoping this beauty will last through the weekend. It has been a long, cold and wet winter. It has been a long Lent, and I look forward to it ending. It is all over next Sunday. I am smiling!

This week ends with the Triduum, the three holy days commemorating the Eucharist and the death and Resurrection of Jesus. I will reflect on the resurrection next post. But as we begin this holiest week of the Christian calendar, and as the sun is beautifully shining through my window, I am thinking about death or, specifically the stated belief that Jesus died for my sins, for our sins.

That never made sense to me. If anyone was going to die for my sin, shouldn’t it be me? Or if Jesus was going to die for my sin, shouldn’t he wait until I actually sin? I am not saying that the oft repeated statement about why Jesus had to die is false, just that I did not understand it and now deeply question it. That Jesus had to die I understand. He was human, and humans die. But it sure is obvious that in dying he did not end sin!

My favorite theology professor and brother in Holy Cross John S. Dunne, CSC posits this question: “If I know that I must die someday, what can I do to satisfy my desire to live forever?” Make that Jesus’ question, not just for himself, but also for everyone: “Everyone is going to die. In light of that fact, how does life have meaning?”

“The night before He died, a death He freely accepted, Jesus had supper for the last time with his most intimate followers. These disciples did not understand his matter-of-fact approach to the fact that he was about to die. Why would He freely accept death? One should fight it. Unless… death does not mean what we think it means.

Jesus had lived a live of giving. Everything he did, he did for the good of others: healing; teaching; confronting. Even the night before he died, he took bread and wine told them that, in the future, whenever they were to re-enact this, their Last Supper, they should not only remember him, but actually become His body and blood, which He always gave others for their consumption. They were to do the same in memory of Him. That’s what we celebrate on Thursday. We get nourished to become Jesus’ real presence so we will give ourselves for others’ consumption.

On Friday, we remember that he did indeed die, with all of the pain and sorrow, for himself and for others, that death is known to entail. But when he says to one of the thieves crucified with Him “today you will be with me in paradise,” He makes it very clear that death is not a fearful end, but a very positive transition to human completeness. So he answered Fr. Dunne’s question once and for all time: “If I know I am going to die, I will live in such a way that I make death irrelevant.” Sin is separation. Jesus lived to eradicate the need for any sin. His acceptance of death made life eternal, for us and for all.

Happy Holy Week!

I am an April Fool

2011-04-02T00:12:00.000-07:00

I write this on the eve of the 22nd anniversary of ordination to the priesthood. What a day that was! I am pretty sure that I hold the record for the longest time between entering the seminary and being ordained. I entered the seminary in 1961, pronounced first vows in 1966 and was ordained in 1989—a total of 28 years from start to finish. I was a slow learner.

The word fool is defined in various ways, and I have probably fit all of the definitions in one way or another, but here is what I hold to today: a fool is someone who enjoys something very much, and is the one in a group (or congregation) who provides a degree of levity to lessen the sting of heavy solemnity, while dressed in funny clothes (vestments).

In the Christian tradition, a fool is one who rejects the worlds’ common social rules of hypocrisy, brutality and thirst for power and gain. Paul says that the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight (1Cor 3:19), and that we are to be fools for Christ (1Cor 5:10). Not a bad thing for a priest to be, I think. I am not saying that is who I am completely, but it is a part of who I believe I need to be while growing to be a good leader in a Christian community.

My motivation for pursuing priesthood changed, of course, in the period between entering and being ordained. Priests had all the power in the world in which I grew up, so my initial motivation might have had at least something to do with a thirst for power or gain. But in the final period, the period just before ordination, my motives became more particular and, I hope, mature.

I wanted to be a fool for others in contrast to those parts of the institutional church that seem overly serious and riddled with hypocrisy. That is why I am very grateful that I was ordained on April 1—April fool’s day. I am an April fool. Not a perfect fool, but working on it!

On the way to ordination and since, I have met many suffering people who have had very painful religious experiences with the church, including with priests. I did, too. The Church is human, and experiences the same foibles of the human condition, as does any group of people, as do I. But if my foibles can differ from those that have caused hurt and pain to the marginalized and alienated, then I can be their priest. And enjoy it along the way!

Eternal Morbidity?

2011-03-25T17:36:00.000-07:00

I am getting old. I have been getting older every second since I was born, but now, I am getting old. I have become increasingly aware of this since returning to Portland and coming to the parish, yet the creeping awareness has nothing to do with my being here. The work is not any harder and the hours are not any longer than before. My age sensitivity is not caused by some external factor or circumstance. It is just the natural order of things: we get old. Old people were always “other people” to me. Now, they are beginning to be me!

While my father was alive, I knew that I was almost exactly 25 years younger than he, and that was my safety net. But he died a year and one-half ago, and now I am only 23_ years younger than he. That weighs on me. And there are other factors.

