Pope Francis on the current milieu- a few thoughts in passing

Towards the end of my post castigating Brandeis University (see "Conscience: A matter on which I must take a stand") for siding with the oppressors instead of the oppressed by unilaterally deciding to withdraw the honorary doctorate they were going to confer on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I wrote:

Let's not forget that Christians are not entirely guiltless in related matters. May we continue to repent and seek to live in the triumphant love of Jesus Christ, which we are preparing to celebrate at Easter. I think it's important for victims to be able to share their stories without fear of more violence

Therefore, I was very happy to read the very next morning what Pope Francis said about this matter during his meeting with the leadership of the France-based International Catholic Child Bureau:

I feel called to take responsibility for all the evil some priests – large in number, but not in proportion to the total – have committed and to ask forgiveness for the damage they’ve done with the sexual abuse of children.

The Church is aware of this damage

While I do not presume to lecture the Holy Father on what he should say, I do think, at least from where I sit, that continually expressing surprise that this would, or even could, happen in the Church, as the Pope did when he said that it was hard for him to believe that "men of the Church" would do such thing, is harmful. It can and has happened. We need to know that certain "men of the Church" are more than capable of such things. Who knows what evil lurks in the human heart? On the other hand, Deacon Greg, citing John Allen, rightly draws our attention to what Pope Francis did right in his remarks: "Why what Francis said about sex abuse yesterday matters."

A little more than a week ago, Deacon Greg also noted that reports of such outrageous behavior on the part of "men of the Church" continues to be reported here in the U.S. Some of these accusations proved to be substantial. According to the most recent USCCB audit, conducted for the period between 1 July 2012 - 30 June 2013, "936 Allegations Of Sexual Abuse Were Made Last Year." Of those, 27 "allegations have been substantiated." More than 700 clerics were accused of abuse, including more than 500 priests and 11 deacons.

At least Pope Francis seems to partially refute his dismay concerning certain evils committed by "men of the Church" with his refreshing emphasis on the fact that, precisely as Christians, as "men of the Church," our enemy has us in his cross-hairs. In his homily for daily Mass just yesterday, the Holy Father noted:

We too are tempted, we too are the target of attacks by the devil because the spirit of Evil does not want our holiness, he does not want our Christian witness, he does not want us to be disciples of Christ. And what does the Spirit of Evil do, through his temptations, to distance us from the path of Jesus? The temptation of the devil has three characteristics and we need to learn about them in order not to fall into the trap. What does Satan do to distance us from the path of Jesus? Firstly, his temptation begins gradually but grows and is always growing. Secondly, it grows and infects another person, it spreads to another and seeks to be part of the community. And in the end, in order to calm the soul, it justifies itself. It grows, it spreads and it justifies itself

It is impossible for our Enemy to succeed without our complicity.

As we asked some four years ago, "Alongside all the limitations and within the Church’s wounded humanity, is there or is there not something greater than sin, something radically greater than sin? Is there something that can shatter the inexorable weight of our evil?" We need to end the denial so as to end our collective self-deception by continually returning to the only One who is greater.

According the U.K.'s Catholic Herald newspaper, there were a few other things in Pope Francis' comments that, understandably, were lost as the result of his apology and strong condemnation of sexual abuse within the Church. I think these things are worth noting. I will even be so bold as to assert that these issues are tangentially related.

The first was the Pope's insistence of the need to defend a child's right "to grow in a family with a mother and father able to create a healthy environment for their growth and affective maturity," which allows the child to mature "in relationship to the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother."

His Holiness also strongly defended the "right" of parents to determine the proper "moral and religious education" for their children. He insisted that this parental determination should not undermined by, or given a lesser priority, than the cirriculum offered in schools. School cirricula, he pointed out, to use the words from the Catholic Herald article, is often constituted by "thinly veiled courses of indoctrination into whatever ideology is strongest at the moment." In this vein, he went on to say that it is sometimes difficult to discern whether parents are sending their children to school for authentic education, or if they send their children "to a re-education camp" like those run by totalitarian regimes.

In his balanced manner, which balance is frequently lost in secular media reporting, he went on to state that children can't be raised in "glass jars," but need to be taught and equipped, as part of an authentic education, to grapple with contemporary issues in a media-saturated culture while respecting the freedom and dignity of others.

My bishop and the Rosman/Rocha Immigration Manifesto

Last Sunday, 6 April, just before the 11:00 AM Mass at The Cathedral of the Madeleine, where I am privileged to serve, I had the pleasure of welcoming my bishop, John Wester, back from his excursion earlier in the week to the southern Arizona desert. It was a trip he took with Cardinal O'Malley and eight other of his brother bishops to the border. As he shared some of the criticism he had received, much of it quite harsh, it occurred to me that immigration is about people before it is about politics. It is about politics because it is about people.

