Navigating the Scylla and Charybdis: Living, Loving and Leading through the Trump Presidency

GOP 2016-Why So Many

Act I is over.  Remember Act I?  All those presidential candidates sniping and name-calling and down-shouting.  I confess at first I found it rather entertaining, but before too long it became depressing yet mesmerizing, rather like watching a snake  charmer seducing a crowd.  Act I culminated in the national political conventions where the unbelievable happened.  The man most people voted the least likely to succeed in politics walked away with the Republican nomination and the woman with one of the most substantive public service resumes ever earned became the first woman to accept the nomination of a major political party for the office of President.  Those political conventions were the opening scene of Act II.

theaterNow, Act II is over.  The general campaign was brutal, bloody, bizarre, virulent, draining and depressing as two vastly different visions of our nation emerged.  Let’s face it: today as I write these words, no one is completely satisfied with the process or even the outcome. The wounds and the scars are deep.  But now Act II is also completed, with the election of Donald J. Trump as president-elect of the United States of America.  We’re now in the intermission of the transition, and that will end on 20 January 2017 when Mr. Trump places his hand on a Bible and swears the Oath of Office and he becomes President Trump.  At that moment, the curtain will rise on Act III.

trumpThe question for all of us is quite simple: What do we do now?  We are not an audience at a play.  We are not observers, but participants in our public life.  There is a term which became common during the Second Vatican Council: we are “co-responsible” for our lives and the life of our republic.  So where does that lead us today, the first day following the election?  The people who supported and voted for Donald Trump are ecstatic and triumphant; those who supported and voted for Hillary Clinton are reeling and depressed.  Those who supported third party candidates or who chose not to vote for any candidate are, well, I honestly don’t know how they feel.  But the bottom line, in my opinion, is that one feeling is prevalent on both sides of the political divide: almost everyone is feeling cut off and disenfranchised.  That was the stated position of those who supported Mr. Trump; it is also the position of those who supported Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton.  What should we be doing as we prepare for Act III?

scyllaHomer’s Odysseus, navigating his way home after the Trojan War, encounters the twin hazards of the Scylla and Charybdis: steer too close to the “rocks” of the Scylla and six sailors will be taken; steer too close the whirlpool Charybdis and the whole ship and crew will be lost.  It’s the classic conundrum much like our own expression of being “between a rock and a hard place.”  In today’s America, then, do we just proceed as we have over the last year and a half, and keep speaking of the Scylla of “winners” and the Charybdis of “losers”?  Is there a way, perhaps of navigating between these two hazards and overcoming some of the polarities of our national life?  There are people — good people! — who supported and voted for Donald Trump.  There are people — good people! — who supported and voted for Hillary Clinton (and for other candidates).  Caricatures on both sides will not help us move forward.

What I’m proposing below is something that we who are people of faith might do within our various churches and communities to move forward in a positive way, to seek the light and not to descend into darkness.  How might we be, in the famous words of the Second Vatican Council, “a leaven and, as it were, the soul of human society in its renewal by Christ and transformation into the family of God”?

I offer four things to consider.  These are clearly suggestive and not exhaustive, but these will help suggest others.

  • We must be active agents of peace and reconciliation. No matter who had won the election, it’s been clear for some time that half of our people are going to feel left out, disappointed, angry and marginalized by the outcome.  We must find a way to take the high ground and model between each other and toward our sisters and brothers who have supported “the other side” the Christian love that is to characterize us all.  How we relate to each other, even privately, can have either a positive or negative effect as we go forward.  For those of us who serve as public ministers of the Gospel, we must guard are tongues and our behaviors – not only for the sake of others but for our own as well.
  • We must move beyond categories of “winners” and “losers”. If we permit this kind distinction to permeate our communities, we enable the very gridlock that has characterized so much of our public discourse for so many years.  I am reminded of the senior Republican leader who, after the first election of President Obama, declared that the agenda of his party would be to make sure nothing of the new President’s agenda was successful.  However, this is certainly not unique to one party; both parties share in this kind of attitude, and their public assertions have affected many in our communities, churches and parishes.  It seems to me that we must find ways to stress those things that bind us together rather than divide us.  As Catholics who share in the sacramental life of the Church, and especially as we gather around the sacrificial altar of the Eucharist in communion, we are all sinners in need of God’s mercy, and we are all God’s children saved by Christ’s saving action and filled with the Spirit of reconciliation and mission.
  • We can offer opportunities for listening and dialogue, with a view toward reconciliation. If it seems appropriate within your parish and community, perhaps we might offer guided listening sessions in which people might share their own pain and concerns.  It will be important that someone skilled in facilitating such sessions be involved so that they do not simply increase the tension.  The purpose is not to exacerbate the problems, or to argue the various issues all over again!  Rather, this would be an attempt to map out how we can all move forward.
  • Finally, how might we all become even more involved in the local political scene? For those of us who are clergy, we are restricted by canon and civil law in the ways we can do so, although deacons in the Catholic Church — with the prior permission of our bishops — can be active to a degree that priests and bishops cannot.  As we have seen in previous columns, our deacons might even serve in public office as long as they get prior written permission from their diocesan bishop. But even more important, how might we continue to encourage even greater participation in the public life of the community?  We all have a responsibility to do something and not just complain about things.

We all need to take a deep breath and  — as we sailors like to say — “take an even strain” on the lines.  If we take the high ground and stay energized and motivated to work for the common good of all, we can indeed move forward.  We can — we MUST — see this new Act as an renewed opportunity to help transform, even if on a small and local scale, public discourse and the political landscape in which the common good of all can be served. I will bring this essay to a close with the words we all learned by heart in elementary school.  May we now live them in a mature and profound way as we move forward.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

preamble

 

Deacons and Politics: Walking the Tightrope

Religion + PoliticsI have written a lot on this subject, but it is one that bears revisiting every election cycle.  As I write this, it seems certain that the two nominees for this year’s presidential election will be Donald Trump for the Republicans and Hillary Clinton for the Democrats.  In my lifetime I have never experienced anything approaching the madness of the primary process, and the general campaign promises more of the same.  So, I hope this review is helpful, since deacons fall into some unique categories on this subject under canon law!

