Well I am back in sunny Rome again. Although it is absolutely pouring down outside my window and has been for three days – on and off. It was good to be back home for Christmas and catch up with people, however, manic that might be. You basically have two weeks to cram in as many people as you can. I have to admit I was not quite myself for some of the holidays as I think it has finally come to crunch time as to whether I stay in seminary or not. I just don’t know if I can accept some pretty important proclamations of the Church regarding various moral issues. One of which is the Churches stance on homosexuality
It came to the fore when a relative visited briefly over Christmas (someone I had not seen for over five years). He is in a long term relationship and lives with his partner. He must have known I was training for the priesthood. Although I am probably mistaken in thinking this: I wondered if he thought I was against his way of life or if he had judged me according to the morals and values of the Catholic Church – who could blame him if he did, after all as a priest these are the teachings I am supposed to uphold.
To add to this, on the second weekend back we took part in a ‘Human Development’ programme concerning the issue of, ‘The Joy of Priesthood and the Celibate Commitment.’ In which a significant proportion of the time was given over to the sexual orientation of the seminarian. The Purpose of which was to make each of us examine our own sexuality and see where we fit on the spectrum of sexual preference. Needless to say this sparked up a huge debate, both in the session itself and also around college for several days.
I know where I stand on the issue of homosexuality, but given the recent interest I thought I would examine the Church’s reasons for saying, any physical expression of homosexual action is seen as being “intrinsically disordered, and in no case can be approved of…” It then goes on to say, “…special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that … (it) is a morally acceptable option. It is not”.[1]
Firstly the Churches position rests on scripture, the prime example being Leviticus 18:22; “You must not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination”. On the surface this seems a fairly obvious passage highlighting the intrinsic disorderdness of homosexuality, but that is the Catholic Churches interpretation. Within the Anglican Communion Bishop John Habgood (formerly Achbishop of York) says that; “When Leviticus was written, the real offence in the idea of ‘a man lying with a man’ was that it entailed a violation of male superiority. It was seen as shameful for a man to be treated as a substitute woman. In short, it was more about gender relationships than sexual orientation.” So basically it was the act of feminising a man that was considered wrong, not sexual orientation. I am not sure if this is a convincing argument in regard to this particular passage, although it does highlight the issue of whether or not there can only be one valid interpretation of scripture. The Catholic Church would say that there can be, namely itself. Scripture and Church tradition are irrevocably linked and scripture cannot be interpreted in such a way that contradicts the Churches living tradition.[2] Even if this is the correct interpretation, given all the advances made in the fields of psychology, sociology and genetics is this position still credible?
Which brings me onto the next reason why the Church says to be a homosexual is disordered – nature vs. nurture. According to Fr. N (who is in his final year of clinical psychology) and Fr. S. (who was my Scientific Psychology tutor in first year Philosophy), there is an intense debate raging, both within and outside of the Church as to whether or not homosexual orientation is a result of life choices, influences and upbringing, something within the genetic make up of an individual or a mixture of both. In fact studies are being undertaken on identical twins separated at birth in order to see how life style influences sexual orientation and development. Obviously if both twins have had different upbringings and are of the same sexual persuasion then genetics can arguably play a significant factor in determining ones sexual persuasion. If the twins are of differing sexual orientations then arguably it is the upbringing and societal influences. In a nut shell though this debate has not been clarified and I would doubt if it ever will be, and therefore, does not stop people putting forward arguments in favour of or against homosexuality.
The Church says it goes against the natural order of creation; “Human beings… are the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in… their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by mutual donation of the self to the other.”[3] If it is the case that homosexuality is not a genetic trait and is a result of nurture then the Church has a stronger basis on which to lay its claims, however, there is a vast body of evidence which points to the fact that animals also engage in homosexual activity. Can this be a result of environmental factors, or is it more likely to be contained within the genetic makeup of an individual or subgroup? This evidence still does not present a strong enough argument in favour or against homosexuality in human beings if one thinks we are more than a composition of genes aka more than the sum of our parts.
The Church obviously does and presents a third argument against homosexuality. This is contained within the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’. Stating that at a set point in time human beings turned away from God and thus every other subsequent human being would be born in a sinful imperfect state because of that initial turning away. The Church therefore, says that the homosexual condition is also a result of the fall of man and “this truth about persons being in the image of God has been obscured by original sin…” and “…the human body still retains its spousal significance but this is now clouded by sin.”[4] So even if it where down to nature this could and would not overturn the Churches view as it holds that our genetic make up is flawed anyway because of the actions of one or a group of human beings at a point in history. Know one would doubt that human beings can be generally bad, selfish, power hungry individuals or groups and could ultimately do allot better – so there is an element of truth in the doctrine of original sin, but to say it started because of the actions of one or some individuals, at an unspecified point is no more accurate than to say maybe it was part of Gods plan for creation that a proportion of human kind be homosexual or of varying degrees in a spectrum of sexuality. Plus even St Thomas Aquinas and the Church would conclude that our souls are inseparably linked with and therefore incomplete unless united with our bodies given the belief that all humanity will be reunited with their bodies in a glorified state at the end of time. So although I am more than the sum of my parts I am also irrevocably linked with them and they are more than a part of me they are me. How can asking homosexuals to deny or fix a part of themselves be right?
The Church asks homosexuals to be chaste and celibate forbidding them any physical expression of their sexuality unless they vanquish themselves from what it labels a ‘disorder’. The question you have got to ask yourself is, if taken in this way; how is the Gospel good news if you are gay? In my mind the simple answer is it is not. This question has obviously been point blank refused by the Church claiming that biblical authority has been denied, and also Church tradition. Homosexuals are called to ‘… take up their cross (and) …to sacrifice (their) own will in obedience to the will of the Lord…” either remain celibate or try to become heterosexual for the salvation of their souls which is an incredibly tall order if you are incapable of enjoying heterosexual activity.
If you believe in something strongly enough you can convince yourself that any position is correct. After all I doubt I would change my mind on the issue no matter how much I delved into the Churches position on sexual orientation and equally those who hold Homosexuality to be disordered.
In my view the church has no right to dictate how and for what purpose people should engage in sexual activity as long as it takes place between two rational and consenting adults. The primacy of sex should be love and not procreation – which has until relatively recently not been the Churches position (it changed its stance during Vatican II saying love was of the utmost importance and offspring are the fruit of that love).
Again John Habgood sums the argument up beautifully; “Perhaps the most important lesson to be learnt… is centred on the need to get the balance right between the hedonistic pleasures of sex, and the deepening and maturing of human relationships.” I ask anyone to show me the harm being caused if two adults of either sex choose to begin and nurture a loving relationship based on mutual respect and affection. Whether the partners love or try to love each other is more important than whether they are of the same or different sex.
[1] Ratzinger, 1986. Sec. 3. ‘Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.’
[2] Ratzinger 1986. sec. 5.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ratzinger 1986, sec. 6.
Sunday, 20 January 2008
Thursday, 6 December 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
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?!
“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?!
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
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.
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.
Monday, 25 June 2007
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.
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.
Monday, 28 May 2007
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?
Sunday, 13 May 2007
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)