Apostasy at Breakfast and the Irrevocability of Faith.

It is seven thirty in the morning. The community has just celebrated mass at six forty five. Some of us have been up since five thirty getting everything ready for the liturgy! So most of the students here are knackered and haven’t really woken up, some are non-communicative; others too communicative and/or jolly and others have very short fuses and say what they really think.

One student, M, asked if I had seen a video on Youtube, an interview with a catholic priest from the UK who had converted to Islam (I hadn’t). I could tell M wasn’t convinced by the priest’s story and was of the opinion that he had converted simply because the Muslims he had come into contact with were nice people. Obviously this is not a reason to convert and probably not the sole reason for his conversion. I then noticed another student, J, getting a little agitated and I asked what the matter was. He said;

“How can that guy become an apostate when as a priest he had all of the means of salvation at his finger tips?”

“Yeah he may be wrong,” (althoughI am not sure he was) I said, “but is it a sin if in all conscience you feel this is the truth and the best way of life for you?”

“Well you wouldn’t throw yourself onto a train track and say don’t worry I’ll be ok, or think that was a good decision.”

At this point in the conversation I could tell that J thought this priest was taking an extreme risk and possibly facing an eternity of damnation if he did not convert back to Catholicism. (I say the word possibly because Catholic teaching does state that only God knows the full content of people’s minds, there is the possibility to achieve salvation through grace if not in communion with the Catholic Church.)

There is nothing wrong with the way J replied to my question (although a tad extreme) as he was genuinely concerned about this ex-priest’s welfare and from his perspective, that of a seminarian in his final two years of formation and rightly so.

At this point we get philosophical.

There is a view contained within philosophy – relativism – which holds that all views about everything that has ever been, is, and will be are relative and there is no objective reality or truth (save from the view that everything is relative which is a bit of a contradiction). If this is the case then the ex-priest is perfectly justified in converting to Islam and there will be no consequences, but this is not the way it is with faith and religion. Many believers hold their faith to be irrevocable, which can be seen to be dangerous in for society, but fortunately in the majority of cases not so.

Anthony Kenny a retired philosopher from Oxford and ex-priest defines faith as something more than mere belief in God. He says;

“…it is an assent to a purported revelation of God, communicated through a sacred text or a religions community. It is faith in a creed, not mere belief in God…”

This makes a great deal of sense to me because it is just as rational to believe in a divine architect of the universe as it is to believe in no God, however, faith asks us to do more than that it asks us to believe in a set of dogmatic and doctrinal truths. Which in turn lead to religious disagreements and resulting in the worst case scenario violence.

Coming from this point of view it is obvious that any believer like J would automatically think that direct revelation received from God would trump anything science or philosophy can provide and would unequivocally hold this as objective truth. The problem here is not the belief based on faith as such, because the vast majority of people find that their faith helps rather than hinders them in leading good and fulfilling lives. The problem is to what degree do you commit to your faith and its revelation? Is faith only good if it is a positive influence on us and others? Surely yes! Any belief can be quite reasonable if held with the correct degree of caution and respect for alternatives.

It is becoming more and more apparent to me from both my studies and the people I have met during my time as a student, a teacher and now in Rome the more we try to ascribe characteristics to God the more confused we become. We operate inevitably with human intelligence and human minds. We use words such as ‘believe’, ‘think’ and ‘know’ to give God attributes and qualities, which we say can only be known through direct revelation. It is hardly surprising then, given this fact that we have as many religions as we do because who would not want to claim to have the full truth at their fingertips. We use our language to ascribe qualities to a being that exists outside of time and space, a being complex enough to create the entire universe. The problem is not that we cannot and do not know what goes on in the mind of God, the problem is that we cannot really ascribe a mind to God at all. As humans we can surely only operate within the parameters our bodies and minds will allow and when we try to speak of a being so different and other from ourselves these parameters come to pieces.

Holy Forskins!