I work with a staff on which I am the senior member. That has never been true before. There are not many children around. There always had been. My doctor says the aches and pains so new to my too, too solid flesh are due to degeneration. He laughed. I did not. I received a list of my grade school classmates recently because of our upcoming reunion. I was shocked to discover that almost a quarter of them have died.

As all the above truths collide, I am forced into the realization that I am growing old. I don’t accept it, I just realize it. I realize that young people see me the same way I saw people my age when I was their ages. I realize I cannot do some of the physical things I used to do, at least not without painful consequences. I look in the mirror and see my father. I forget words. I forget things. I forget where I put my keys, but I’ve been doing that all my life!

I’m stumbling through the first four stages of grief: denial (check), anger (a bit), bargaining (I think I’ll be skipping this one—I know better), and depression. Acceptance is the only stage remaining before I complete that cycle.

We are in Lent, and we focus on Gospel passages in which Jesus tells his disciples about his impending death. We contemplate the end of our lives, at least lif e as we have known it. Jesus was pretty matter of fact about the end of His life, or at least the evangelists portray him that way, yet His time in the garden that final night does suggest his own conflict: “Let this cup pass…”

It might be 23_ years away, but the end of life as I know and love it is now more real to me than ever before. When I compare my insides with my peers’ outsides, they seem to be handling the whole thing a lot better than I am. So I know it’s time to grow up, to say, “not my will but Yours be done.”

Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice: His body and His blood given to all to rid the world of sin, of separation. Is that what I need to do in order to accept the ultimate truth of life? Is it in giving my body and my blood as pastor that I will escape morbidity and enter into eternal life? If so, come on Easter!

2011-03-19T08:38:00.001-07:00

A letter came from the State Prison. “Dear Pastor, I read somewhere in connection with St. Andre Downtown Chapel, “to provide hope and healing to the most marginalized members of society”. Through my own fault, for the most shameful of all sins, I was marginalized out of society itself. Here in prison I am the lowest scum, the object of the most violent hatred. I deserve no better.
But I will be returning to society in 24 months…for twelve years of post-prison supervision… I am very afraid. It would have been better for me to have had a millstone …anyway, one of my fears is that I won’t be able to find a Catholic parish that would even agree to interview me for membership. If there might be a door open for me to meet with a priest at St. Andre when I get back to Portland I would count it the greatest kindness to have your reply. If you must decline your service to me, I will understand. Perhaps you could refer me to another Pastor or you might have some other suggestions. If I survive the next two years in prison, the first thing I want to do when I’m back in Portland is fall on my face before the Blessed Sacrament in tears of adoration.
He fears he won’t be able to find a Catholic parish that would even agree to interview him for potential membership. I fear that he speaks from experience, an experience that would add to the rejection he is finding in prison. He fears my reply, so prepares himself for yet another rejection: “If you must decline I will understand.” He shouldn’t.
He must be used to such responses as, “Perhaps you would find yourself more comfortable at another parish.” In other words, “you are too much on the margins for us. We’re Catholic, but really…”
I think of how he will feel when he receives my reply. He will open the envelope with fear and trepidation. He will slowly pull the letter out of the envelope, not sure that he is strong enough. Then he will read: “of course you are welcome here, as is anyone! We do not interview for membership, but we will register you as a member. You do not need to wait two years for that. I am enclosing a registration form.”
Those who visit us during the week are used to rejection. We might mumble: Lord, I am not worthy, but they believe it. Every day some “guests tell us that they are grateful for what we provide, but even more grateful that we offer them some few hours of welcome, where they feel worthy because they are smiled at and called by name. At first I thought it was only a matter of feeling connected. But now I think it might also be a matter of agreeing with the prisoner: “I deserve no better, than what I receive on the streets, from society as a whole and even from some church groups.” That’s not our way of welcoming!
Yes, you do deserve better. We all do. We deserve to be loved simply by virtue of the fact that we exist. Lent is a great time for loving, for opening doors to everyone who comes our way. Keep those doors open!

Let's Give it Up for Charlie!

2011-03-12T17:08:00.000-08:00

Maybe we should give up popularity for Lent. I would guess that you have heard of Charlie Sheen. From what we read, he seems to be a man on the way to ruin, because of his many addictions. We might say that he seems to be the logical conclusion of the Hollywood dream: financial success; destructive life style, infidelity; self-absorbed; convinced of terminal uniqueness. This is what we read. And read. And read. “…two wars are in an endless state of sorrow. Egypt about burned to the ground, and all you people care about is (me)…? "Shame shame shame.” Yet he seems to love every sound bite of it.

I am in no position to judge Charlie Sheen, or to make a long distance diagnosis. But I can reflect on what reports of his escapades might say about the human condition separate from the grace of God. Because I have been there. Perhaps you have been, too. Not with Charlie’s money or fame or connections, although I would not have minded those additions to my own depravity!