In my on-line browsing this week I spotted something in my Twitter feed from my friend Artur Rosman, who I believe to be one our brightest young Catholic thinkers, about immigration. Co-authored with Sam Rocha, I am happy to say that in their Immigration Manifesto, I have finally found an immigration position I can support.

At the level of what might be called "political theory," I especially applaud this:

This is why the Catholics need to look beyond national loyalties on this issue and many others. In 1960, when John F. Kennedy promised the Southern Baptists that he wasn’t going to be taking orders from Rome, he was telling them that he wouldn’t take the Vatican hardline on supporting the Civil Rights movement. Where has this gotten Catholics in American public life? Nowhere

In economic terms, especially given my distributist leanings, calling out this reality was refreshing:

The more important point is that, besides the covert and hidden ways we collectively profit from undocumented labor, there is the economic principle that is invoked on both sides of the U.S. political establishment: global capitalism. The idea, made concrete in NAFTA and countless political speeches and policies, by which goods and capital can move as freely as possible across borders, with little to no restraint, whereas people and their families are glued to their geopolitical and temporal conditions, is a perverse and inverted reversal

Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City takes a picture of a discarded backpack in the Arizona desert (photo by Nancy Wiechec for CNS)

Manifestos call for action. My posting this is my way of sharing this with my local Church as well as affixing my name to it. As Artur and Sam insist:

The United States must stop living in a scapegoating lie. Let’s face up to it: Our most basic services (food, farming, building) are provided by people from other countries, especially Mexico. The laws under which illegal immigrants live are fundamentally unjust. They are skewed toward corporations that take advantage of a labor force that’s legally captive. The corporations also collude in propagating laws that are designed to keep that labor force legally captive. We then have the temerity to impute the label illegal to these people whom we clearly need

Getting back to the bishops' trek to the border, I have long wondered if (and if not, why not) the Mexican bishops are actively redressing their government for the kind of political and economic reforms that would result in fewer people taking this life-threatening risk.

Jesus or religion: an oblique take on a false dichotomy

Here's a thought that occurred to me late this afternoon: One of the ways Catholics and Evangelicals fail to communicate is when Evangelicals denounce "religion" and insist on the primacy of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

I think the subtitle of Jefferson Bethke's book can help get past this impasse. It does this by succinctly stating what Evangelicals (often/usually) mean when the denounce "religion": Jesus > Religion: Why He Is So Much Better Than Trying Harder, Doing More, and Being Good Enough.

Even with this there remains some what we might call "ecclesiological dissonance." It seems to me that for Catholics and Evangelicals alike, the question is, How do we evangelize? Do people feel like they have earn acceptance in order to belong?

The truth of the Gospel is- Jesus did what you needed in order for to be good enough for God. Hence, nothing you can do will make God love you more, or less. I know this remains a scandal for many. You certainly can't add anything to what Christ did for you.

As I frequently mention, the question is never "Does God love me?" Rather, it is, "Do I love God?" At least for me, the honest answer is "Not as much as I should, not even as much as I think I want to." Isn't how much I want to, at least to some degree, shown forth by what I say and do?

In any case, what we "do" must have its source in love and be for love. Hence, I think the fundamental issue that remains between most Evangelicals and Catholics is whether grace is imputed or imparted. Imputed grace is a succinct way of referring to forensic justification, which holds that Christ's righteousness "covers" my unrighteousness like snow can cover a pile of dung (A metaphor used by Luther)> Imparted grace refers to God transforming me from the inside out, which speaks to the necessity of the sacraments and, in a particular way, the Eucharist. This is why I find the most compelling definition of grace to be, "God sharing divine life with us." I think we agree that whether grace is imputed or imparted it cannot be earned. If it were earned it couldn't be grace, right?

Conscience: a matter on which I must take a stand

As many of my readers know, Brandeis University, caving into intimidation, unilaterally decided the withdraw the honorary doctorate they were going to award Ayaan Hirsi Ali during their commencement next month. For those who do not know, Hirsi Ali first came to prominence in the Netherlands for collaborating with Theo Van Gogh on his film Submission. As a result of making this film, Van Gogh was stabbed-to-death in broad daylight on the street by an Islamic extremist. Ever since, Hirsi Ali, who briefly served as a member of the Dutch Parliament before running into citizenship issues, has lived in danger of being killed for letting her story be told in the film. Undaunted, she has bravely persisted in telling her story. Here is part of her response to the school's disgraceful act:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

When Brandeis approached me with the offer of an honorary degree, I accepted partly because of the institution’s distinguished history; it was founded in 1948, in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust, as a co-educational, nonsectarian university at a time when many American universities still imposed rigid admission quotas on Jewish students. I assumed that Brandeis intended to honor me for my work as a defender of the rights of women against abuses that are often religious in origin. For over a decade, I have spoken out against such practices as female genital mutilation, so-called ‘honor killings,’ and applications of Sharia Law that justify such forms of domestic abuse as wife beating or child beating. Part of my work has been to question the role of Islam in legitimizing such abhorrent practices. So I was not surprised when my usual critics, notably the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), protested against my being honored in this way.