Before turning to the specifics of canon law, let me offer three preliminary points:

  1. chest7One often hears that the reason we clergy are supposed to be impartial with regard to support or opposition to particular political parties, campaigns or candidates is because “the Church” might lose its tax-exempt status.  Often, after making such a claim, chest-pounding ensues as the claimant declaims, “Some things are just too important to worry about such things!  If we lose tax exempt status, so be it!  We have to stand up for what we believe.”  In the Navy, we refer to this as the “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” response.  Here’s the problem.  This isn’t about tax exempt status.  It is, rather, about the universal law of the Latin Church, which couldn’t care less about our tax exempt status.
  2. Another claim holds that “this is my right as an American citizen” to participate publicly in political life.  That is certainly true.  However, by accepting ordination, the deacon has voluntarily placed himself under the authority of additional legal and moral authority.  Namely, how a cleric, and in particular, the deacon participates in political life is now affected by more than the US Constitution.
  3. buildWe clergy exist, according to Church teaching (cf. especially Lumen gentium #18) to build up the People of God.  Our actions then must be understood with that end in mind: are the words I’m using, the actions I’m taking, the positions I’m teaching all serving to build up, or do they tear down.  It is easy in the heat of the moment to let our emotions get the better of us, and especially when the rhetoric surrounding our current political “discourse” is so heated and volatile, we might succumb to the temptation to be just as superheated in our responses.  Again, not only does our teaching enlighten us in this regard, so too does our church law, as shall be seen below.

zzclsacodesmCanon 285 directs that “clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.” The canon continues in §3: “Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power,” and §4 forbids clerics from “secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. . . .” Canon 287, §1 reminds all clerics that “most especially, [they] are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people,” and §2 directs that “they are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.”

However, c. 288 specifically relieves permanent deacons (transitional deacons are not exampted) of a number of the prior canons, including cc. 285 §§3 and 4, and 287 §2, “unless particular law establishes otherwise.” Particular law in this instance is provided by the National Directory on the Formation, Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons in the United States, which states at #91: “A permanent deacon may not present his name for election to any public office or in any other general election, or accept a nomination or an appointment to public office, without the prior written permission of the diocesan bishop. A permanent deacon may not actively and publicly participate in another’s political campaign without the prior written permission of the diocesan bishop.” The diocesan bishop may also create particular law within his own diocese on such matters. In one case, a diocesan bishop notified his clergy that if anyone could even infer, through their speech, manner or demeanor, which political party or candidate the cleric was supporting, then that cleric had gone too far. While we are each entitled to form our own political decisions for ourselves, we must always be aware of the political lines we must not cross.

AllSaintsSo where does this leave us?  Deacons, although clerics, may participate in political life to a degree not permitted other clerics under the law. However, they are required by particular law in the United States to obtain the prior written permission of their diocesan bishop to do so. I find that two other aspects of this matter are too often overlooked. First, is the requirement under the law that all clerics (and, most significantly, permanent deacons are not relieved of this obligation) are bound by c. 287 always “to foster peace and harmony based on justice.” This is a critical point for reflection for all clerics: How do my actions, words, and insinuations foster such peace and harmony, or are my actions serving to sow discord and disharmony? Since permanent deacons may become more engaged in the political sphere than presbyters (with the permission of their bishop), this will take on particular relevance for deacons. Second is the whole area of participation in political campaigns. Deacons may only participate in their own or someone else’s political campaign with the prior written permission of their bishop.

mediaThings are so much more complicated today than in years past, with all of the various social media available.  Tweets can replace reasoned response, a Facebook status can mimic a political platform, and even a “like” can raise political tempers.  Furthermore, what about the deacon’s family and their rights and obligations to participate fully in the political process?  In one common example, what if the deacon’s family wants to put a yard sign supporting a particular candidate in the yard, or to put a bumper sticker on the family car?  Today, when political support is often reflected through the social media, all of us might well reflect on how our opinions stated via these media constitute active participation in someone’s political campaign.

All of us, lay and cleric, are obliged to participate appropriately in the political process. One would hope that all people, lay and cleric, will want to “build up the People of God” and not tear down!  However, as clerics – and in a particularly challenging way, permanent deacons – we have not only a moral obligation to do so, but a legal one as well.  This means that we must often walk a fine moral tightrope in doing so.

Reckless person

Formation of Conscience, Step Two: “Be an Adult”

Vatican PopeOne thought has remained with me from the first reading of Pope Francis’ Amoris Laetitia: this is an ADULT document.  It is written by a mature adult man who is comfortable in his own relationship with God and with other people, able to see things both as they are and as they could be.  Through the lens of his own life’s experience he recognizes his own weaknesses and failures and owns his own need for God’s forgiveness and the help of others to get through any given day.  This mature adult man has written a document that presumes his readership is similarly disposed.  He writes directly, explicitly, and knowledgeably about the human condition, the role of the Church, and the relationship of the two.  It is, in short, a text written by an adult for other adults.  As Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago observed in his press conference on the release of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis is calling us all to “an adult spirituality.”