For a portion of our lives, there is no one in the Universe more important to us than ourselves. We are the center not only of our own world but, we imagine, of everyone else’s, too. If only people really knew us or understood us. They would never be angry with us. No matter what we were to do, they would love us! Sheen again: “Don’t be special; be one of us. Newsflash: I am special, and I will never be one of you.” Adolescence, anyone (sorry adolescents, but you will grow beyond it!)?

If we are honest with ourselves, if we have that capacity, we know at some level that the lies we tell ourselves about our importance are just that. Perhaps our truths are so unbearable that we cannot face them, even obliquely. Yet we instinctively know that we are worthwhile human beings at the deepest levels of our being and that we are loved or, at least loveable. That sounds to me like what Charlie is trying to tell the world and himself.

So we have Lent: A period of time during which we are invited to focus on touching those truths we fear, knowing that the one whose love is unconditional but whose wrath we fear will welcome us in our fear, trembling and honesty without reservation, without rancor or punishment. But it is not the turning back that is the thrust of Lent. It is not repentance that is the goal. The goal of Lent is Easter. When we turn away from the pretense, from the self-deception and the rational lies we tell, we can enter into the life that never ends. Eternal life with Love, more than any fame or fortune, is what our hearts truly desire. Why settle for less?

Look at the faces on our “Faces of Friday” Lenten aid (http://www.downtownchapel.org/eNewsletter/FacesFriday/eNewsletterFaces01.html). Can you tell who is most needy, who is most blessed? Who is most despondent and who is most comfortable? I could not, at least looking at the faces of people I do not yet know. All the faces are the face of God. All are the face of love. Be sure to put your own there. That is where we all belong.

Attitude of the Spirit

2011-03-06T16:04:00.000-08:00

St. André Bessette Church offers enormous challenges of the spirit. To all appearances, our ministries are very well planned and organized, but spending time with our guests really raises extraordinary thoughts and feelings. I again experienced this last week, as we began a new program.

I advertised the program as “Spirituality Sessions,” and described it as an opportunity to gather each Thursday morning, hear a presentation on some aspect of spirituality and reflect on it as a group. We began the first Thursday of March. I set up the chairs, announced when we were ready to go and made a second announcement when no one showed. No one showed after the second announcement either, until one young man came in, looked around and asked where the others were. My question exactly!

We sat and talked, he and I, with him saying he didn’t think he would stay without others present. He said it is by listening to others that he grows. We were together for about one half hour. I listened; he talked. Of course, the subject quickly became his life. When he left another guest came in. I felt awkward in the situation. Both guests articulated their own profound spiritual quest quite well. But I was thinking about their homeless condition.

I did not ask how they became homeless—I preferred to let them direct our conversation. But I did wonder about the value of offering a spiritual conversation when they have no place to eat or sleep or call home. I had been in their circumstances—perhaps even at their age—but for a very short while and many years ago. I was most definitely not thinking spiritual thoughts at that time. I was thinking about how to get out of it all, whether dead or alive.

All these years later, I wanted to fix things for them. What do I have to give them? Should I say: “God’s ways are mysterious?” “Your suffering now will earn you a great reward?” How condescending! In my mind, they needed food and shelter before they needed me.

But, it seemed, not in their minds. Both of them felt the reality of their own circumstances, and accepted what is. Thursday, they wanted meaningful, engaging conversation. They wanted to talk spiritually when the opportunity to do so arose. They seemed to instinctively know that their spiritual attitude is the greatest possession they have, and that it will sustain them in any circumstances.

I had prepared a topic for discussion with the group that didn’t show. It was ‘spiritual attitude.’ Too bad we never got to it!

Learning from the Past

2011-02-25T15:05:00.000-08:00

The vehicle I am assigned is a small truck that is shared with the parish for picking up goods and supplies. I mention that because when I am using it, the radio is rarely on the same station it was on during my previous use. Normally I will change it as quickly as possible, especially if it is on a country station (that’s not necessarily about country music; it is about me).

Last week it was on a station that played oldies from the early 70’s. I did not change it. Rather, I took a trip that was additional to the one I was driving. A trip of nostalgia. In the early 70’s I was just out of college and was living and teaching with the Holy Cross community at Notre Dame High School in Niles Illinois. I now realize that, since I had attended a high school seminary myself, these years were my own prolonged adolescence. I definitely identified more with the students than with the adults with whom I taught. It was, for the most part, fun, at leas at the beginning.

One of the trademarks of my teaching at that time was my use of contemporary music, many of the same songs I was hearing on the radio last week: Bridge over troubled waters; Let it Be; Hey Jude; War; Joy to the World; Maggie May; Don McLean; Gilbert O’Sullivan; Bill Withers; Dylan; Carole King; James Taylor; John Lennon; Neil Young; Joni Mitchell; Janis Ian; Jefferson Starship; America; The Eagles; Three Dog Night; and on and on and on and on. But wait! There’s More!

I used the Rock Opera Tommy by the Who as the entire text for a Junior Religion class I taught called: “Journey to the Center of the Soul.” That was the best. At least I thought so then. Was I a good teacher? That depends of who gets asked. I was creative. I’m not sure how healthy I was, which would be better answered by the faculty than by the students. At the time, I loved it.