It has become a bit of a custom now for a small group of us to go to the pub after lectures on a Friday (Usually one Swedish student – who works for Vatican Radio, one marinite seminarian, a monk from Australia, S a Canadian seminarian and myself). The conversation can get pretty bizarre and this was no exception!

“Have you heard that there used to be a relic that was believed to be Jesus’ foreskin in Charruox (France)? It was eventually moved to Rome Italy but mysteriously went missing in 1983. Yeah, they used to have a feast day ‘La Festa della Circumcisione’ (The Feast of the circumcision – in the masculine tense in Italian of course). They used to parade it around Rome in a glass case encrusted with jewels. But it was stolen in 1983 and has never been seen again” (One presumes they were after the case and not the contents).

Well I nearly spat my beer out!

There are some articles of faith that just defy comprehension. I have never been one for relics – I mean if we collected all of the pieces or wood which are supposedly part of the true cross it would be over one hundred feet tall.

Relics are one thing and some are held in higher esteem and more authentic than others. Besides, the Vatican never did encourage reverence to the Holy Foreskin and saw it s a bit of an embarrassment. Ultimately this seems unimportant and nothing more than an amusing story with a relatively small group of individuals choosing to ‘expose’ the sacred item once a year. This is not the way it is with all belief and I am beginning to realise why the Catholic Church is loosing touch with society.

Catholic tradition says that when something is declared dogmatic by the Pope and Bishops then it is unshakable and cannot be disputed i.e. is no longer open for discussion and must be believed. Take the Assumption of Our Lady for example. This is the Catholic and Orthodox belief that Mary, after completing her earthly life was taken up to heaven body and soul in a glorified state – the state that it is believed everyone will achieve on the final judgement and the end of creation. How the hell do they know this stuff – how can they be so sure that this is absolute truth and fact.

In ‘Munificentissimus deus’ written in 1950 (the Papal encyclical in order to end dispute about this event), Pope Pius XI bases the belief on the following:

· A series of tenuous links to scripture which never directly speak of the event but instead could be interpreted in several ways.
· The popularity of Mary in Catholic tradition – just because an idea is popular does not make it true.
· The fact that allot of prominent theologians over the years wanted it to be true and wrote some arguments for the Assumption (again because of the popular piety towards Mary).
· Other encyclicals written by other popes over the centuries.
· Oh and he also quotes himself once in order to prove the point.

I am not saying this is definitely not true but merely raising the issue that it is open to a reasonable doubt and surely should fall into the category of subjective truth rather than objective and unconditional. This is not how Pope Pius XI saw it. The closing part of the encyclical says that…
“It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” (Munficentissimus Deus para.47 )
It is one thing to say you can’t really call yourself a Catholic if you don’t believe in a given dogma or doctrine but to say you will ‘incur the wrath of God’ upon yourself, that is an amazingly bold and arrogant statement.

All things considered the majority of people would see this particular belief as relatively inconsequential for society or the individual , however, I must add that wars have been fought over issues like this one. It is when you start making pronouncements and statements of belief which have a direct impact upon people’s lives which are no longer open to discussion or debate (take Humanae Vitea, the encyclical which says many good things about the dignity of the human person but also bans the use of artificial methods of contraception) then you have a problem. Does any one person or relatively small body of people have the right to dictate what people should believe and more importantly how people should behave and live in the most intimate and private parts of their lives, especially when their intentions are good and loving.

As I have said before does any one body of people have the monopoly on God and the divine? Can anyone be so sure that they have the fullness of truth and that alternative views are wrong? Does anyone ideology or religion for that matter have the complete truth or are they all just fumbling around in the dark and whilst having excellent elements, also carrying with them unnecessary, irrelevant and even ridiculous baggage like the diamond encrusted forskin?!

What a Load of ... Mysticism.

Well another year in Rome, after a really long summer break. It was great to be back home staying with my family and catching up with friends – the summer flew by. I knew though that when I went home I would be asked about seminary, how I was getting on, whether I was still enjoying it and would I be going back etc. Now and again over the summer I would get into a deep and meaningful conversation about faith and belief and various peoples takes on it.

