Catholicism, holiness and spirituality

Green Catholicism

Not a St Patrick's Day sort of 'green', but 'green' as in environmentally friendly. I came across some info on the web that led me to this story on Zenit, which has a number of related articles in the sidebar. I had heard bits and pieces about Pope Benedict and the curia talking up for care of the environment, but after perusing the Zenit articles I can see that it's more than that. Looks like they are saying the part of being Catholic is being 'green'(!)

OK so we can define 'green' in a lot of ways, but when the leadership of an organization that encompasses about 1 billion people expresses concern about...

exhausting the resources of the planet, the rapid thawing of the glaciers, the increase of the greenhouse effect, the increase of natural disasters, excessive emission of carbon dioxide ... These are some of the warning signs that call for a moral awakening in favor of the earth.

... that seems to be a fairly bg deal. It's good to see this coming from the Vatican; and I'm reminded that the Jesuit GC 35 also dealt with environmental issues, but I haven't read about that, yet.

A Fine Line

Did you catch the news that France's president Nicolas Sarkozy has instructed French schools to teach every fifth grader 'to learn the life story of one of the 11,000 French children killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust'? It seems to have created quite a stir in France, according to the NY Times article. Sarkozy went a bit further, too, by stating that 'the Nazi belief in a hierarchy of races “radically incompatible with Judeo-Christian monotheism.” I wasn't aware, but it seems Mr Sarkozy has been talking a bit more about religion:

But there is something else. Mr. Sarkozy is shattering another barrier in French intellectual life: religion. His public statements on the subject seem to reflect a deeply held belief that religious values have an important place in everyday French society — an iconoclastic position for a French politician.

When Mr. Sarkozy was made an Honorary Canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome last December, he proposed a “positive secularism” that “does not consider religions a danger, but an asset.” He was even more provocative in declaring that “the schoolteacher will never be able to replace the priest or the pastor” in teaching the difference between good and evil.

In Saudi Arabia last month, he infused his speech with more than a dozen references to God, who, he said, “liberates” man. He also said last month that it was a mistake to delete the reference to “Europe’s Christian roots” from the European Constitution.

In France, a country where one’s religion is typically kept private, Mr. Sarkozy heralds his religious identity, referring publicly to his Jewish grandfather and wearing his Roman Catholicism on his sleeve.

“I am of Catholic culture, Catholic tradition, Catholic belief, even if my religious practice is episodic,” he wrote in a book of essays in 2004. “I consider myself as a member of the Catholic Church.”

Well, France's 'secularists' and 'political opponents' set off alarms about all this, and eventually started blaming the United States:

Other analysts blamed the confessional approach of the United States for infecting Mr. Sarkozy’s thinking. “Listen, it’s in the air of the times,” said Régis Debray, the philosopher and author, on France Inter radio Friday. “There is a religious sentimentality, a pretty vague religiousness, let’s say, in the world of show business, in the world of business, that comes from America. It’s the neoconservative wave of the born-agains.”

I can see why many in France might be uncomfortable with all this. I wouldn't want any US president dictating what should be taught in schools; that's a legislative action that ought to be made more by educators and parents, not politicians. Yet, I admire Sarkozy for not hiding his religious life from the world. He doesn't claim to be a perfect Catholic (who is?), but he acknowledges the positive role faith plays in his life and can play in society. Religion can be an asset, it can liberate, and it is at the root of much that is good in history and society.

And yes, religion can bind and suppress, it can be a drag on public policy, and many have suffered violence and tyranny in the name of this-or-that religion. That is also part of our history and our heritage. Like every other social movement, religion cuts both ways.

For those leaders and politicians who are religious, there is a fine line between religion that informs their decisions and religion that dictates their decisions. Hopefully, Sarkozy is tending towards the former and not the latter; and I hope the same holds true for our next US president.

Working through the changes

I've had a theory lately that Catholicism will get a boost as the Vatican 2 and post-Vatican 2 generations age and make way for the younger generations. The Vatican 2 generation is those who came of age during Vatican 2, and they are age 47 to 64 now. The post-Vatican 2 generation is my generation, those aged 26-46. The next generation down the line is the Millenial generation, aged 18-25.

CARA recently did a survey, reported on by Catholic News Service, where they mentioned how these various groups viewed the church's rules on marriage:

The survey report divided respondents into four generational groups: the pre-Second Vatican Council generation, ages 65 and over in 2007, who made up 19 percent of the respondents; the Vatican II generation, ages 47-64, 31 percent; the post-Vatican II generation, ages 26-46, 40 percent; and the millennial generation, ages 18-25, 10 percent.

"Agreement with church teachings is ... often relatively high among the oldest Catholics. ... To a lesser extent this is also true of the millennial generation," the report said. "Agreement with church teaching is sometimes lowest among the generation of Catholics who came of age during the changes associated with Vatican II and among post-Vatican II-generation Catholics."