What does an “adult spirituality” look like?  I ask this in connection with these short reflections on the formation of conscience, because I think it lies at the heart of the matter.

simple balanced cropped-500x500First, I think an adult spirituality is balanced, reasonable and well-integrated.  An adult point of view, it seems to me, is found when a person has learned — usually through hard experience — to steer a course between extremes.  Consider one simple example.  Some people seem naturally disposed to see everything through a negative lens: nothing can ever be done right, some people can just never say anything that is not immediately criticized, and no one can really be trusted.  I suppose if one crept along this point of view to its extreme, one would arrive at the home of cynicism.  On the other hand, some people are just as disposed to see everything in a positive light: they see the good in what others do and say, giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Following this point of view to its extreme, one would arrive at the land of rose-colored glasses.  However, the wisdom of maturity would generally find, along  with Aristotle, the “golden mean”or, as the ancient Latin has it, “In medio stat virtus“: virtue stands in the middle.  Applying this to Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia: consider some of the online responses one finds everywhere: some people were determined to condemn it even before it was promulgated while others were similarly inclined to “canonize” it, also without reading it.  A balanced, reasonable, and well-integrated adult would, of course, read the document and form conclusions both positive and negative.  Amoris Laetitia is not Holy Writ; neither is it from Satan.

respect-honesty-ethics-integrity-street-sign-photo-846x634Second, an adult spirituality is honest with one’s self and with others, especially about one’s own limitations.  When confronting challenges, an adult comes to know that there are limits to his or her abilities: intellectual, affective, and physical.  They come to accept that we all need assistance in a variety of ways.  In recognizing their own limitations, the mature adult tends to be more understanding of the limitations of others.  This is a key theme of Amoris Laetitia.  All are weak in various ways and we acknowledge and work within that weakness; we do not demand that a person first become strong before we work with them.  God’s grace and mercy is necessary for all and, as the Holy Father stresses, “true charity is always unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous.” (AL 296)  A person does not have to “prove” or “earn” our mercy any more than we have deserved God’s mercy in our own lives.  Mature adults understand that.

keep-calm-because-stuff-happensThird, an adult spirituality acknowledges the contingencies of life.  In the sections of Amoris Laetitia which address the specifics of marriage and family life, the Holy Father shows a remarkable understanding of  how hard most people struggle with the uncertainties of life: holding a job that can support one’s family, dealing with fatigue and failure, the pressures of being a single parent and on and on.  Most people come to understand that the vast majority of folks are simply trying to do the absolute best they can despite whatever challenges they face.  Others may come to different decisions than we might, but there is a presumption based on experience that most people are trying to do their best.  However, here we find some tension again between those who have a more positive perspective on human nature and those who are more negative, and would never presume that other people would do their best!  Pope Francis recognizes this difference of perspective when he writes,

I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion.  But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, “always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street.”

christ dachau

Christ at Dachau

Fourth, an adult spirituality finds God’s presence in all aspects of life.  Experience teaches a person of faith that God is active and present even when a person feels alone, abandoned, or powerless.  There is a sense of tranquility that comes to a person, even in the midst of suffering, which communicates God’s “accompaniment” (to use one of Pope Francis’ favorite expressions) on that journey.  Just as God never abandons us, we are not to abandon others in their own need.  The Holy Father spends considerable time in AL reminding us that not only should those who are divorced or in irregular unions are not to feel themselves cut off completely from the church, nor are we to adopt practices and attitudes which convey or support such a feeling of isolation and excommunication.  Simply put, God never abandons us, and we cannot abandon others.

 

Fifth, an adult spirituality deals with the real, not the hypothetical.  Hypothetical situations abound, but we generally have to deal with one situation at a time, resolve it as best we can, and move on to the next.  While a certain amount of hypothesizing happens with all of us as we try to plan for the future, but in general, we take one very real circumstance on at a time.  I keep thinking of St. John XXIII’s famous passage in his opening address to the Second Vatican Council when he proclaims to the thousands of assembled bishops:

0073a1d09f8dd5b8995cbcb2d125dfe1

        In the daily exercise of our pastoral office, we sometimes have to listen, much to our regret, to voices of persons who, though burning with zeal, are not endowed with too much sense of discretion or measure. In these modern times they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin. They say that our era, in comparison with past eras, is getting worse, and they behave as though they had learned nothing from history, which is, none the less, the teacher of life. They behave as though at the time of former Councils everything was a full triumph for the Christian idea and life and for proper religious liberty.

We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.  In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfillment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.

In much of the criticism of Pope Francis and this Exhortation, one detects the same voice of the “prophets of gloom” which St. John XXIII mentions.  I think Pope Francis would agree wholeheartedly with his sainted predecessor that it is still God who is in charge and still “leading us to a new order of human relations” which goes far beyond our poor human attempt to understand fully.  Like those earlier critics of the Council, much hand wringing is taking place about “what ifs”: “What if” a pastor just looks for a loophole to let divorced and remarried people back to Communion?  “What if” a person doesn’t form their conscience as rigorously as they should?  “What if” people abuse this teaching and simply ignore the longstanding teaching of the church?  “What if,” indeed.  Realistically, will such things happen?  Of course they will, and no mature adult would deny that possibility.  On the other hand, shouldn’t we adopt a position that we will deal with those situations as they occur, if they occur, and when they occur?  In the meantime, as John did with the Council, let’s move forward. “Siempre Adelante!” as Pope Francis challenged us during his homily in Washington, DC.

So, in forming our consciences, we do so as mature adults, striving as best we can and with the help of the Holy Spirit, to discern God’s will for our lives.

 

 

Formation of Conscience, Step One: “Mind Your Own Business!”

Italy Greece Pope Refugees

(AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia)

Pope Francis never ceases to challenge us across a spectrum of issues.  How we treat the poor, the disenfranchised, the immigrant, even nature itself are all matters of grave moral concern.  He reminds us that we best confront these issues through our encounters with one person at a time, by being the hands of God’s own mercy.

Pope Francis bases his post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) on several fundamental principles, which I hope to examine in future blog posts.  Here, however, we consider briefly perhaps the most fundamental: the matter of the individual moral conscience. The expectation of the Church, well expressed by the Holy Father, is that we confront life’s challenges in a morally responsible and mature way.  More about that in a moment, but first, what do we teach about the conscience?

76_2731812The core of the Church’s teaching on conscience is found in Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes (GS), 16:

In the depths of conscience, a person detects a law which he does not give to himself, but which he must obey. Always summoning the person to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to the heart: do this, shun that. For the person has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. The conscience is a person’s most secret core and sanctuary, in which the person is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.