One such conversation took place in York, when I had just finished my parish placement and arrived at a friend’s house to celebrate a birthday. I was quite shocked because it happened, more or less; as soon as I walked through the door and was lugging my suitcase up the stairs (also my friend was scrubbing her bathroom toilet at the time whilst discussing theology so it was a little surreal to say the least). The one thing in the conversation which stands out was that we got onto the topic of belief in Jesus as the Son of God and in a nutshell my friend said that many Christians she new thought you had to believe in Jesus to go to heaven and receive eternal life. Which I am not sure I agree with because if in all conscience you cannot bring yourself to believe this how can God punish you? After all you can’t force yourself to believe and basically it comes down to faith. What is more this would make a pretty mean God. Imagine the scenario, you had led an exemplary life (more so than many Christians) worked for the good of others your whole existence, never put yourself first and you arrive at the pearly gates only to be told that you did not believe in me so sorry but you are going to have to go to hell.

From this conversation and other similar ones it has occurred to me that so much of religion – as we have it in the great religions of the world – is routed in mysticism and myth. You must believe in this miracle or that myth if you want to gain the fullness of truth and achieve eternal salvation. Lets face it many of these defy the laws of nature and are not very rational at all.

In saying this I am not trying to belittle the beliefs that billions of people across the world hold to be true. It is obvious that they bring great comfort and meaning to their lives, that was made strikingly clear from my parish placement. To take the Richard Dawkins line and say that people would be better off if they didn’t believe in God and adhere to a religion is ridiculous and wrong for those countless billions of genuinely nice individuals who hold a belief. Surely even militant atheists would have to acknowledge that the vast majority of religious people are nice. John Humphrys in his book, “In God we Doubt”, makes this point beautifully by commenting that the French atheist philosopher, Michel Onfray, said of one Muslim he was travelling to the Mauritanian desert with:

“A man of near saintly ways – considerate, tactful, willing to share, ever mindful of others, gentle and calm, at peace with himself, with others and with the world…”

I guess what I am trying to say is does it really matter what you believe or don’t as long as it works for you and makes you a better person? If God is everything that all of theology and every one of the great religions claim s/he/it is. All powerful, all knowing, infinitely good, loving and without error. ‘That than which nothing greater can be thought’, to coin a phrase from St Anselm. Basically the kind of person you would want to take home to meet your parents. Then how can that same God punish you for not adhering to or being able to accept the correct set of beliefs because if that was the case s/he/it would not be infinitely good and I have just thought of something greater.

Pizza, Cigars and lunch with Tony.

One year down – I can’t quite believe it! Exams are over and I have nothing to do in order to justify my existence, except have a good long rest. Mind you it has not been very restful yet.

It started out a pretty run of the mill week. I had two exams; one Monday and my last one on Tuesday. After which I fully intended to make best use of my time by doing absolutely nothing save have a few beers in the evenings and maybe go out for some nice meals. Plus try to reflect on the year gone by.

During the first few days after the examination period I accomplished this perfectly. Eating pizza and drinking beer in the court yard of The Angelicum (university) and then moving onto the ‘Ice Bar’ (yes it is a bar made entirely from ice and is minus 5 degrees!). The next day I met up with two friends for lunch in Piazza Navona and proceeded to smoke the largest Cubin cigar I had ever seen and that is basically how my week went drinking, eating, reading and siesta(ing). But there was a rumour circulating around the college that Tony Blair would be visiting us for lunch with representative from charitable organisations and a few cardinals.

What might you ask has my eating and drinking got to do with Tony Blair’s visit to Rome – well. On the evening before Tony came I was in an Indian restaurant with another seminarian and we began chatting about the usual things seminarians do; college politics, Tony Blair’s visit and then church issues. Obviously as you probably have guessed by now some of my views come into conflict with the majority of the college community and indeed Catholic teaching – take the ordination of women for example(which is what we happened to be discussing). I attempted to justify my opinion and visa versa…

On the day of the P.M’s visit the college community was getting quite excited. Reporters began to assemble on Via Monseratto (the street just outside my window) as did allot of Italian police – who performed their duties with the usual tact and diplomacy by breaking into cars and getting them towed away if they were obstructing the P.M’s entourage (God knows where to). The cars then drove down the narrow street with armed security walking in front of them and several motorcyclist officers behind. We had time for some drinks in the garden and then we sat down for the main meal.

It has to be said the college does put on excellent spreads when it is a special occasion. I quickly consulted the seating plan and then took my place. There were six of us on our table two students and myself, the rector of the Scottish college, Tony Blair’s p.a. and the Cardinal for the CDF (Catholic Doctrine of the Faith). This had formerly been called ‘The Inquisition’ in a previous existence and is basically responsible for seeing that all Catholic clergy uphold Church teaching. I thought to myself I bet he is interesting to talk too. So we all said grace and then sat down and introduced ourselves…

After which the Cardinal said, “Where you at Jaipur Indian restaurant last night?”

“Yes” I said.

“I thought I recognised you. You were having a very interesting conversation with another student. Some of which I didn’t agree with mind you.”

“Oh.”

“Yeah, you were saying you thought women have the right to be ordained and you can’t see any justifiable reason why they shouldn’t be.”

“Oh yes.”

I mean if you are going to say something that could be classed as heretical why not get overheard by the head of the CDF (who obviously is partial to a curry).

We didn’t really get into much of a discussion or debate but had a bit of a chuckle about it. After which it occurred to me that maybe I should have asked why the Church does not allow the ordination of women I mean who better to ask – but I guess this was not the time or place.

It has been two days since that meal and chance encounter and my head is reeling with various church teaching that I really struggle with and some which I will never be able to accept. I wonder, if I make it to ordination will I be able to uphold the churches teaching or will I even want too over some issues? Well I have two and a half months to think about it and one spiritual direction session left before the summer.

Meaningful Shades of Grey.

I am always struck by the difference between life and the daily routine in seminary and that of a parish priest. On the one hand you have the ‘crème de la crème’ of the Catholic hierarchy with its baroque churches round every corner and huge towering basilica’s. People can become acculturated and even institutionalised, rarely looking beyond the Catholic Church as it exists here in Rome. This is particularly true if you live within a seminary where you eat, sleep and breathe Catholicism. On the other hand the trick is never to allow yourself to loose sight of who you will be ministering too when you return to England, individuals who don’t live in a Catholic world, who live very ordinary, but infinitely complex and important lives. This is something I had lost sight of over the past few months. I thought too myself, if this is all Catholicism is – pomp and splendour, but ultimately hollow – ‘smells and bells’ Catholicism concerned with how good a service this is or what hymns are appropriate, then I don’t want any part of it! But whenever I get a visit from G this vision of, (I am right and everyone else is wrong so there) Catholicism soon disappears.I had not seen or spoken to my V.D. for quite some time (I meant Vocations Director, what else could it possibly be!). He came out to visit the college as we are getting two new seminarians from our diocese (we have 3 new candidates starting in September – two here and one at Ushaw College - positively unheard of!). He also came out with a recently ordained priest who had studied in Rome and had a somewhat infamous reputation of not getting involved in community life but doing his own thing and not being afraid to point out the obvious flaws within the seminary.It never ceases to amaze me that whenever I meet G (the vocations director). He has a way of giving me a great boost of enthusiasm for what I am embarking upon. He really brings home to me what priesthood is about, or what I believe it should be about. We usually chat about how I am finding things, any problems, what he has been doing over the last few months and his interactions with the parishioners, plus the latest developments in our diocese.G does not portray the image of priesthood that many parishioners or priests for that matter would expect. He is a part time radio D.J. for one – which seems to raise a few eyebrows amongst the clergy. I also think that he is somewhat similar to me in that he struggles a great deal with some of the Churches teaching and sees many of the laws as being open to change.He was telling me about a friend of his, who is also a parishioner, who was going through the ordeal of deciding whether or not to have an abortion – he did not go into the reasons why (and rightly so). He explained how he had accompanied her to the abortion clinic just to be there to support her in whatever decision she eventually made. Now obviously abortion goes against Catholic teaching, but in that brief conversation you could see that he had genuine concern for his friend and did not put him self in the position of judging her. I wonder what the response of other clergy would be – hopefully the same. We then started to discuss a priest who had recently left active ministry and eventually the priesthood in order to live in Spain with his partner. Obviously the clergy of that particular diocese had strong opinions on the matter and when G was asked what he thought he simply said as long s he is happy that’s fine because he must have gone through a tremendous struggle. G was telling me these stories because he could see how much I had been struggling with particular teachings of the Church.I guess you have ultimately got to ask yourself, in your ministry as a priest, do you see things in black and white and follow the Church teaching in everything you do, or do you look at the world in meaningful shades of grey, examining every individual case or situation differently and looking beyond the teachings of the Church? Do you put Church teaching first or make the welfare of the person your ultimate concern? I think it would be a pretty sad state of affairs if every priest saw black and white and did not acknowledge the complexity or the human condition and world we live in. I am glad there are priests who see things differently and that is something I had lost sight of for a moment. I guess if you can’t reconcile a decision or teaching in all conscience and you have the best of intentions at heart then what more basis do you need for justifying your opinion or actions?