If I were to go back in time, would I do it differently? Absolutely. Not the material or the techniques, but the ways of relating. I was very co-dependent. That got worse each year, so I was summoned back to the seminary to complete my theological studies on the path to ordination. Within 3 months, I was invited to leave the community I had been a part of for half my lie. That’s another story, sort of, but it should be obvious by my current state that it was not the end.

At that time, I saw myself as the best there was. Now, I know I wasn’t. I sometimes do an internal cringe when I get flashes of memory from that time, like when I am listening to the music of the era. I now know who I was, and sure understand the adage about life being lived forward but only understood backwards. I’m very grateful I know and understand that, because I know that in time I will look back on today and realize that some of what I consider to be me at my objective best now will embarrass me then. That’s life.

The more I know that, the more I am able to not take myself too seriously or to be overly adamant about everything. “Now, I see as through a glass—darkly; but then, face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1Cor, 13:12)
So how do I make then to be now?

2011-02-18T15:14:00.000-08:00

I wonder if people who hold a position polar opposite of my own on any matter of faith, behavior, or life in general, are as convinced of the righteousness of their position as I can be of my own. In the face of a contrary position, I am compelled to deeply reflect on what I believe and do, and modify it if appropriate. Often, our disagreements with others have to do with our respective cultural heritages, experiences, and other factors too subtle to name. But sometimes there is another factor: evil.

I’ve experienced evil. You most likely have, too. Perhaps like me, you’ve even participated in evil, and then after reflection, immediately or years later, felt shame and embarrassment, realizing that you were, after all, wrong. I can remember too many times when reflection has caused me shame! I can get over it, though. Over time, I can understand myself not from the perspective of then, but of now. Through the grace of God, now is quite different from then, just as will be the case in the future, when now becomes then.

I’ve been thinking like this because of a section in a reading from Genesis a week or so ago. It’s from the story of Noah, God, and the flood: “When the Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil, he regretted that he had made man on the earth…” Thus, the flood: “‘they are evil. Wipe them out.’” After the flood, Genesis shows God reflecting that perhaps sending the flood wasn’t such a good idea after all. God says: “Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man’s heart are evil from the start…”
We are evil from the start? Thomas Aquinas, upon whose thinking much of Catholic moral theology is based, disagrees. He contends that ‘evil,’ unlike ‘good,’ does not exist as an objective reality, but only in relationship to good. Evil is the absence of objective good. If our conscious mind has not been severely damaged, we make our choices with a will that is free. We choose for or against what is good but, Thomas would say, we instinctively know what is good and, eventually, we know when we have made wrong choices.

M. Scott Peck defines evil as “the inability to be reflective.” People participating in evil do not reflect on and re-evaluate their positions, and evil works at destroying what is good. Good and evil cannot co-exist. When I have done things that will cause me embarrassment only after reflection, I would not have said that at the time I did them I knew I was choosing to go against some good, but I can later see where that might be true. I come to realize that I was not acting at my full potential.
When I made the choice against the good, I was not at the same point of spiritual growth as I am when I realize I was wrong. “If only I could go back and have a do-over!” That dynamic is: wrong choice, followed by reflection, leading to shame and embarrassment and followed by repentance. I am pretty sure this dynamic will be active in me for the rest of my time on earth. Rather than depressing me, though, that thought gives me hope. It tells me that I can always choose what is good and continue to grow along spiritual lines. I do not have to live a non-reflective, self-righteous, stagnate and dead life. Through reflection, I can live forever!

2011-02-11T13:27:00.001-08:00

A fellow Holy Cross priest, Dan Groody, CSC, has written an article on migration for the February 7th edition of America magazine. I am really impressed with how well it applies to our ministry here. Dan is a theologian who teaches at Notre Dame. His article is called: “A Theology of Migration: a new method for understanding God on the move.”

He talks about an encounter with a homeless person early in his theological studies that radically changed his approach to theology. “…we lived in two different worlds. My reality was a comfortable home, a warm bed and a life of the mind; his was distress and discomfort, a brick mattress and life on the streets.” If you have been following these columns, you can well understand why that first paragraph more than piqued my interest!
Dan started wondering how the world, and God, might be understood from the vantage point of the homeless. He began to study theology with “the crucified people of today.” He made “an attempt to understand the gift and challenge of Christian faith, beginning with those who live with acute human suffering, like undocumented migrants or victims of human trafficking.” Or, I would add, the homeless and addicted and mentally ill people on the streets of Portland.

Some of Dan’s comments are worthy of long reflections: “God (is) not a concept to be understood but a person to be encountered in the depth of one’s being.” And: “…theology is not simply about ‘faith seeking understanding’ but also about generating knowledge born of love.” As he says about migrants, so it is true here that our guests “do not care what (we) know, but want to know that (we) care.”