VaticanIIOne thing many observers forget, however, is that we are bound to follow our conscience, even if that means we are responsible for errors we make!  GS 16 continues:

The more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

So, in summary: we must make every attempt to properly form our consciences, but we are bound to follow our conscience even if later that judgment is found to be in error.  Saying that something is “in accordance with my conscience” does not mean that it is necessarily accurate or correct or infallible.  It means that we take adult responsibility both for the formation of conscience and our actions taken in response to it.

With this as context (read more about the moral conscience  in the Catechism of the Catholic Church), we return to Amoris Laetitia.  In AL 37, the pope writes:

Pray-for-one-AnotherWe have long thought that simply by stressing doctrinal, bioethical and moral issues, without encouraging openness to grace, we were providing sufficient support to families, strengthening the marriage bond and giving meaning to marital life. . . .  We also find it hard to make room for the consciences of the faithful, who very often respond as best they can to the Gospel amid their limitations, and are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them.

So we arrive at the first point I want to make about the conscience.  The conscience is subjective: it belongs to each, individual, human subject.  While other persons: family, friends, pastors, bishops, deacons, religious, catechists, scientists and teachers may assist me in the formation of my conscience, ultimately, as Vatican II teaches, I am alone with God in my conscience.  Someone else’s conscience cannot serve as — or replace — my own conscience.

Therefore, my first reflection on the formation of conscience is simple: “Mind your (my) own business”!  Consider the following scenario:

SCENARIO:

At Mass, the Fourth Sunday of Easter.  John and Jane Doe, longtime parishioners of Holy Trinity Parish, Anytown, USA, join the communion procession, approach Deacon James Jones and receive Communion.

REACTION #1:

Mrs. Smith approaches Deacon Jones after Mass.  “I’m scandalized, Deacon, that you gave Communion to those two!  You know as well as I do that they’re divorced and re-married outside the Church!  How dare you violate the Church’s law?”

REACTION #2:

After Mrs. Smith storms off, Dr. Baker heads over to the deacon. “What the hell is going on, Deacon?  Those two people haven’t received Communion in years.  Yes, I know they’re very active here, but they used to respect our church’s laws.  Now, this?  You know they’re divorced and all, Deacon, and you gave them Communion anyway!  The bishop’s going to hear about this.”

xelr0ija02tp7fwysm351br5fol_largeThe weekend after AL was presented to the world, a friend presented me just that scenario.  “What would happen if a divorced and remarried couple, who had refrained from receiving communion for many years, began receiving communion again?  That would be a terrible scandal, and the pope says we are to avoid scandal!”  What if John and Jane Doe’s story included the fact that they had gone to the pastor and, under his guidance, pastoral judgment and advice, in consideration of many factors known only to the two individuals involved, both John and Jane decide in conscience that each should return to the reception of Holy Communion?  This process of conscience formation, which as the pope reminds us, is not done with a view to sidestepping the law.  However, it is done with due consideration of unique aspects of their own past experiences and current responsibilities for their children and so on.  And, they each reach a decision point in conscience.  And, “according to it [each of them] will be judged. The conscience is a person’s most secret core and sanctuary, in which the person is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths.”

BOTTOM LINE: If a person winds up receiving Holy Communion unworthily, the responsibility for doing so rests with that individual, and no one else.  We do not force our own conscience on someone else.  “We are called to form consciences, not to replace them.”

So, consider a third possible reaction:

REACTION #3:

Mr. and Mrs. Williams approach the Deacon after Mass, beaming with joy.  “It was so wonderful to see Jane and John receiving Communion this morning!”

FOR REFLECTION

  1. How do we assist others in the formation of conscience?  Do we get to a point where we “let go” and let them arrive at their own decision in conscience?
  2. When we see someone acting in a particular way, do we presume that they are acting in good faith, or bad faith?  Notice in the first two reactions above: the presumption was being made that John and Jane were acting “in bad faith” and flaunting their “irregular” situation.  In reaction #3, however, the presumption was that they were acting “in good faith.”
  3. At what point do I have simply have to mind my own business concerning others?

Consider St. Paul’s advice to the Romans (14:1-14)(emphasis added):

Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.

We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
    and every tongue shall give praise to God.”

12 So then, each of us will be accountable to God.

13 Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

 

 

There is no “Christianity”: Thoughts on Extremism and Christianity

Got your attention?  Now let me explain.

Lenten purpleThe headlines surrounding a recently-released study scream:  “Increasing number of Americans consider Christianity ‘to be extremist'” followed by the quote: “The perception that the Christian faith is extreme,” says Barna Group, “is now firmly entrenched among the nation’s non-Christians.”  [Read the full article here.]  I am in the process of examining the study, so I will have more to say about it once I’ve finished.  However, there is one thing that I believe must be said at the outset: there is no “Christianity”.

Here’s what I mean.  Tragically, there is no singular, undivided, undifferentiated body of disciples known as Christianity.  There are almost as many forms of “Christianity” as there are Christians, so to speak of “Christianity” as a single corporate entity is simply inadequate.  Consider only a few examples.

We have long had distinctions between expressions of Christianity, East and West.  Such variety existed long before the formal break in 1054 AD.  On the positive side, Christianity has consistently acknowledged and accepted the simple fact that unity in faith does not necessarily equate to uniformity in practice.  The “one faith” can be expressed in a wide variety of ways!  Even today, the Catholic Church exists as a communion of some 27 ritual churches, of which the Latin (or Roman) Church is but one.  So, within Catholic Christianity can be found these diverse communities of faith all in communion with each other, even though they have different sacramental theologies and even different canon law.  So far, so good then: it is possible that “Christianity” lived in such a diverse way can be seen as a united faith.