Agreement with the church is highest in the old folks and the young folks; those of us in the middle are still battling and arguing about those issues. I've noticed this in different studies that I've read about, and I've seen it with my own friends and family members. It just goes to show how disruptive change can be, and how long it takes to work its way through a group of people.

Enlighten our hearts

I read in a few places (here's one) the past couple days about peoples' reactions to changes the pope made in one of the Easter prayers used in the Latin mass. The reformulated prayer calls for Jews' hearts to be enlightened so that the may acknowledge Jesus Christ. Understandably, some Jewish leaders are kind of upset about that; they were expecting a different reformulation, probably something closer to the current version of the 1970 missal: "Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant."

And so Cardinal Kasper is trying to make the best of this, essentially saying we cleaned up some of the more offensive terms in the prayer but we still have to be true to who we are as Christians by praying for Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. But heck, why stop with the Jews? Why not add Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists to the prayer? And the atheists and animists, why not?

Well of course we Christians want everyone to join us! This is an evangelistic religion after all, it's part what we're called to do. But, how we do that makes a lot of difference. And I don't believe the changes to the Latin Easter prayer are the right way to accomplish any sort of evangelization or conversion because they are not respectful.

Explicitly calling out one group for conversion seems like an unhealthy preoccupation. Why get stuck on the Jews? Why not call for the conversion of all people? I can understand why Jews would be upset about this.

May all our hearts be enlightened this Lenten and Easter season, regardless of where we worship, or if we worship at all. A truly heart-felt enlightenment will call us to deeper mutual respect and acceptance. As someone once said: 'love your neighbor'. Inherent in love is respect.

Bodies - the Exhibition

Well, Bodies... The Exhibition has come to Cincinnati. This is that exhibition of all those 'plasticized' bodies, showing all the interior workings and organs and such. There is controversy over the exhibition, mainly due to the fact that bodies come from China, and given that country's human rights record some question that anyone gave consent to have this done to their bodies.

Now our Archbishop has weighed in on this issue, saying the local Catholic schools should not take field trips to the exhibit, but Catholic parents may take their kids there on their own. He says the exhibition 'fails to respect the persons involved.' As head of the diocese he certainly has the right to issue such guidance, but there are two things about all this that have my interest.

First, as I read the feedback on the story in the local paper, there are more than a few people who point out that Archbishop Pilarczyk has no credibility on this issue (and in their eyes, most any other issue) due to how he mishandled the priest sexual abuse problem in Cincinnati. The typical line goes something like this: Who is this guy, who we couldn't trust to protect our children, who sheltered abusers, and pleaded guilty in court to it, to tell me what I should or shouldn't do? Well, here's evidence that once you lose a person's trust and respect it is really difficult to regain it. And, in my opinion, the Archbishop may not ever regain the respect of many people in the diocese. The priest abuse saga has been very damaging to Catholicism, and will continue to be damaging for a generation.

Second, how does this lack of respect for the people whose bodies are in the exhibition square with the church's long-time fascination with relics? Did the saints tell anyone it was OK to chop them up and distribute the pieces all over the world? Or to keep their bodies on display somewhere? I can see how someone would see conflicts between the church saying Bodies the Exhibition disrespects people, but that relics are just fine.

Learning Latin

A few months ago Nicholas, my older son, said he was seriously considering taking Latin as his foreign language in high school. He said that if you know Latin you'll understand a lot of things better because it's the foundation for so much.

So now that it's time to elect his foreign language for next year, I think he's going to choose Latin. St Xavier teaches Latin, and has a Latin Club that competes in six contests with other schools during the year. Yes, the Jesuit high school teaches Latin (they also practice, as a school, the daily examen once a week).

While I am not enthusiastic about using Latin in the church's liturgy, learning Latin sounds like a good choice for broadening one's education. I might just take some courses to accompany Nicholas along the way; I've heard there are some decent online resources for learning Latin.

Parceled Out

Today's reading from Corinthians 1:10-17 had me nodding my head in agreement. It's not too long of a reading, so here it is:

I appeal to you, brothers, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to make up the differences between you, and instead of disagreeing among yourselves, to be united again in your belief and practice. From what Chloe’s people have been telling me, my dear brothers, it is clear that there are serious differences among you. What I mean are all these slogans that you have, like: ‘I am for Paul’, ‘I am for Apollos’, ‘I am for Cephas’, ‘I am for Christ’. Has Christ been parcelled out? Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Were you baptised in the name of Paul? For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the Good News, and not to preach that in the terms of philosophy in which the crucifixion of Christ cannot be expressed.

What struck me was just how much we tend to parcel-out Christ still to this day, even given Paul's warning and all the teachings through the years of the one-ness of Christ. In Catholicism it seems people can tend to over-focus on their affinity with the pope, the Jesuits, Opus Dei, orthodoxy, reform, or whatever movement of the year is going on. But the pope wasn't crucified for us and we're not baptized in the name of St Ignatius. Orthodoxy won't save us, neither will reform.