The Last Word.

As you can probably guess I am a bit of a pluralist when it comes to religious belief – or at least more so than many, if not all of my fellow seminarians. As time here has progressed I have been more and more shocked by the attitude of some students and student priests towards other Christian denominations and religions. I couldn’t believe some of the comments, especially from one student priest in the house. He is usually a genuinely nice person, but when you get him talking about Islam, he morphs into someone completely different. It begs the question, how many of the students here have actually sat down and had a chat with a Muslim or person of any other religion?

I took these concerns to my spiritual director (a fellow Geordie). Who unequivocally said that there is no place in the Catholic faith for religious intolerance of any kind. He then proceeded to point me towards some Vatican documents, one from the Second Vatican Council, ‘Nostra Aetate’, concerning the Church’s relationship and regard for non-Christian religions and ‘Dominus Iesus’ an encyclical launched in response to pluralist and relativistic attitudes, stating that the Church has the fullness of salvation in Jesus and anything else is deficient.

It goes without saying that every religion believes it has the fullness of truth and I don’t think anyone would argue with that. . ‘Nostra Aetate’ seemed to be very open to the possibility of dialogue and spoke of the inherent goodness in all religion, but, once I began to read ‘Dominus Iesus’ I felt the Church had taken a step backwards and become very arrogant. I was shocked by some of the content. One of the statements in particular caught my attention; “Religions other than Christianity are considered to be "gravely deficient." Their rituals can constitute "an obstacle to salvation" for their followers.” It also spoke of religious dialogue being important for the purpose of evangelisation;

“The Church has been willed by God and instituted by Christ to be, in the fullness of time, the sign and instrument of the divine plan of salvation. . . . Against this background it becomes easier to see why and in what sense inter-religious dialogue is an integral element of the Church's evangelizing mission.”

Now this to me seems to come across as incredibly arrogant and egocentric. The Church is, in effect, putting down other religions and saying that they are not as important as it is. The document even goes so far as to say that; "Churches such as the Church of England, where the apostolic succession of bishops from the time of St. Peter is disputed by Rome, and churches without bishops, are not considered 'proper' churches." They suffer from "defects."
Now undoubtedly statements like this sparked a great deal of reaction form the Church of England and representatives of other faith communities. The World Council of Churches stated that; “This document not only damages unity, but could be in danger of stopping relations altogether.”