What did surprise me was the behavior of Brandeis (you can read her complete statement here)

So our early Friday traditio is Part One of Submission in English:

This makes me feel slightly better for not being able to post yesterday on the 69th anniversary of the martyrdom of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Let's not forget that Christians are not entirely guiltless in related matters. May we continue to repent and seek to live in the triumphant love of Jesus Christ, which we are preparing to celebrate at Easter. I think it's important for victims to be able to share their stories without fear of more violence. I commend Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her courage, for not being intimidated into silence, even as I upbraid Brandeis University for their reprehensible cowardice.

UPDATE: Mark Shea weighs in on Brandeis University's poltroonery- "Gutless Brandeis U Chickens Out."

Jesus Christ, Son of David

As I think I mentioned at the beginning of the year, I am following a program of reading the Holy Bible straight through in a year. Currently I am reading the book of 1 Chronicles. This is one of those books that begins with a lot of genealogies, which, even for a seasoned student of Scripture, can get a bit tedious. As with most worthwhile things in life, perseverance pays off. What struck me today was a prophecy given by God to Nathan, who, in turn, conveyed it to King David. This "word of God" (1 Chron 17:3) was given to Nathan at the time David was determined to build a temple, a House of the LORD, noting- "See, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant of the LORD is under tentcloth" (1 Chron 17:1).

Initially, Nathan encouraged David to carry out this plan. But God would not permit David to do so. This "word of God" ultimately proved to be more prophetic than either Nathan or David, both of whom surely believed this prophetic word to be fulfilled in a more this-worldly manner, could've imagined:

I was with you wherever you went, and I cut down all your enemies before you. I will make your name like that of the greatest on the earth. I will assign a place for my people Israel and I will plant them in it to dwell there; they will never again be disturbed, nor shall the wicked ever again oppress them, as they did at the beginning, and during all the time when I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will subdue all your enemies. Moreover, I declare to you that the LORD will build you a house: when your days have been completed and you must join your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you who will be one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He it is who shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me, and I will not withdraw my favor from him as I withdrew it from the one who was before you; but I will maintain him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be firmly established forever (1 Chron 17:8-14)

Of course it was David's son, Solomon, who built the first Temple in Jerusalem. Why not David? The answer David gives to Solomon a bit further on in 1 Chronicles, which the king received as a word from God, another word with both an imminent and ultimate meaning, is an answer that speaks, certainly not in a completely satisfactory manner, to all the violence we encounter in the Hebrew Scriptures.

My son, it was my purpose to build a house myself for the name of the LORD, my God. But this word of the LORD came to me: You have shed much blood, and you have waged great wars. You may not build a house for my name, because you have shed too much blood upon the earth in my sight. However, a son will be born to you. He will be a peaceful man, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. For Solomon shall be his name, and in his time I will bestow peace and tranquility on Israel.It is he who shall build a house for my name; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish the throne of his kingship over Israel forever (1 Chron 22:7-10)

The Cross of Christ: "the secret power of the true God"

I think politics matter, but not as much as we often suppose. Politics are provisional, not permanent. Let's not forget, "Blessed are you...," which is precisely that to which our truly persecuted sisters and brothers give witness. In our present milieu here in the United States, I reject that notion that fomenting fear is evangelization.

"The resurrection demonstrates that the true God has a power utterly superior to that of Caesar. The cross is thus to be seen, with deep and rich paradox, as the secret power of this true God, the power of self-giving love which (as Jesus said it would) subverts the power of the tyrant (Mk. 10:35-45)" N.T. Wright on Paul’s Letter to the Romans

If I accept what Paul so strongly asserts, the only question I have to answer is, How do I make Christ’s Cross present in the world?

"How bout that ever elusive 'could've'"

This week's Friday traditio is a video with vignettes from the movie "The Way." My first post in the month of April.

It's not just about the journey, it's also about the destination. As we make our way, we're pilgrims. Let's walk together, you and me.

This hill though high I covent ascend;
The difficulty will not me offend;
For I perceive the way of life lies here.
Come, pluck up, heart; let's neither faint nor fear-
John Bunyan from The Pilgrim's Progress

How bout me not blaming you for everything
How bout me enjoying the moment for once
How bout how good it feels to finally forgive you
How bout grieving it all one at a time