Cuba Pope Patriarch (1) (2)On the negative side, however, since 1054, some of these Eastern churches (not all of them) broke with Rome and became what is referred to now as the Orthodox Churches.  While theology formed a part of the rationale between the split (consider the filioque debate, for example), the larger issues revolved around the authority of the See of Rome.  Only over the last 100 years or so have we seen some real progress in restoring full communion.  Then, of course, in the 16th Century we find Latin Christianity fracturing even more through the theological and ecclesial reforms demanded by Martin Luther, John Calvin and others.  Within the framework of evolving philosophical, theological, political and social trends, these disagreements quickly moved out of the university setting and into the streets, creating the chasms between Christians we still experience today, despite Christ’s prayer at the Last Supper, “that they all may be one, Father, as you and I are one.”

So, today, what IS “Christianity”?  Before one can make a claim about Christianity (such as the claim in the article that “Christianity is extremist”) it seems to me you must clearly define some terms, beginning with the question, “Which Christianity are you talking about?”  While all Christians can agree (possibly) on the nature and role of Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah of God,  and that all Christians see themselves as followers of this Christ, after that things get murky quickly.

world viewConsider a basic world view.  How do Christians view the world?  Some groups of Christians have a very positive view of God’s creation, frequently citing the words of Genesis in which God proclaims creation to be “good.”  Creation is, therefore, in this view, good by nature — with evil entering into the picture only later through the deliberate, free will choices of human beings.  Other groups of Christians have an opposite view of the world, seeing creation as inherently flawed.  Martin Luther, for example, frequently wrote things such as, “our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so.”

128756_imagnoConsider how inclusivist (“catholic”) or exclusivist various Christian groups can be.  One of my own saddest experiences in this regard occurred some years ago when I was still on active duty in the Navy.  A good friend was part of the Protestant chapel community on our base.  He was participating in the annual Holy Thursday reenactment of the Last Supper, put on by the Protestant chaplains.  I went over to help get the apostles into their beards and costumes and stuck around to watch it.  Shortly before leaving to go to the Catholic chapel for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, I watched the beginning of the communion service following the reenactment.  The senior Protestant chaplain stood and give directions to the assembly on how to come forward for communion.  Ministers of particular denominations would be on other side, and adherents of those denominations were to go to “their own” minister; a “general communion” was being offered down the main central aisle of the chapel, and those who were not in the other two churches could receive in the “general” line.  Naturally, of course, it struck me that I was about to head over to our own Mass, during which only Catholics could receive Communion.  It left me quite saddened to see — at the moment when you would think Christians could be MOST united — we were the most divided.

diversitySo, today, we have Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, Evangelical Christians, Pentecostal Christians, Non-Denominational Christians, along with other forms of Baptists, Lutherans, Reformed, and on and on and on.  Because of many reasons, such as the “world view” distinctions mentioned above, some of these Christians look for everything to be black and white, clearly distinguished.  Sin, for example, is sin.  Something is either sinful or it is not.  There is no gradation in sinfulness: telling a lie (regardless of situation or intent) is as grave as murder.  In this view, you are either with me totally and completely or you are against me totally and completely.  Other Christians seem to say that anything goes if it’s what you want.  You determine everything yourself about what you will choose to believe and so on.  Then there are Christians in the middle, who marry philosophy and theology, reason and faith.  Given this diversity then, we come to the question raised by the article: Are Christians extremists?

InterreligiousThat raises the need to define the other term of the argument: How do we define “extremist”?  In the list of statements included in the study, I found myself agreeing that some of them certainly reflected “extremism” as I understand it, while others do not.  However, ALL them made me think and to reflect, and that is always a good thing.

For example, statements such as “using religion to justify violence against others” and “refusing standard medical care for their children” or “refusing to serve someone because the other person’s lifestyle conflicts with their beliefs” certainly bespeak extremism in a negative sense.  Others, however, such as “demonstrating outside an organization they consider immoral” [would this include the civil rights marches of the 1960’s as well, I wonder?] or “attempting to convert others to their faith” [depending of course on the methods used!] do not.  Read the full study and see what YOU think.

So, is “Christianity” extremist?  What a terribly loaded question!  Depending on what a person thinks is “extremist”, coupled with the tragic differences among Christians ourselves, the only reasonable answer, it seems to me, lies in the middle:

“Some are, some aren’t.”

LENTEN REFLECTION: As a Lenten reflection, we can all ponder what forms extremism, especially religious extremism, can take.  Perhaps it is, like Benjamin Franklin used to say about treason, more easily discerned in others than in ourselves!  I offer this post not to start an argument over this particular study, or to offer some kind of societal critique.  I offer it simply as a point of departure for a Lenten reflection on how we live out in concrete terms the implications of our faith.

Getting Christmas in a Real World

Questions“Christmas — who cares?”

“It’s for the kids; I’m too old for that nonsense.”

“Christians are all hypocrites anyway.”

“I used to be a Catholic; then I grew up.”

“It’s all about the money: the malls, the churches: all the same.”

xmas-homeless-jesus-12-24-12-copy“I just get so depressed at Christmas.  I’ve lost the innocence of youth and there’s no connection to family any more — and this just makes it all worse.”

“With all of the violence and craziness in the world, why the hell should I get involved with all this make-believe?

As we enter another Christmas Season (and remember that for Christians, Christmas Day is just the beginning of a whole season of “Christmas”!), perhaps we should reflect a bit on why we even care about it.  “Christmas” as an event has just become, for so many people, a civic holiday, a commercial opportunity, and mere Seinfeldian “festivus”.  Let’s face it: for many people,  “Christmas” is simply something to be endured and survived.

Why do Christians care about Christmas?  What does it — what should it — mean?  Are Christians who celebrate Christmas simply naive children who won’t grow up?

immanuel1 (2)In my Advent reflection yesterday on the Hebrew expression “Emmanuel” (God-with-us) I stressed the intimacy of this relationship with God.  No matter how we may feel at any given moment, the God we have given our hearts to (which is actually the root meaning of “I believe”) is with us through it all — even when we can’t or don’t recognize it.  Think of a child in her room playing.  Does she realize that her father out in the kitchen is thinking about her, listening for sounds that may mean that she needs his help, pondering her future?  Does she realize that her mother at work in her office is also thinking about her, loving her, and making plans for her future?  The love of parents for children is constant and goes beyond simply those times when they are physically present to each other.

