I read with great interest that Pope Francis spoke recently about the relationship of Christianity with atheists, stating (in a nutshell) that atheists could certainly be saved. How? By their good works.
Did this surprise me? No. It is what I have always been taught.
Did it surprise a lot of people? Yes.
If you think about it Biblically, though, it is logical. Read the story of the Good Samaritan, if you don't believe me. Jesus was basically giving a smack-down to all the self-righteous "religious" people.
A lot of atheists, though, appeared to be offended by the Pope's remarks. Perhaps it felt to them as though the Catholic Church was commenting on their beliefs and lives in a manner that was both uninvited and unwanted. I can understand this. It's probably sort of like when I heard that Mormons baptize people without said people being present and without the consent of those people. I wouldn't want that. And maybe the atheists resent us Catholics trying to "save" them. Maybe they view it as an insult to their own intelligence, free-will, and world-view.
There may be another thing going on here, though. And it is something that should cause us Catholics and other types of Christians to do some reflecting. Are we behaving in such a way so as to cause atheists to say, "Why in the name of God, who I don't believe in anyway, would I want to spend an eternity in a place locked up with you prideful, judgmental, mean-spirited, unaccepting people?" They are probably imagining themselves stuck at a banquet table, eternally flanked by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Rick Perry. Not something that is especially appealing to me, either. Maybe we should ask ourselves if we are building bridges to God, and not obstacles (another thing Pope Francis spoke about recently). Are we really practicing the attitudes of meekness, gentleness, and loving-kindness that should be expected of Christians of all stripes? Or are we being like the proverbial clanging gongs and clashing cymbals?
There is a wonderful older priest at our parish who told the following story:
He said that, many years ago, he was approached by a young man. This young man was a Communist and an atheist. The priest said that he asked to see the Communist Party card that the young man was carrying, as he had never seen one before and it interested him. He spoke to the young man a bit and found out that he had been raised in a very "fire and brimstone" preaching household. The young man was raised with the idea of a God who is very harsh, very cold, very unaccepting -- ready, waiting, and almost eager to cast people into hell. The priest listened to the young man's story and then replied, "If that is what I thought God was supposed to be like, I wouldn't believe in Him, either."
A story worth reflecting on, eh?
Now, did the young man in this story get all converted and everything? No. And that is not even what that priest was after. All he was trying to do was convey to this young person the merciful face of God, as we Christians are supposed to see Him. After all, the women loved Jesus. THEY LOVED HIM. And that tells you something about the guy. Think about that, Governor Perry.
Showing posts with label Catholics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholics. Show all posts
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Bridget, Ben, and Fred...
...Fred Nietzsche, that is.
As you may or may not know, last week was the Season 5 finale of "SouthLAnd." In an interview he did before it aired, Ben McKenzie discusses his character (Ben Sherman). He says, if I recall correctly, that Officer Sherman has come to see himself as the arbiter of good and evil.
My daughter Bridget -- student of philosophy -- upon thinking about this, created a meme which she sent to Mr. McKenzie via Twitter. This meme involved a photo of the book "Beyond Good And Evil -- Prelude To A Philosophy Of The Future" by Friedrich Nietzsche. The meme also included the words, "Ben Sherman's Slippery Slope." She sent this meme to Mr. McKenzie accompanied by Mr. Nietzsche's statement, "He who fights with monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
I guess this pleased Mr. McKenzie because he Retweeted it.
And that got me to reflecting on political relationships in our country.
Bridget is, in a nutshell, a traditional Catholic. Ben McKenzie appears to be, in a nutshell, a progressive. Yet, they seem to agree that proclaiming oneself to be the "arbiter of good and evil" is a bad idea.
This got me to thinking about conservatives and progressives, in general, and how they view each other. And how they might be misunderstanding one another. And how -- even though there are issues on which they will probably never agree -- they might be able to stop fearing each other. Because I do see a lot of fear, of the progressives by the conservatives, and of the conservatives by the progressives. And it makes me sad. How can we, after all, move forward as a country if we fear each others "agendas?"
This is where the Ben and Bridget thing can, perhaps, help us gain a better understanding of one another.