Vikram Masson (A Hindu) is a co-chairperson of Navya Shastra wrote in response to the document that:

"Ratzinger has described Hindu meditative practices as 'auto-erotic' and has stated that the Hindu doctrine of karma is 'morally cruel.' Clearly he is misinformed about the central practices and tenets which bind the world's 800 million Hindus."

The news release continued: "At a time when religions must work together to spiritually regenerate an increasingly secular planet, such doctrinal narrowness and lack of understanding of other traditions will only serve a divisive function."

There were many more angry responses to the document, each one essentially stating that the Catholic Church is unequivocally wrong and inward looking.

I don’t know what to think on this matter. When reading the responses of the other religions and Christian denominations to this document, it was like reading a political manifesto from an opposition party belittling the party in power. None of them simply said the Catholic Church is entitled to its views but I don’t agree with them because of x, y and z. People seem to have such clear ideas on what God is; father figure, personality watching over them, distant, close etc. Many religions are fighting for their right to monopolise God and place him in a nice tidy package. Surely it doesn’t matter what you believe - be that ‘traditional’ spirituality or not - as long as it works for you and leads you to compassion. To take a quote from Karen Armstrong (an ex-nun and religious writer) “Nobody has the last word on God.”

Speechless!

No one likes being told what they can and can’t do.

The longer I stay here the more I become aware of the goodness in the Catholic faith but also the number of, quite frankly, unbelievable teachings.

I was in the student common room watching the Man United vs. Milano match two nights ago when I got into a conversation with another student. The normal things; Are you going anywhere nice for the free weekend? The villa, oh I bet it’s lovely there now… Then we began talking about what he had been learning in lectures that morning. "The Sacrament of Matrimony," he said, "and what bars people from marriage." At first I thought that would be useful especially when talking to couples about the commitment they were going to make. He mentioned the things you would expect; polygamy, blood relations, being forced into it, if one of the partners was not baptised (but you can get permission from the Vatican if that is the case), not sure if I agree with that one but ok… Then I couldn’t believe what came next! If the male in the couple is impotent you cannot have a Catholic wedding and there is no chance of a reprieve. I was speechless.

Could you imagine the scene? The young couple are sat in the presbytery and the priest is reeling through the Churches teaching on marriage, going through the list of do’s and don’ts, when, all of a sudden, a priest you have probably only met in passing by the church door on a Sunday (and that’s if you are regular church goers in the first place, which lets be real - probably not) says, “…so impotency is a bar to marriage, are you impotent?” Oh the embarrassment, for all parties concerned. Granted I am sure it would be dealt with much more tactfully than that – the couple would probably be given a leaflet or it would not even be mentioned!

Add to this the fact that the guy was actually impotent for whatever reason. To give an extreme case he could have been in an accident and be paralysed form the waist down or born that way. You would deny a Catholic couple the Sacrament of Marriage because he can’t get it up! So not only would he feel awful anyway for obvious reasons but he is destined to spend the rest of his life as a bachelor because of something beyond his control. Now forgive me if I am wrong but this sounds very unchristian to me. Obviously the couple could go ahead and get married in a civil ceremony or within any other of the major religious traditions for that matter – I’ve checked, however, they may be incredibly devout Catholics.

I also decided to read the Churches teaching on this one for myself. There is no mention of it in the Catechism, but it is in the statutes of Cannon Law. Which basically says if you are incapable of having sex for the procreation of children what is the point of getting married? Well there you go! Don’t mention love, commitment, happiness, giving of oneself completely to another, not to mention adoption, sperm donation, artificial insemination, treatment for the impotency and other viable alternatives – if you can’t get it up what’s the point!! I am still speechless.

Let it be.

I have just arrived back from the UK yesterday. It was great to be back – although I am more tired now than when I left. I have been singing at a club, been best man at a friend’s wedding and generally tried to see as many people as possible before my return, whilst consuming in a week more than ten times the amount of alcohol I consumed over the entire period of lent!