God is like that, too.  Sometimes we feel God’s presence around us, sometimes we don’t.  From our perspective it might seem like God has left us — but God hasn’t.  That’s the beauty of “Emmanuel” and the great insight of the Jewish people which we Christians have inherited: regardless of what I may think or feel at any given moment, “God is with us.”

Christmas celebrates that reality.  But there’s more to it than that.  God isn’t with us as some kind of superhero god with a deep voice and stirring sound track like a Cecil B. De Mille biblical epic.  God “thinks big and acts small” and comes to the world as a weak and helpless baby.  As Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote, “God is in the manger.”  We’ll have more to say about that in a moment.  But for now, consider the mistake that many people make.  As we get older and set aside childish ways, some people assume that since God is in the manger as a baby, that this makes Christmas simply something for children.  How wrong they are!  The great scripture scholar, the late Raymond Brown, emphasized this point in his landmark study, “An Adult Christ at Christmas.”  If you haven’t read it, I strongly recommend you do so: consider it a belated Christmas gift to yourself!

mary-joseph-jesus_thumb21The world into which Jesus was born was every bit as violent, abusive, and full of destructive intent as our own.  And yet, consider what Christians have maintained from the beginning.  God’s saving plan was not brought about through noble families, through the Jewish high priestly caste, or through the structures of the Roman empire.  It wasn’t engaged in Greek or Roman philosophies or religions.  Instead we find a young Jewish girl from an ordinary family, her slightly older betrothed (there is nothing in scripture that suggests that Joseph was an older man, so we might assume that he was in his late teens, not that much older than Mary), shepherds (who were largely considered outcasts in Jewish society), foreign astrologers avoiding the puppet Jewish king, and on and on.  What’s more, the savior of the world sent by God doesn’t show up on a white charger at the head of mighty army, but as a baby.

God enters the scene in all the wrong places and in all the wrong ways.  How will this “save” anyone?

God saves by so uniting himself with us (Emmanuel) that he takes on all of our struggles, joys, pains, and hopes.  The ancient hymn, quoted by that former and infamous persecutor of Christians, Saul-who-became-Paul, captures it well (Philippians 2: 5-11):

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

who, though he was in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
    taking the form of a slave,
    being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
    he humbled himself
    and became obedient to the point of death—
    even death on a cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him
    and gave him the name
    that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus
    every knee should bend,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue should confess
    that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.

What should all of this nice poetry mean to us?  Paul is explicit.  Writing from prison himself, he tells the Philippians: “Be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.”  This self-emptying is called kenosis in Greek, and the path of the Christian, following Christ, is first to empty ourselves if we hope later to rise with him.  

THIS IS THE VERY HEART OF CHRISTIANITY AND WHAT IT MEANS TO CALL OURSELVES DISCIPLES OF JESUS THE CHRIST: TO EMPTY OURSELVES IN IMITATION OF CHRIST.  IF WE’RE NOT DOING THAT WE DARE NOT CALL OURSELVES “CHRISTIANS”!

Many people have written about this in a variety of contexts.  Here are just a few random examples.

Empty yourself: “Suffering and death can express a love which gives itself and seeks nothing in return.”  John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, #93.

Empty yourself: “The gift to us of God’s ever faithful love must be answered by an authentic life of charity which the Holy Spirit pours into our hearts.  We too must give our gift fully; that is, we must divest ourselves of ourselves in that same kenosis of love.” Jean Corbon, The Wellspring of Worship, 107.

Empty yourself: “Kenosis moves beyond simply giving up power.  It is an active emptying, not simply the acceptance of powerlessness.” William Ditewig, The Exercise of Governance by Deacons: A Theological and Canonical Study.

Empty yourself:  “It is precisely in the kenosis of Christ (and nowhere else) that the inner majesty of God’s love appears, of God who ‘is love’ (1 John 4:8) and a ‘trinity.’  Hans Urs von Balthasar, Love Alone.

Empty yourself: “Satan fears the Trojan horse of an open human heart.” Johann Baptist Metz, Poverty of Spirit.

034077_29And so we return to Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  This well-known German Lutheran theologian, pastor, and concentration camp martyr embodies the wedding of of the meaning of Christmas with the real world in which we live.  He devoted his life to study, to writing, to opposing injustice — especially the Nazi regime in Germany, ultimately giving the ultimate witness to Christ.  Christians like Bonhoeffer, whose best-known work is called The Cost of Discipleship, are not dreamy, wide-eyed innocents who do not connect with the world.  In fact, their witness shows us just the opposite.  The true Christian is one who — following Christ — engages the world in all of its joys, hopes, pains and suffering.  It is with Bonhoeffer, then, that we enter into Christmas 2015, with his wonderful reflection:

Who among us will celebrate Christmas correctly?  Whoever finally lays down all power, all honor, all reputation, all vanity, all arrogance, all individualism beside the manger; whoever remains lowly and lets God alone be high; whoever looks at the child in the manger and sees the glory of God precisely in his lowliness.

Bonhoeffer Kenosis Meme

MAY WE ALL “GET” CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR!  HOW WILL WE EMPTY OURSELVES FOR OTHERS?

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

“O Oriens”: Light out of Darkness

From Vespers, 21 December, the Winter Solstice:

21 Dec O OriensO Morning Star,
splendor of eternal light and sun of justice:
Come, and enlighten those who dwell in darkness and the shadow of death.

It is no coincidence that today’s Antiphon occurs on the shortest day of the year, the Winter Solstice.  The “darkest” and shortest day, with the least sunlight of the entire year.  On this day, then, the Church remembers that Christ, the Morning Star extolled in the great Exultet on the Vigil of Easter, brings light back into the world.  The Latin root of the word “oriens” is “East”, the direction from which the sun “rises.”  This explains the various English translations attempting to capture that sense: “morning sun”, “dayspring”, “morning star,” “dawn” and so on.  The point is simple and based on Isaiah: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness— on them light has shined” (Is 9:2).