That God is encountered in the depth of human experience is not a mere piety. Anyone who spends time here, guests and volunteers both, know this, whether through a night with Brother André Café, the Personal Poverty Retreat or only a single morning in the Hospitality Center. How often people volunteering have said they came to help, and help was given to them. They were challenged by their own encounters to grow in ways that were completely unexpected. The experience touched the depths of their being through their openness to the depth of our guests’ beings. Our word for what has been encountered but cannot be fully described is ‘God’. Our Incarnate God has the face of our volunteers and of our guests, of those who live on the streets and those from the West Hills. Once encountered, God cannot be ignored. Perhaps that is why people keep coming back.

2011-02-05T11:39:00.000-08:00

At a recent meeting, one of our parishioners made a comment that started me thinking (which in itself made the evening worthwhile!). The comment was about the range of people who identify themselves as members of the parish and, at least as I heard it, how those who come to us for the reasons people come to any parish might not be getting full consideration.

Interestingly enough, while I have been thinking about how we might deal with that, I have also found myself this week being more engaged with those who might fit the definition of usual parishioner, coming with questions of faith, seeking understanding and clarification about what is and is not sin, wanting healing for past hurts and wondering how we live out our faith here.

I did a little research to get some deeper understanding of what people want from their Church, and found responses such as the following:

• “theological compatibility, openness, community, challenging teachings, congregational liveliness, creativity, and fresh, contemporary worship music.”

• “A community that is open to being transformed by God's love and open to being honest with each other throughout that process.”

• “a place that values what they bring to the table in such a way that it's natural to get involved because their gifts/talents are both needed AND desired as part of the body of Christ.”

• “As a convert to the Catholic Church, the main thing I was looking for was an encounter with Jesus Himself, which I found in the scriptures and in the sacraments, most especially the

Eucharist. I wanted the truth about what the early Christians did, believed, how they behaved. I feel like it was incredibly counter cultural then, and authentic Catholicism still remains incredibly counter-cultural.”

• “Basically, the Catholic Church offered me the faith of history, the faith of the early Christians, I feel the faith of the Scriptures, all in the power of the Holy Spirit.”

• “So to sum it up: what draws me to the Church? Jesus, the relentless insistence of the truth of the Word, the Sacraments (especially the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist), the liturgy, the ancient way of doing things, the timelessness of it all, and again, truth.”

• “If there are three words to sum up my statements, here they are: relationship, practicality and accessibility.”

How about you? What do you need and want from your parish? The parish staff is here for you, and we need to always be sure that we are responding to what matters to you the most. If there is something you would like to share about that, let me know through a note, email, in person or though my blog. Then together, we can work at figuring out how to respond for you and for the parish as a whole. This is one of the two main reasons we are continuing the planning process. The two reasons are:

1. To develop a clear understanding of who we are as a parish community, so that everyone involved with the parish in any way experiences that we are a unified community with a specific mission related to the overall mission of the Body of Christ.

2. To identify and enact strategies which ensure our developing the resources of time, talent and treasure necessary for now and for the future.

Words, thoughts and ideas have consequences

2011-01-09T00:10:00.000-08:00

The reaction of people who were very supportive of sites advocating getting rid of Rep.Giffords and her colleagues to postings which suggest that such advocacy could have played in role in an attempt by to get rid of her is, at best, perplexing. What so many are saying, in essence,is that no one has any right to hold haters accountable for hate-filled language. Was Henry II completely free from responsibility when his guards killed Becket because their king asked publicly: "Will no one rid me of this man?" Want to get on the King's good side? Rid him of this man.

Sarah Palin posted on her blog a listing the names of every Congressional supporter of Health Care reform. She highlighted the names of those who were reelected by placing the representation of the crosshairs of a rifle over each name. Did she want Rep. Giffords shot in the head with a rifle? Probably not, although the only existing evidence suggests the possibility. The only evidence of any sort I have seen about what Sarah Palin did or did not want her followers to think in terms of Rep. Giffords is what she posted, putting Rep. Giffords name in a cross hairs and saying she needed to be gotten rid of. I only know she wrote it. I do not know for sure that she meant it, but she did write it.

Her followers cannot know her true intent for sure, either. Yet many have turned viscously on those who suggest that SP's posting might possibly have influenced to some extent the fact that someone she advocated getting rid of through the crosshairs of a rifle was shot in the head through the crosshairs of a rifle. Might the language of this posting and others like it have been heard by someone with a mental disability?

If we do not want to be held accountable for what we say or suggest, we could always refrain from saying or suggesting it. Let's be honest. She said it. Sure it would take someone without all of their faculties to act on the suggestion, but someone without all of his faculties did! That does not prove anything. But to dismiss completely any responsibility whatsoever for this action from those who stated wishes for exactly what was done to be done is very disingenuous.

Let's change the tone of our disagreements. Then there will be fewer suggestions for the less than perfect to effect, and innocence can truly be claimed. To say nothing of honesty.