I do understand, though, that Christ's expression in this world takes different forms, and there are forms that appeal to one person that may not appeal to another. That's why we have the various religious orders, the Latin Mass and Novus Ordo, grand cathedrals and simple country churches, adoration and social justice. The danger is in over-identifying with one or another of these things to the point we start to believe that it is a superior expression of Christ in the world, that it is a superior way of salvation. We have to be careful, in my opinion, about crossing the line from favoring something to defining it as superior.

And just as we need to refrain from parceling out Christ, we need to refrain from parceling out ourselves to Christ. In over-identifying with one or another movement in the church, are we taking attention away from some other aspect of ourselves that may not be so pleasant to show Christ? People do it all the time – putting attention on their strengths to hide their weakness. It can be intimidating, can't it - to accept Christ in all his diversity, and to give ourselves, wholly and completely, in return?

Stooge or hypocrite?

I was reading a recent issue of America Magazine (a must-read magazine for Catholics, in my opinion) about Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism. As many people and writers do, it was probing the questions of the timing of the conversion and what it means to be a Catholic politician. Tony Blair led a country and espoused policies that promoted things that don't nicely line up with Catholic morality, so what does that mean about his conversion, or about being a Catholic politician? Good questions, all; but it was a different line that caught my attention - a common perception about Catholic politicians:

Vote with the Vatican and you are a Roman stooge; vote against and you are a hypocrite.

Well, that seems to me to be a true statement, as far as perceptions go. John Kennedy had to confront it; John Kerry was called a hypocrite by a lot of people. I understand that a politician represents the people, and in the best case works for the common good of his or her constituency. And someone has to govern, after all. I suppose being a politician is a sort of vocation, or calling. If God blessed me with the gifts to be a good consultant, then I'm sure he blesses others to be good politicians.

I'm fortunate in that my line of work doesn't really have the possibility of coming into conflict with Catholic moral teachings, but Catholic politicians are not as fortunate in their calling.

And then there is the calling we all have to not only live in the world but to transform it - to work for peace, justice, salvation and so on. We are all called to do that, regardless of what we do to pay the bills. And this is where politicians face a tough dilemma - their constituency is pushing them into conflict with church teaching in a number of areas - abortion, capital punishment, war, solidarity and so on.

So I think there needs to be some middle-ground, some nuance between stooge and hypocrite. We Catholics will consider a fellow Catholic politician's positions and past decisions that conflict with the church's moral teachings. That's just natural. Hopefully we will put every candidate in that same light. What we need to do, for the good of the political process as well as to make progress on peace, justice and salvation, is to explore that middle ground between stooge and hypocrite. In my opinion, we will be better off as a result of that exploration, that conversation, than when we close off dialog with the stooges and hypocrites.

General Congregation 35

The Jesuits are getting together for their 35th General Congregation in Rome. Actually, not all the Jesuits but 200-some representatives from all over the world get together in Rome now and then to do some important work for the society. It seems to me to be sort of like a big board meeting.

The US Jesuits have a web site that will carry news and information on G.C. 35, and it also has a nice background paper that provides a lot of good information. Creighton University has put together a very useful site for G.C. 35; useful and functional like all their web work. Maybe some day I can mention useful, functional, and appealing all at the same time for their web site(!). I'm grateful that Creighton puts all the content out there that they do; it would be nice to dress it up a bit. But anyway...

On the agenda this time is the election of a new Superior General. Fr Peter-Hans Kolvenbach will be stepping down, so a new one has to be elected. The process for this election is interesting - there is a period of murmuratio (i.e. murmuring) where the delegates basically ask each other about other Jesuits who may be fit for the job. No one can lobby for themselves or anyone else - just a period of asking questions about others in an effort to find the right candidate. Then votes are taken, and the first Jesuit to get a majority is the new Superior General.

There are plenty of other agenda items to address:

• Jesuit identity
• Jesuit mission
• Obedience within the society
• Obedience to the pope
• Community life
• Vocations
• Cooperation with laity
• Governance

That's quite a load of work to undertake, but that's what General Congregations are for.

The Other 6

Loyola Communications has come up with a nice little web site called The Other 6 - www.other6.com; The Other 6, as in the other six days of the week aside from Sunday. Its aim is to give people a place to share their answers to two questions: Where have I found God today, and Where do I need to find God today? For those who do or have done the daily examen, these are familiar questions.

The messages appear as bubbles; light colored bubbles for those who respond with a need to find God in their day, and darker bubbles for those who are sharing where they found God in their day. The size of the bubble gives an indication to the number of comments and responses to a person's message. When you mouse-over the bubble, you can see the message; if you click on the bubble then you can add your response.

I like this site on two levels. First, it's visually appealing and fun to work with. Second, it gives people a place to reflect on God's work in their daily lives. So, as you reflect on your day, how would you answer those questions? Feel free to leave answers over at www.other6.com.