I was over the moon to see one of my closest friends get married. Although I don’t know who was more nervous, him getting married or me for having to give a speech. I think it went down well. It was definitely much more reserved than it could have been and even got a few laughs! I love catching up with people, some of whom I had not seen for years.

I have to admit that I didn’t feel myself for the first few days. I was looking at A getting married, smiling for most of the day (with the exception of when he had to deal with the manager, who couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery!) and fully ready to spend the rest of his life with S (who was equally as happy). I meant to say in the speech, ‘I had never seen A as happy and contented as he is now…’ (Although I think I missed that out by mistake). I found myself spending most of the after dinner jig looking around at all of the happy couples and thinking about the Church of England vicar who had married A and S, wondering how come nearly every other Christian minister has the option of marrying and raising a family?

When you put yourself forward for Catholic Priesthood it goes without saying that you sacrifice a lot. You get the obligatory questions about celibacy, “So what do you think about celibacy? Could you live a celibate life?” I think I had that one from six different people, each time I gave the same answer. Something along the lines of, “It is a different way of loving, you love people simply because they are and without any expectations.” Also I said the usual catalogue response of, “Celibacy is an outward sign of an inward commitment to Christ.” I think the first one makes more sense.

Caring for people just because they are people can be done by anyone; surely the skill is, whether married, in a relationship or single to care about others no matter how you find them. People can be grumpy, lazy, manipulative, rude, full of pride, judgemental, self-righteous, stubborn, cruel, uninterested, uninteresting, need I go on?! The trick is to separate the action/intention from the person and still be nice to them no matter what they might have done – nigh on impossible I know!

Like I have mentioned before we can speculate is this truth (in this case celibacy) or that truth the best way for me to find God? When really I am sure God is fed up of all the speculation, and as long as you try to grow and become a better human being whatever your circumstances in life, then I am convinced God is not bothered about small details. Maybe it is just better to stop speculating and wallowing in your own self-righteous view on the meaning of life and let life be.

Extreme.

The transition from life in England to life in Rome, although it has been easier than I would have imagined, has revealed to me many different view points on religion, some for better and some for worse.

In England there is a phenomenon which I like to call ‘extreme secularism’. I became very aware of it as an RE teacher, before coming to seminary. It is a complete closing of the mind to all things spiritual and even a view of religion as a relic of the past that can be of no relevance to our lives in the 22nd century. It can be seen through the parent who asks, ‘why does their child learn RE’? or says, ‘s/he was hoping to drop RE to focus on something else.’ They do not see the relevance or value of RE set within the context of our increasingly pluralistic society or the fact that the world is effectively shrinking in the sense that we are becoming a ‘global village’ evermore aware of the conflicts caused by extremism of one kind or another.

People can be so convinced that their ideology or way of thinking is correct that, in the worst case scenario they are willing to harm or take human life in the name of their beliefs, or in another, perhaps more reflective scenario, they may look down their noses at people who have differing views from them. Fortunately this does not seem to be the case with the vast majority of people I know. Most are indifferent to what religion people belong to, but judge them by their actions and nature – if you are basically a nice genuine person then what does it matter.

The more time I spend at seminary and become increasingly aware of diversity of belief through philosophy and the alternative spiritual literature I am reading, the more I am becoming aware that it does not really mater what you believe but how your beliefs (whether they be religious or secular) inform the way you live and treat others. Maybe religious indifference is the best way to be? It is certainly better than extremism or intolerance of other view points. Something that explains this much better than I can is a poem I used to have on my classroom wall:

“So many paths and so many creeds,
and so many roads that wind and wind.

When just the art of being kind,
is that this world needs.” (Anonymous)

Genuine.

March 5th 2007:
I went for a run today with Fr. B (A ridiculously fit individual, Who I am sure could put me to shame, but always keeps to my pace and is to polite to speed up). Usually our runs take the form of tourist trails and interesting facts about the buildings we pass. Today though after the brief stop and chat with the Cardinal for Catholic Education (unbelievable who you can meet in Rome), I gained a glimpse of some things that were important to Fr. B. He spoke about the commitment you can either make to married life or celibate priesthood, seminary formation, vocation and philosophy – nearly every topic you could envisage a seminarian and priest discussing!

I got a glimpse of his genuine faith and belief in the person and message of Jesus Christ. He spoke of Jesus having the capacity to change lives. He spoke of the fact that Catholicism in the past fell short of preaching this message, save some genuine individuals who put Jesus at the centre of their lives and that there are some people within the church today in positions of office that do not really believe or realise the great gift the church has, but are more concerned with the institution and ritual.

When you get to the heart of any religion I am convinced that it can change lives by altering an individual's outlook and giving meaning, peace and purpose. As I said before isn’t that what religion should be about? I am sure if all religious people thought like him and had reflected upon their beliefs and faith as much as he has we would not have religious intolerance but confidence.

Signposts.

I received a really good book from a friend over Christmas called, ‘The Song of the Bird’ by Antony de Mello. It is a collection of short stories and poems with hidden meanings. One that has particularly struck a cord with me is ‘The Devil and his Friend.’

‘The devil once went for a walk with his friend. They saw a man stoop down and pick something up from the ground.

“What did that man find?” asked the friend.

“A piece of truth,” said the devil.

“Doesn’t that disturb you?” asked the friend.

“No,” said the devil. “I shall let him make a belief out of it.”

(The Song of the Bird by Antony de Mello)

Each religion/philosophy would argue that they have the fullness of truth. They guard it, hold onto it and cherish it, with each one claiming to be doing what is pleasing to God. Many are not willing to budge over certain issues and some even resort to violence to justify their views.

What if these beliefs are only elements of the truth and reality? What if they are meant to evolve and change? Should we allow them to grow and mature? Is a truth worth holding onto if it is only partial truth and if from that truth come other beliefs that are of human creation and not divine?

Strange beginnings.

This is a bit of a strange time for me to start this blogg, especially given its title. I am more confused about my faith than I have ever been before. I still believe in God or the Divine, but I am not sure if it is as simple as integrating yourself to the beliefs of the Catholic Church or indeed if Catholicism is the fullest expression of God and truth, which it claims to be.

It’s fairly obvious – at least from my British, western perspective - that the major faith traditions are not addressing the needs of the world. Churches are empty and the numbers of vocations across all Christian denominations are dwindling. I would argue that the majority of people in the UK view religions with disinterest and a significant minority as a product of the past. In my view religion is a very simple thing, it is people that make it complicated. One quote form Leo Tolstoy sums it up beautifully:

The principles are very simple, comprehensible and uncomplicated. They are as follows: that there is a God who is the origin of everything; that there is an element of this divine origin in every person, which he can diminish or increase through his way of living; that in order for someone to increase this source he must suppress his passions and increase the love within himself; that the practical means of achieving this consist in doing to others as you would wish then to do to you. All these principles are common to Brahmanism(Hinduism), Hebraism(Judaism), Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity and Mohammedanism(Islam) and Sikhism. (If Buddhism does not provide a definition of God, it nevertheless recognises that with which man unites and merges as he reaches Nirvana. And that something is the same origin which the other religions recognise as God.)Leo Tolstoy 1879.

Put in this way religion and spirituality should inform how you live your life and treat others, ultimately making us less egotistical. The rituals and doctrines should surely be of secondary importance. I am convinced that there is a great deal of unnecessary dogma and doctrine within every religion. If I could sum up in one word what each religion should teach us it would be compassion. The nature of reality, God and the universe and ultimate questions like these can take care of themselves.

The Buddha always refused to talk about Nirvana and simply said, “Will the knowledge of Nirvana make you a better person?” In fact he saw it as a danger in that it would inflate the ego and form in the disciple an unhealthy state of mind and desire (doing good deeds for rewards and not because they are good in themselves). Could religion practiced incorrectly actually inflate the ego and create self righteous people? That was definitely the case in September 11th.