The conservatives I have spent time with (most of whom are traditional Catholics and other varieties of Christians) feel that the progressives are making themselves the arbiters of good and evil -- especially on the issues of abortion and gay rights. Most religious conservatives see God as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil and react negatively to the progressive view, which they see as human beings trying to take the place of God. Many of them see the progressive view as erring in the same way that Adam and Eve erred in the Garden of Eden -- pridefully believing that they could decide right and wrong for themselves, disdaining the Lord's ultimate authority in this area.
The more progressive people I have spent time with, though, have expressed to me the following idea: They feel that the conservatives/Christians/Catholics are making THEMSELVES the ultimate arbiters of good and evil by trying to impose their belief system on the rest of society. They get a little freaked out when they hear the Pope or the Bishops or other religious people telling them what they should believe and do based on (what appears to them) to be their personal religious opinions. These progressives -- especially secular ones, but even some religious ones that I have known -- believe that there needs to be adequate space for non-religious people to make their own moral choices, without being pressured by either religious authority or religious individuals.
So, to me, this is how people of seemingly very different worldviews can hold a common idea -- in this case, the idea that it is not wise for an individual to view himself as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil -- but how they can view that idea from different perspectives. And if these different people can come to understand one another better, then maybe we can converse with each other instead of fearing each other.
Maybe Bridget, Ben, and Fred have shown us a little bit of the way forward.
As you may or may not know, last week was the Season 5 finale of "SouthLAnd." In an interview he did before it aired, Ben McKenzie discusses his character (Ben Sherman). He says, if I recall correctly, that Officer Sherman has come to see himself as the arbiter of good and evil.
My daughter Bridget -- student of philosophy -- upon thinking about this, created a meme which she sent to Mr. McKenzie via Twitter. This meme involved a photo of the book "Beyond Good And Evil -- Prelude To A Philosophy Of The Future" by Friedrich Nietzsche. The meme also included the words, "Ben Sherman's Slippery Slope." She sent this meme to Mr. McKenzie accompanied by Mr. Nietzsche's statement, "He who fights with monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
I guess this pleased Mr. McKenzie because he Retweeted it.
And that got me to reflecting on political relationships in our country.
Bridget is, in a nutshell, a traditional Catholic. Ben McKenzie appears to be, in a nutshell, a progressive. Yet, they seem to agree that proclaiming oneself to be the "arbiter of good and evil" is a bad idea.
This got me to thinking about conservatives and progressives, in general, and how they view each other. And how they might be misunderstanding one another. And how -- even though there are issues on which they will probably never agree -- they might be able to stop fearing each other. Because I do see a lot of fear, of the progressives by the conservatives, and of the conservatives by the progressives. And it makes me sad. How can we, after all, move forward as a country if we fear each others "agendas?"
This is where the Ben and Bridget thing can, perhaps, help us gain a better understanding of one another.
The conservatives I have spent time with (most of whom are traditional Catholics and other varieties of Christians) feel that the progressives are making themselves the arbiters of good and evil -- especially on the issues of abortion and gay rights. Most religious conservatives see God as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil and react negatively to the progressive view, which they see as human beings trying to take the place of God. Many of them see the progressive view as erring in the same way that Adam and Eve erred in the Garden of Eden -- pridefully believing that they could decide right and wrong for themselves, disdaining the Lord's ultimate authority in this area.
The more progressive people I have spent time with, though, have expressed to me the following idea: They feel that the conservatives/Christians/Catholics are making THEMSELVES the ultimate arbiters of good and evil by trying to impose their belief system on the rest of society. They get a little freaked out when they hear the Pope or the Bishops or other religious people telling them what they should believe and do based on (what appears to them) to be their personal religious opinions. These progressives -- especially secular ones, but even some religious ones that I have known -- believe that there needs to be adequate space for non-religious people to make their own moral choices, without being pressured by either religious authority or religious individuals.
So, to me, this is how people of seemingly very different worldviews can hold a common idea -- in this case, the idea that it is not wise for an individual to view himself as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil -- but how they can view that idea from different perspectives. And if these different people can come to understand one another better, then maybe we can converse with each other instead of fearing each other.
Maybe Bridget, Ben, and Fred have shown us a little bit of the way forward.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Some Reflections On The Treatment Of Homosexual Persons In Our Society
I was very moved this morning when I saw a friend of mine -- a lovely young lady who is involved in a same-sex relationship -- express her sadness over all the friends she has lost because of her "lifestyle."
This young lady was raised in a very conservative Catholic home. She went to a very conservative Catholic college. Don't get me wrong, though. Her parents love her very much and I believe her relationship with them (and with her siblings) is very positive. I also know that she still has many friends from college who love her and support her. But, I am also fairly sure that a lot of the friends she has lost were of the religious conservative variety.
And this is quite unfortunate.
Now, some people who have distanced themselves from her may very likely still be her friends. They are probably just uncomfortable with the situation and don't know how to behave. Perhaps, with more maturity and reflection on the matter, they may again show her their friendship.
Some friends she has lost, though, may believe that by showing her friendship in a nonjudgmental way that they are somehow condoning her situation and contributing to her "sinfulness." Some of them may also be actively angry and disgusted with her. And these attitudes, in my opinion, are wrong.
What is it that makes a friend? Why should we be friends with somebody? A friend is someone of good character. A person you can trust and count on. A person who is kind and charitable. You don't have to agree on everything -- even "important" things. You don't even have to entirely approve of each others' lives. And you can accept a person, without accepting every opinion or action of that person -- even if those opinions or actions are "important."
And for those of us who call ourselves "Christian," we need to approach all others with the recognition of our own fallen nature. Every single person who is my friend is friends with a sinner. And I count myself the worst of all.
People know that I am a Catholic. My young woman friend knows I am a Catholic. So, she probably knows what my objective beliefs are. I don't have to rub her nose in them. I can just be her friend.
And what about her relationship. I respect it as her relationship. I believe her when she tells me that she loves her girlfriend. I enjoy her friendship. And I pray for all of us, without considering her to be any worse than I.
One of my daughters knows a gay man who has a spouse who is a gay man. She considers this man to be her good friend. In many situations, he has certainly acted as a friend to her. He knows she is a devout Catholic -- and he supports her in her faith. My daughter, though, has taken considerable heat from some of her "good" Catholic friends for calling this man her friend and for referring to his spouse as "his spouse." But, he has proven himself -- in his actions -- to be her friend. And she told me that she is going to respect his relationship by referring to it as he does. He, for his part, understands her position on the theological definition of sacramental "marriage." And he does not consider her to be a bigot or a "hater."
I really admire my daughter in her friendship with this man. I admire that she doesn't back down in her charity out of fear of losing the approval of other "religious" people. I admire her kindness and the true respect she shows her friend. To me, the relationship she has with this man should be a blueprint for how society should act in the face of all the controversy over the gay "lifestyle" and gay marriage.
Many people are tossing around the words of Pope Francis concerning gay marriage. To paraphrase, I believe he referred to it as a trap laid by the devil to trick the children of God. I would put forth a couple of thoughts about this. I read an article by a gay activist describing the interactions he had with the Pope when he was still a Cardinal in Argentina. The activist said that the Cardinal was actually very kind and understanding in their conversations -- even when the gay man talked about his same-sex relationship. The Pope, when he was a Cardinal, acted toward the homosexual person with charity. He didn't make him feel judged and condemned. He didn't refuse to associate with him. Secondly, there is more than one kind of trap that can be laid by the devil here. And I believe that the temptation to treat homosexual people -- even when they express the desire to marry -- with contempt and anger and scorn is, perhaps, the worst temptation of all.
And just in case you thought you were going to escape hearing about Ben McKenzie today, well... ;)
In the November elections, Mr. McKenzie did some rare Tweeting. Mr. McKenzie is an Obama person. And one of his Tweets was expressing his happiness that a gay woman had been elected to Congress. I -- as you are aware -- really like Mr. McKenzie. I think he is classy and intelligent. And I think his opinions -- even when different than mine -- are well thought out. He has also been very kind to my younger daughter when she was not feeling well. Although, he probably doesn't know that. So, when he "Tweeted," about this newly-elected Congresswoman, I thought about it. And I realized that many, many people still have ugly, mean, nasty attitudes about homosexual people. This is not right. This really should change. So, I do understand the happiness of the gay community and people who are pro-gay rights when homosexual people are elected to public office. And I hope these elections -- and friendships like I and my daughter have with gay people -- will help to create in society more true kindness toward individuals with same-sex attraction. For even if there are issues of theology and public policy on which there are disagreements, perhaps those disagreements can be discussed in an atmosphere that is truly and actually charitable.
This young lady was raised in a very conservative Catholic home. She went to a very conservative Catholic college. Don't get me wrong, though. Her parents love her very much and I believe her relationship with them (and with her siblings) is very positive. I also know that she still has many friends from college who love her and support her. But, I am also fairly sure that a lot of the friends she has lost were of the religious conservative variety.
And this is quite unfortunate.
Now, some people who have distanced themselves from her may very likely still be her friends. They are probably just uncomfortable with the situation and don't know how to behave. Perhaps, with more maturity and reflection on the matter, they may again show her their friendship.
Some friends she has lost, though, may believe that by showing her friendship in a nonjudgmental way that they are somehow condoning her situation and contributing to her "sinfulness." Some of them may also be actively angry and disgusted with her. And these attitudes, in my opinion, are wrong.
What is it that makes a friend? Why should we be friends with somebody? A friend is someone of good character. A person you can trust and count on. A person who is kind and charitable. You don't have to agree on everything -- even "important" things. You don't even have to entirely approve of each others' lives. And you can accept a person, without accepting every opinion or action of that person -- even if those opinions or actions are "important."
And for those of us who call ourselves "Christian," we need to approach all others with the recognition of our own fallen nature. Every single person who is my friend is friends with a sinner. And I count myself the worst of all.
People know that I am a Catholic. My young woman friend knows I am a Catholic. So, she probably knows what my objective beliefs are. I don't have to rub her nose in them. I can just be her friend.
And what about her relationship. I respect it as her relationship. I believe her when she tells me that she loves her girlfriend. I enjoy her friendship. And I pray for all of us, without considering her to be any worse than I.
One of my daughters knows a gay man who has a spouse who is a gay man. She considers this man to be her good friend. In many situations, he has certainly acted as a friend to her. He knows she is a devout Catholic -- and he supports her in her faith. My daughter, though, has taken considerable heat from some of her "good" Catholic friends for calling this man her friend and for referring to his spouse as "his spouse." But, he has proven himself -- in his actions -- to be her friend. And she told me that she is going to respect his relationship by referring to it as he does. He, for his part, understands her position on the theological definition of sacramental "marriage." And he does not consider her to be a bigot or a "hater."
I really admire my daughter in her friendship with this man. I admire that she doesn't back down in her charity out of fear of losing the approval of other "religious" people. I admire her kindness and the true respect she shows her friend. To me, the relationship she has with this man should be a blueprint for how society should act in the face of all the controversy over the gay "lifestyle" and gay marriage.
Many people are tossing around the words of Pope Francis concerning gay marriage. To paraphrase, I believe he referred to it as a trap laid by the devil to trick the children of God. I would put forth a couple of thoughts about this. I read an article by a gay activist describing the interactions he had with the Pope when he was still a Cardinal in Argentina. The activist said that the Cardinal was actually very kind and understanding in their conversations -- even when the gay man talked about his same-sex relationship. The Pope, when he was a Cardinal, acted toward the homosexual person with charity. He didn't make him feel judged and condemned. He didn't refuse to associate with him. Secondly, there is more than one kind of trap that can be laid by the devil here. And I believe that the temptation to treat homosexual people -- even when they express the desire to marry -- with contempt and anger and scorn is, perhaps, the worst temptation of all.
And just in case you thought you were going to escape hearing about Ben McKenzie today, well... ;)
In the November elections, Mr. McKenzie did some rare Tweeting. Mr. McKenzie is an Obama person. And one of his Tweets was expressing his happiness that a gay woman had been elected to Congress. I -- as you are aware -- really like Mr. McKenzie. I think he is classy and intelligent. And I think his opinions -- even when different than mine -- are well thought out. He has also been very kind to my younger daughter when she was not feeling well. Although, he probably doesn't know that. So, when he "Tweeted," about this newly-elected Congresswoman, I thought about it. And I realized that many, many people still have ugly, mean, nasty attitudes about homosexual people. This is not right. This really should change. So, I do understand the happiness of the gay community and people who are pro-gay rights when homosexual people are elected to public office. And I hope these elections -- and friendships like I and my daughter have with gay people -- will help to create in society more true kindness toward individuals with same-sex attraction. For even if there are issues of theology and public policy on which there are disagreements, perhaps those disagreements can be discussed in an atmosphere that is truly and actually charitable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)