The Sirens

2011-01-08T11:31:00.000-08:00

In mythology, the Sirens were seductresses who lured those who heard their song to disaster. The term "siren song" refers to their sound and their charm, hard to resist but, if heard, leads to destruction.

Early Christians denied the existence of The Sirens, but said they were a metaphor for women: beautiful and alluring, yet always seductive, drawing men to destruction. Surprised?

I hear the sirens every night, throughout the night. Their song changes often, but they are always there. WHOOP WHOOP WHOOP. AWWWWwww AWWWWwwww. OOop OOop Oop. ooOP ooOP ooOP. WaWaWa…They are a part of the allure of the downtown area, yet they always portend disaster of some sort, for someone: A stranger has been shot; A street person has frozen to death; an elderly person needs hospitalization; a SRO caught fire because the ancient, gas-leaking stove was needed for heat.

And when I hear them, When I hear the Sirens, I feel both the excitement of the city and the fury of interrupted sleep. The sounds of the city, the sounds of the night. Calling, calling. Making clear that this is not yet the city of God, but still a city of nighttime sin. It is a city that needs transformation, while all the while it transforms. Night spreads over the city and what dreams may come must give us pause. If we sleep, we loose. If I sleep and dream through the sirens, the sirens take me to destruction.

Is this world of Sirens real, or are my dreams? Is life so bleak, is the night so threatening on these streets that the calls of the Sirens are to terror and fear?

A man is yelling out front, in the night; in the rain. His words are repetitive: “JOHN PAUL IS POPE. THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. JOHN PAUL IS POPE. THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH…” The sirens come again. “JOHN PAUL IS POPE. THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. JOHN PAUL IS POPE. THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH…” I dare to speak: “You know, John Paul isn’t pope anymore.” “No?” “They have a new one. His name is Benedict.” “I haven’t been that involved. I didn’t know. John Paul was….well, I have to go. God Bless you.” “God bless you too.”

One less siren in the city. Perhaps I’ll sleep tonight.

2010-12-24T10:53:00.000-08:00

Why is the incarnation (God fully entering the human condition) such a big deal?
Who benefits from this relationship, and how?
Why us?
What difference does it make in my life? Our life? What makes this Good News?

These are last week’s questions, for today’s answers. We’ve left Advent and moved into the Christmas season, so the timing is good. We’ve established that the Good News of Jesus is that God wants to be in communion with us, as one of us. We’ve also established that why God would want that makes no sense to us. So, that’s where we start-- with what we do not understand.

To know and accept that we do not know is why and how we begin our spiritual journey. We want to know whatever we know we do not know. At least, we figure, we should push understanding as far as we can. When we arrive at the place of not knowing, we are ready. First, we try to list what we know we do not know. Here’s my attempt:

I do not fully know God,
· I do not fully know God’s ways,
· I do not know what is beyond what I do know and
· I do not know why God seems so mysterious at times.

Of course, there are more than just those things, but they are ok for a start. By naming what I do not know, I move into the realm of the unknowing. Not very far in, but in, where I can begin to say what I do know and/or believe about what I do not fully know. Obviously, with my list, I believe that there is a God; I understand that God is really and truly “Other,” even more than anyone else I know is other; I know God has a realm—a place or state of being; I know how I would act if I were God, but not much about God’s own actions.

How are any of us to go any further once we hit the wall of not knowing? Left to ourselves, we speculate, imagine, argue and go in circles, never going any deeper. We cry out to God: “Help us to understand! Save us from our ignorance.” But God is so much other that if God were to answer, we would neither hear nor understand. So, the Incarnation. In order to save us from our ignorance, which causes separation (sin) between God and ourselves, God takes on the only nature we really understand at all: ours! We move toward the answers in human form, (knowing that there is still more) and we live according to what we have learned, (if we so choose). Paraphrasing the very old Baltimore catechism, we grow in knowing, loving and serving God in this world, and enter into the place where all is known, all are served and do the serving, all is loved, understood and lived out, aka heaven. God became human so humans could approach the divine. Good News indeed! Thank you, Jesus, and Happy Birthday.

Words seeking flesh

2010-12-11T09:45:00.000-08:00

With Christmas drawing near, I'm sharing the first of this year's thoughts on what's going on. Not at the shopping malls, but in the cosmos--reflections on incarnation:

Need I begin by saying that the incarnation has nothing to do with flowers? No, probably not. Anyone who has been around church-like things knows that it has something to do with Jesus, even if they don’t know exactly what. So let’s break the word apart. In carnis: in the flesh. Mix in a little God and we have God in flesh, or the central mystery of Christianity—God's divine nature is fully present in human nature. Or human nature is fully present in God’s divine nature.
How would we explain this major article of our faith to someone who has no knowledge of religion or, at least, Christianity? Why should such a person even care, much less receive it as Good News? The message is that “God so loved the world” that God entered the world to become one with the world, through human nature—who we are. That’s nice, yet there are species and natures in the world that are much nicer than we are. We cause wars. We consume beyond our need. We discriminate unfairly. We are hard to satisfy and too judgmental to be satisfied. We look down on others, even others of our own species. We compete. We hate. We hurt. We take. We are rarely satisfied. God so loved this?
I suppose that if a well-known leader like President Obama or Pope Benedict were to come to me and say, “I want you as my best friend,” I’d be flattered. I’d also be suspicious. “Are you sure you mean me? Even my friends can only take so much of me. I know myself. Why me?” It would make no sense to me, but I would sure work hard at being the best friend I could be, knowing full well that I had done nothing to earn the privilege. Still, it would really be strange.
God wants to be one of us, one with us? Is God no better than us. Tthe Old Testament does make God look pretty unstable at times—happy one day, foolish the next, needing anger management the third, etc.? We work so hard trying to be God, and God wants to be us? Is not even God ever satisfied? What is in it for God, and what is in it for us? These are human questions—at least among the one’s this human would have.
There is great danger in attributing to God only those human characteristics with which we are familiar. I suspect there is more to God than that. Heck, there is more to us than that! In becoming one with us, through the human Jesus, we are invited to be what we cannot even conceive of being, without loosing our humanness.
So, some questions. Let us reflect on them during the third week of Advent, and try to answer some of them during the fourth:

Why is the incarnation (God fully entering the human condition) such a big deal?
Who benefits from this relationship, and how?
Why us?
What difference does it make in my life? Our life? What makes this Good News?

2010-12-05T01:13:00.001-08:00

From Lorenz:

I think the Church finally said what most people think: if you have
AIDS and are going to have sex, use a condom.

At the same time, you can still say it's better to be open to life and
in marriage--and that's about all we can take from this.

And that's it. Benedict will tell us if he has anything else to say;
until then, it's speculation, obsession and joining the media frenzy.

Papal Confusion, Part II

2010-12-03T20:47:00.001-08:00

Part II

In part one of this reflection, I state my confusion at the Pope's statement about the use of a condom by a male prostitute. At first glance, I saw him being morally relativistic, suggesting that some evils are better than others. But on reflection, I now see that he might be publicly revealing an essential truth of Catholic morality that has been taught, mostly, behind closed doors.

The teaching has always been that the final arbiter in moral decision-making is the individual conscience. Its steps are simple: for each person, moral development is an ongoing process; at one stage of development, an individual might not be morally responsible, even for an intrinsically evil act. At a later stage, however, that same person could be morally culpable. An example: A child of five years old finds a gun and begins to play with it. It is loaded and goes off, killing a playmate. The child is not a murderer. But that child’s father is playing with the same gun, knowing it might still have a bullet or two in it. He aims at his child, pretending to shoot. The gun goes off and the child is killed. It was not his intention to kill the child. Does he bear more moral responsibility than the five year old who shot his friend? Most likely, because he is more mature in his decision-making, and was irresponsible for playing with the gun in the first place. Action that results in unintended consequences is evaluated not by he action itself, but by the degree of moral development the actor has achieved.

Or to use the Pope’s example: a young male who has been sexually abused since early childhood has learned that sex is a commodity. He knows nothing of love, but knows what gives pleasure and warrants reward. So he sells his sexuality on the streets to anyone who will pay the price. As a male prostitute, he hears about sexually transmitted diseases and makes two decisions: one is to protect himself; the other is to protect his customers. He uses a condom and insists that his customers do the same. Are his actions moral? Is there a moral way to do an immoral thing? The pope is saying that by using a condom, the prostitute is manifesting an incipient awareness of moral responsibility. He has not gone very far in his moral development, but has taken a first step—had a spiritual awakening. Perhaps nothing he is doing is intrinsically moral, but his culpability is limited by his moral awareness, which was greatly retarded during the abuse of his youth and adolescence.

These sorts of distinctions are usually made at the level of the local Church. The teaching church usually lays out the principles and the pastoring church applies them. That’s where the confusion comes in, for me. The pope’s statement is pastoral rather than magisterial. He is not presenting the highest ideal in this case, but applying a moral principle to the reality of an individual’s life and circumstances, which is a major responsibility of a pastor. The confusion is not caused by the Pope’s taking this unusual step; it is caused by the rarity of Pope’s doing so!

The customary role of the moral theologian is to present what would be true under ideal circumstances. The role of the pastoral theologian is to acknowledge that ideal circumstances rarely exist and to help those s/he pastors to make the best moral decision they can under the circumstances they face. So a male prostitute decides to use a condom. The pastor works with that person to increase his moral awareness, in the hope of his moving beyond his circumstances o a realization of the morality of his life-style. But neither the pope and bishops who teach the ideal nor the pastor who leads people towards it have any right to impose behavior on or even to judge a person who has made the best decision he or she can, given the state of development of their moral conscience. The goal is to increase a morally consciousness, not to control behavior and punish those who deviate from he moral ideal. Moral teachings reveal humanity in a perfect, ideal reality. They are not laws that must be followed, under pain of eternal punishment, but ideals toward which the entire church strives. If that were kept less secretive, the Pope’s message would not confuse anyone. I wonder how far he’ll go at opening the door and keeping it open.

No poor people are suffering

2010-12-02T22:19:00.000-08:00

What a wonderful rose colored world is Mr. Beck's. What a hard, hard heart!

http://www.politicususa.com/en/beck-the-poor

Response to confusion

2010-12-01T15:17:00.001-08:00

"So I read your blog and I must admit I am feeling confused by a lot as well. One thing I've been a bit confused about, and I've been wondering this since WYD is what about a married couple that isn't financially capable of bringing a new child into this world, should they remain abstinent rather than use contraceptives? I agree with what you were saying however about how can it be more immoral for a married couple to use protection than a male prostitute. Also, is it only "ok" in the Pope's eyes to use a condom when it's a male prostitute with another male, considering in such an act there couldn't be a result of pregnancy? Many questions"

2010-11-27T02:08:00.000-08:00

Popes can be confusing. Not that I am rarely confused by the proclamations of significant people. Anyone has the capability of confusing me. But I do not remember ever being as confused by a pope as I am now because of a statement of the Pope’s in an interview, made public this past week. There have been six Popes in my lifetime so far, and only two of them never confused me. One died within a month of his election; the other has been beatified.

The headlines reported that Pope Benedict said it is ok for male prostitutes to use condoms. Later, a clarification stated that his statement was meant to cover all prostitutes; the use of a condom to thwart procreation is not moral, but the use to thwart infection where there is no possibility of reproduction is ok.

He said what? Does this mean that prostitution is more moral than a married couple’s use of contraceptives? Is this a change in Church teaching? The statement received very wide dissemination and caused a lot of befuddlement. The World Health Organization’s boss “welcomed a statement by Pope Benedict XVI that condoms can help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.” –Associated Press

Isn’t this the same Pope who said in Africa that condoms are NOT the solution to the AIDS pandemic? Does he not lead the same Church whose teaching has been that contraception is intrinsically evil, meaning that any sexual behavior that is not open to conception is immoral? Did not Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, write a book called “Theology of the Body,” among the tenants of which is that condom use is a sin because it closes the door to the possibility of creation?

And now that same Church is saying that sexual acts that close the door to procreation are only immoral when practiced by a married couple, but ok when practiced in the course of prostitution? That is what the news stories seem to suggest. Thus, my confusion. I’ll reveal how I resolve that confusion next week. Meanwhile, give me your thoughts or confusions about this here!

Pope's Surprising statement

2010-11-21T12:12:00.000-08:00

In moral theology, as I'm sure Benedict knows full well, once a door has been opened the least bit, it can never again be shut. Any comments or discussion about his statement on condoms?

Stump the Priest: Links

2010-11-20T20:25:00.000-08:00

Stump the Priest: Links: "As soon as I learn how, I will make some links to sites uncommon to the world at large. Maybe. The parish and more www.downtownchapel.org"

This is NOT from the Onion!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-pope-condoms,0,3944129.story

Homeless Ethics

2010-11-19T19:09:00.000-08:00

This is important to know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guP0FaQjt7k

Links

2010-11-19T03:01:00.000-08:00

As soon as I learn how, I will make some links to sites uncommon to the world at large. Maybe.

The parish and more www.downtownchapel.org

What am I getting into?

2010-11-18T06:05:00.001-08:00

As a recently new pastor, I have to write a column each week in the parish bulletin. I asked a staff member about putting those columns on our website (www.downtownchapel.org), and he suggested a blog linked to the website. So, here I am. the title of the blog comes from a fun activity played at other places I've ministered over the year. It isn't a form of Trivial Pursuit but, rather, a place to explore and dialogue about matters of faith, religion, spirituality, etc. You ask, I respond, you respond, he she it responds, etc. I'll also post my columns from the parish bulletin. The parish is The Downtown Chapel Roman Catholic Parish in the heart of downtown Portland, OR. I started here July 29, 2010. Let's have fun!

Stump the Priest

Church/State

(no subject)InboxxDTCx

USCCB Media Blog: Mass on 9/11: Scripture on the Mark

Reflections on 10 years after 9/11

Says it all!

Shiny Shoes and Shiny Soul

What a fool I was, what a dominated fool

Emerging Realities

What does it mean to be Catholic?

EASTER JOY!

Holy Holy Holy Week

I am an April Fool

Eternal Morbidity?

Let's Give it Up for Charlie!

Attitude of the Spirit

Learning from the Past

Words, thoughts and ideas have consequences

The Sirens

Words seeking flesh

Papal Confusion, Part II

No poor people are suffering

Response to confusion

Pope's Surprising statement

Stump the Priest: Links

Homeless Ethics

Links

What am I getting into?

(no subject)
Inbox
x
DTC
x