Pope Francis spends considerable time in Evangelii Gaudium speaking of the dangers facing “pastoral workers”: those clergy and laity who together attempt to serve the needs of others.  Among those challenges, he writes that “the biggest threat of all gradually takes shape: ‘the gray pragmatism of the daily life of the Church, in which all appears to proceed normally, while in reality faith is wearing down and degenerating into small mindedness.'” He is quoting then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger from a speech given at a gathering the Presidents of the Latin American Episcopal Commissions for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1996.  Pope Francis continues:

O Radiant DawnDisillusioned with reality, with the Church and with themselves, they experience a constant temptation to cling to a faint melancholy, lacking in hope, which seizes the heart like “the most precisous of the devil’s potions.”  Called to radiate light and communicate life, in the end they are caught up in things that generate only darkness and inner weariness, and slowly consume all zeal for the apostolate.  For all this, I repeat: Let us not allow ourselves to be robbed of the joy of evangelization. . . . One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, “sourpusses” (#83, 85).

Although these words are focused on pastoral workers, they certainly apply to all people.  In today’s world, it is easy to become overwhelmed and discouraged.  As the pope reminds us, though, as followers of Christ and proclaimers of the Gospel, we are “called to radiate light” and only in our relationship with Christ and the relationships which flow from that primal relationship, can we truly carry that light into the world.  Pope St. John Paul II told deacons and wives in an audience in 2000 that, when they were discouraged they should “throw yourselves into the arms of Christ, and he will refresh you.”  In these final days of Advent, no better advice can be given!

ADVENT REFLECTION

Are we ourselves discouraged and overwhelmed at this time of year?  As Christ the Morning Star enters the world, may we too be illumined and strengthened to bear that light to others.  No sourpusses allowed!  “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. . . .”: Are we, disciples of Christ and heralds of the Gospel, perpetuating the darkness, or sharing the Light?

AdventCandlesBokeh

“O Radix Jesse”: Foundations

O Radix Jesse:  O Root of Jesse, who stands as a sign for the people, and before whom rulers are silent while the nations pray: come to save us and do not delay!

19 Dec O Radix JesseThe “O Antiphon” for 19 December begins “O Radix Jesse.”  While some translations use the word, “flower” for the Latin “radix,” I prefer the more literal “root” because it signals clearly the Mystery being invoked in this prayer.  The point of this ancient antiphon is to identify the coming Messiah as the very root and foundation of creation and covenant.  Our connection to Christ and to the world is not a superficial grafting onto a minor branch of the family tree, but to the very root itself.  We are grounded, connected and vitally linked to Christ.

9215a16915766b401885d0c1e9eed53bAs ministers of the Church’s charity, justice and mercy, we deacons (this is, after all, a blog focused on the diaconate!) must lead in our concern for those who find themselves cut off from society and church and perhaps even cut off from that very Root of Jesse.  Pope Francis, in Evangelium Gaudium condemns anything which contributes to such isolation of human beings.  Even concerning economies, for example, he condemns any “economy of exclusion and inequality. How can it be that it is not a news item when as elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock mart loses two points?  This is a case of exclusion.  Can we continue to stand by when food is thrwon away while people are starving?  This is a case of inequality” (#53).  We are to be a people of INCLUSION AND EQUALITY, not exclusion and inequality.

Inclusivity and encounter continue to be themes of the papacy of Pope Francis.  In his homily opening the Holy Door for the Extraordinary Year of Mercy on 8 December, he reminded us that he selected the date deliberately to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council.  Read this remarkable conclusion to his homily:

569e5bc0785f40d589c170c2268bc2de

Today, here in Rome and in all the dioceses of the world, as we pass through the Holy Door, we also want to remember another door, which fifty years ago the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council opened to the world.  This anniversary cannot be remembered only for the legacy of the Council’s documents, which testify to a great advance in faith.  Before all else, the Council was an encounter.  A genuine encounter between the Church and the men and women of our time.  An encounter marked by the power of the Spirit, who impelled the Church to emerge from the shoals which for years had kept her self-enclosed so as to set out once again, with enthusiasm, on her missionary journey.  It was the resumption of a journey of encountering people where they live: in their cities and homes, in their workplaces.  Wherever there are people, the Church is called to reach out to them and to bring the joy of the Gospel, and the mercy and forgiveness of God.  After these decades, we again take up this missionary drive with the same power and enthusiasm.  The Jubilee challenges us to this openness, and demands that we not neglect the spirit which emerged from Vatican II, the spirit of the Samaritan, as Blessed Paul VI expressed it at the conclusion of the Council.  May our passing through the Holy Door today commit us to making our own the mercy of the Good Samaritan.

good-sam-biddleThe pope’s message is quite clear and, when considered as part of our Advent reflection on “O Root of Jesse”, particularly on point.  As Christians we thrive when we are grafted to the Messiah, the source of life.  Our mission of mercy is to serve to graft others to the Messiah as well.  Our faith is not merely expressed in a text — no matter how vital those texts are in themselves — but in the concrete encounter of one person with another.  The pope even dares to use an expression often mocked by certain Catholics, the “spirit which emerged from Vatican II” and equates that spirit with the spirit that drove the Samaritan, the Samaritan who is our model for the mercy of God.

ADVENT REFLECTION

In my own life and ministry, do I keep the fundamental truth of the “Root of Jesse” in mind?  Do I seek to find ways to include all persons equally in the life of the church?  What structures and attitudes exist which are exclusionary and unequal and need to be changed?  Do I live in “the spirit of the Samaritan?”

 

Islam: Unfinished Work of “Nostra Aetate”

popejewishfriendToday in Rome the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews released a new document exploring unresolved theological questions at the heart of Christian-Jewish dialogue.  According to Vatican Radio,

The new document, entitled “The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable”, marks the 50th anniversary of the ground-breaking declaration ‘Nostra Aetate’. It was presented at a press conference in the Vatican on Thursday, by Cardinal Kurt Koch, Fr Norbert Hofmann of the Vatican Commission, together with two Jewish representatives, Rabbi David Rosen, International Director of Interreligious Affairs for the American Jewish Committee, and Dr Ed Kessler, founding director of the Cambridge Woolf Institute.

intro-judaismIt has been a distinct privilege for me over the years to serve as a Hebrew linguist in a variety of contexts, and five years ago I was asked by the Center for Catholic-Jewish Studies to give a very brief reflection on “The Significance of Nostra Aetate” on the occasion of the 45th anniversary of its promulgation by the Second Vatican Council.  So what I am about to write should not be read in any way as a criticism of the great efforts that have been made over the past fifty years to celebrate the relationship of Jews and Catholics!  And, as the new document released today underscores, so much more remains to be done in this regard, and I fully embrace that effort.

But. . . .

Nostra Aetate is about much more than the relationship of Catholics and Jews.  In today’s world, we need to pick up the other threads of that marvelous document, including what it has to say about Islam.

I love the scripture that is the title of the new document: “The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable” is from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans 11:29.  Indeed, God has given many gifts and many calls, and Nostra Aetate focuses on those which have been given to those outside of Christianity.

nostraLet’s take a closer look at the document itself.  Much has been written about the genesis of the document, so there is no need to rehearse all of that here.  Suffice it to say that Nostra Aetate, in the final analysis, is not the work of one person, as influential as so many individuals were in its inception and development: John XXIII himself, Jules Isaac, Augustin Bea, to name just a few.

Rather, the document, after years of often heated debates, is the result of the collective work of the Catholic bishops of the world gathered together in solemn Council.  The people of those conciliar days, people of all faiths and of no faith at all, had lived through the horrors, violence, death and destruction of the first half of the 20th Century.  The scope of that violence had so expanded that old dividing lines began to disappear.  A bomb, after all, doesn’t discriminate when it explodes between ages, religions, military status, or wealth.  Following the lead of St. Pope John XXIII, the Council itself soon embraced the reality that its work was indeed for “all people of good will” and not simply for Catholics.

christ dachauThe reason that Pope John called the Council in the first place was so that all the bishops from around the world could together tackle the very real life and death issues that were affecting all people, not just Catholics.  This was not some simple superficial ceremonial event; it was, in fact, an attempt to make faith in God something transformative so that the world would never again find itself in the midst of the tragedies of the first half of the 20th century.  It is in this light, then, that the significance of Nostra Aetate must be seen.

It is a brief document of only five numbered paragraphs; only one of them, paragraph four, specifically addresses Judaism.  The other paragraphs, therefore, must be seen in their application to ALL “non-Christian religions.”  Paragraph #1 sets the stage:

1. In our time, when day by day humankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among all people, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what people have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

What are these shared elements among all people?

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.  One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all, until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.

People expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the human heart:  What is a human being? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what is sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

medicine-man-cheyene-healerSo far, then, the Council is focused on all people.  Now, in paragraph #2 the bishops turn to people who have found “a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.”  These comments apply to a wide variety of religious expression, from various Eastern forms to Native American and on and on.  Then they turn specifically to certain Eastern religions:

In Hinduism, people contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.

BuddhaBuddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which people, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.

Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

And here comes the money quote, the teaching that encapsulates the entire document, in my opinion:

“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.”

She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all people.

IslamParagraph #3 specifically addresses Islam:

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

kidAnd in language made even more poignant over the last generation, the bishops write:

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

Paragraph #4, as I mentioned above, treats Judaism.  I leave that paragraph aside for this posting NOT because I do not firmly believe in its profound significance but because I am trying in this instance to offer the broader context of Nostra Aetate, especially vis-a-vis Islam.  So we now turn to the concluding paragraph of the document, paragraph #5:

5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any person, created as he is in the image of God. Humanity’s relation to God the Father and the relationship of people to their brothers and sisters are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8).

Therefore, the bishops conclude with these words.  Please notice well that these words apply UNIVERSALLY and are not restricted to our relationship to Judaism alone.  Indeed these words apply to ALL OTHER RELIGIONS given the scope of this documents.  Do they inform us today in our dealings with the followers of Islam?islam-prayer

No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against anyone or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)

It is in this light, then, that we find Nostra Aetate so profound.  The statement that “the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy” could sound rather obvious to some readers today, but for those bishops, this was a realization formed out of the real agonies endured by so many within their own lifetimes.  They came to recognize that truth and holiness are not the province of any one church or faith, or form of government or economic system, and that it is only in recognizing this fundamental truth that healing and peace may be found.  In a world still reeling from successive wars and atrocities, the bishops found a greater appreciation of our shared scriptures, especially St. Paul’s famous insight that “God does not take back the gifts he bestowed or the choice he made” (NA 4; Rom 11:28-29).

Nearly all of the bishops who promulgated the document have now passed into eternal life, but we remain.  They brought their own life experiences, and the experiences of their people, into the Council aula, with the hope of transforming the world into a place where all could live in peace and justice.  That mission has not changed for us.  We too must bring our own experiences to bear on the life of the world that still suffers from poverty, war, discrimination, injustice, violence and death.  In what ways, concretely, can we search together for Truth and Holiness?  In what ways, concretely, can we work together – as sisters and brothers in a shared heritage – to end all hatred and persecution?  Just as the bishops then together hammered out a document, a mission, to lay before the world, we “in our own time” (NOSTRA AETATE) must do the same — not only with Islam as a religion but even those fringe elements who hate us and would destroy us.

St. Pope John XXIII is said to have remarked about Communism: “Communism is the enemy of the Church, but the Church has no enemies.”  That insight — that the Church has no enemies — can enlighten us no less today, especially during this Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy.