RSS Feeds

Bishops are NOT party Bosses – Says one of their own.

  • Rafael Pozos
  • Sun 5th October 2008, 11:44 am

Finally, somebody with authority in the American Catholic church has said something that we should all take to heart – Bishops are NOT party bosses. The Archbishop of Miami, John C Favalora said on the 18th of September that the church cannot be compared to a “party boss” and will not tell people how to vote. He stated that the duty of the bishops as successors of the apostles was to remind us of moral teachings that should inform our lives.

 While he was responding to a specific situation, namely an attempt by the Alliance Defense fund, a group of conservative Christian ministries here in the United States to get pastors to air their viewpoints, he was also speaking to a more general principle. Namely, that it’s not for the church to get that involved with civil politics ANYWHERE. Part of the reason the United States has thrived as a religious nation is that no one religion, denomination or confession has been established as the state religion.

As Kathy mentioned in an earlier post, the original 13 colonies which later combined to form the United States each had their own state religion and did not tolerate others. Therefore, freedom of religion and a prohibition on establishing an official one was necessary to hold the country together. Even so, with reformed protestant Christians being in the majority, Catholics, the largest non-reformed Christian confession, and other religious minorities were marginalized and did not become fully accepted until very recently. President Kennedy’s election in 1960 was a sign of this acceptance.

Lately however, the very barrier between church and state which allowed us to unite as a country has been threatened, as Bishops have denied communion, our most high sacrament, to Catholic politicians primarily over their views on legalized abortion. While the Democratic Party here is well known for supporting Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion here, it has also affected the Republican Party in the person of the former mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani.

This is a very recent development in the history of the Church in this country. It started when George W Bush visited with Pope John Paul II in Rome during his reelection campaign in 2004. Bush was heavily courting Christian conservatives and needed a wedge issue – abortion. His opponent, Sen. John Kerry is Catholic and supports keeping abortion legal. The effect of John Paul II’s apparent endorsement of Bush, along with Archbishop Raymond Burke denying Kerry communion over the issue was one of the many things that sealed Bush’s reelection in 2004 – a disturbing development as it allowed bishops to be viewed as party bosses – who can tell Catholics how to vote.

Hence, this definitive statement by an Archbishop about the proper role of the Church in American Politics is very welcome. Interestingly enough, it actually reflects the view of the majority of American Bishops – don’t politicize the Eucharist, teach what the church teaches, short of endorsing a candidate or specific policy and trust your flock to follow it as best they can. This approach of providing guidelines respectfully works on a couple of levels. From an administrative standpoint, it allows the church under American Law to retain its status as a tax exempt non-profit organization – freeing up more of its resources to take care of the poor and all. Under American Law tax exempt non profit organizations cannot endorse any political candidate or issue – they must officially remain neutral. From a purely standpoint is the best way to influence the debate without actually getting involved in the process as it reaffirms the dignity of each person by giving them the information they need to make a decision as best they can – which conveys a lot of respect to the laity – something a lot of them don’t feel they’ve been getting from the clergy.

 Besides, per Vatican II, isn’t it the role of the Laity to deal with secular issues, including governance of secular societies with a reality check from the bishops and the like? We laity have to be trusted to go about it in our own way as best we can – otherwise the whole system breaks down. Therefore, we MUST, as our society and faith demands, listen to the bishops, not as party bosses, but as one of many sources we use to make decisions as best we can, knowing that our votes could come back to haunt us in a very real secular way. Bishops by definition are not in the secular realm. They are clergy and have that viewpoint. As laity, we must do what makes sense for us, but stay open to what the bishops have to say.

 

Theocracy or Secular Society - Reflections

  • Kathy Pozos
  • Sat 27th September 2008, 10:49 am

 

September 11 used to be just another day in the ninth month of the year. But the acts of terrorism which were committed on this date in 2001 in the United States changed that reality. Now, in most countries of the world, September 11 is a day to remember and mark with speeches, prayers, visits to “sacred sites” and news reports. For some few, it is a day remembered as a great victory against the most powerful representative of secular society in the world. For most, it is seen as a great tragedy, in which lives of innocent people were lost, personal freedoms were threatened, and excuses provided for nations to go to war.

Believing with George Santayana that “Those who do cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” I add that those who do not understand the fundamental concepts underlying social systems are also condemned to repeat history. Accordingly, I offer some reflections as an anthropologist on structures and realities that shape societies and social interaction.

In a Nutshell

For those with only a few moments to spare, here are my thoughts in a nutshell.

We’re dealing with a clash of cultures, specifically in terms of family structures and political systems. The “corporate family” and “theocratic” political system that was the norm for most cultures throughout most of human history has been challenged by an upstart system. In this new system, it’s the “nuclear family,” with its focus on the individual and personal choice, as well as its “secular” political structure, that are the ideal.

Some of the first cracks in the old system began to appear around 2000 years ago, with the teachings of Jesus and His early followers. More followed as Christians began caring for the sick and teaching children (including girls) and insisting that women had rights in marriage. Still more appeared towards the end of the religious wars that followed the Reformation, as religious dissidents began to move to the New World. With the ratification of the Bill of Rights as part of the American Constitution, the secular society as a political system was born.

Today we’re dealing with a side-effect of that event. Secular societies offer the opportunity for people of all faiths to work together to their fullest potential, to make this world a better place for all. Unfortunately, not all human choices are made for the common good, under any social or political system, so we also see people doing things that are very wrong. Sometimes religious people get frightened by that and think we should just go back to religious law - theirs, of course. Splinter groups of them may turn to violence and terror, killing innocent people in an attempt to change a political system. That’s what the events of September 11 and other terrorist activities of the past century have been about - political systems and family structure. Often disguised as defense of religious beliefs - but at base a question of political systems and family structure.

A violent response cannot stop violence of this type. In dealing with the problems that breed discontent and lead to social upheaval (unemployment, hunger, lack of safety, etc.), economic solutions are more often effective. Education, employment opportunities, health care, housing - all contribute to social stability and take the wind out of the sails fo the terrorists. That’s the response we should be offering to the world!

Now, for those who have a little more time.

Definitions and More Details

Begining at the begining - a few definitions and clarifications are in order.

Nuclear Family - The nuclear family is one that includes adults - generally but not exclusively a man and a woman - and their children, whether naturally born or adopted. It does not include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents or other friends.

In the nuclear family, the individual tends to be seen as having intrinsic value. Having an individual opinion and making personal choices is valued. Individuals are allowed to decide and act for themselves and it is expected that at a certain age and maturity, the individual will leave the nuclear family and live his or her own life. Many will enter into committed relationships, legally recognized by the society, and start new nuclear families of their own. The family in which they were raised is called the “family of origin” and is distinct from the family created upon reaching adulthood and entering into their own newly formed nuclear families. In American society, the nuclear family is the type of family structure that is the norm.

Corporate Family - A corporate family is like a business. It includes many more people than a nuclear family. It is multi-generational. It has an identity and existence of its own, apart from that of any individual member of the family. The continuation of the family takes precedence over the desires or even the sheer survival of the individual. Issues of honor are seen in terms of the larger family and individual lives may be sacrificed to maintain family honor. Marriage is a matter of alliances between corporate families - not something for two individuals to choose for themselves. One’s sexuality belongs to the family and one’s duty is to provide children for the continuance of the family. Individual opinions and preferences are not of deciding importance. In fact, the mere possibility of having an individual opinion may not enter the mind of a member of a culture in which the corporate family is (or has been) the rule.

Corporate families can take a variety of forms, depending on rules of inheritance and identification. In some, identity and property are passed through the male line (patrilineal) and in others through the female line (matrilineal). Somewhat more rarely, identity and inheritance can come from both lines. (This is more common in nuclear families, however.)

The vast majority of world societies take the corporate family model as the preferred model. It is only relatively recently that the nuclear family has arisen on the social scene of the world - and that in relatively few cultures. Nevertheless, with the spread of Western culture through the media, exposure to the nuclear family and the type of culture that accompanies it is increasing.

Theocracy - A form of political organization in which the legal foundations of the society are the laws of the dominant, governing religion or religious body. Theocracies have a long history in the world. Any culture, ancient or modern, in which religious rules are the ones by which disputes are resolved and individual or group actions judged as a matter of law is a theocracy.

Secular Society - A form of political organization in which the legal foundations of the society are distinct from the laws of religious organizations or groups of believers. The laws of secular societies may be, and generally are, based on certain principles drawn from the religious beliefs of their members, but religious law is distinct and carefully separate from the law governing the wider society. Secular societies have emerged relatively recently in the history of the world.

Freedom - The concept of freedom I will use is that which states that an individual can act or behave according to his or her conscience, to the mutual benefit of both the individual and other persons who will be affected by the action. In cases in which what benefits one does not benefit others, the one may not have the right to act or behave in the manner he or she desires. Sometimes the greater good or the rights of other people take precedence. Freedom does not mean license to behave however I choose and the rest be damned! Freedom entails a great responsibility to act for the common good, trusting that the larger good will also benefit the individual in the long run. In this, the concept of freedom draws much from the corporate family tradition, but it recognizes the rights of the individual to choose, apart from the interests of the corporate family, and to look at his or her own interests and those of the larger community.

So what does all this have to do with us today?

Corporate family structure and theocracy as a basis for political organization have been the dominant forms of organization during much of the history of human culture. Some of the first cracks in the system that we see historically resulted from the teachings of Jesus. When Jesus told the rich young man to sell everything he had, give the money to the poor, and come follow him, (Mt 19:21) that was demanding a major break from the corporate family. When Jesus told another young man to let the dead bury the dead, in response to his request for permission to bury his father before becoming a disciple, (Mt 8:22) that was an even greater break. 

The early church continued the process of separation. In the Acts of the Apostles, ( Acts 2:42-47) we see a community of believers who have sold all, combined their resources, and share all things in common. They have left their ancestral corporate families and joined into a new form of family - family still being needed for mutual support and protection. We know that not all went smoothly. There were disputes between Jews and Greeks, concerns over whether all resources had been contributed or not, complaints about fair distribution of resources, etc. The first persecution of the church in Jerusalem broke up the communal experiment and the Followers of the Way were dispersed, taking the Good News of the freedom of God’s children with them into the Roman Empire.( Acts 4-8)

In each community where the Gospel took root, communities formed. Christian community became a new social unit and each person’s gifts were seen as contributing to build up “the Body of Christ.” (Eph 4: 1-16) Individuals became important because the gifts they received built up the whole community. We’re still not to a nuclear family model yet in this understanding, but birth families were not primary in this scheme of things.

When religions become State sponsored or mandated, when religious law becomes the law of the land and all are required to become members of that religion (or at least live by its rules), some common patterns emerge. We see forced conversions, wars over definitions of points of belief, torture of those who do not believe “correctly,” and State sponsored executions of non-believers or heretics (those with beliefs deemed to be untrue). This pattern held true with the legalization of Christianity and its establishment as the religion of the Roman Empire. 

On large scale, we see destabilization of entire societies resulting from the persecution of non-conforming religious communities. In Spain, for example, both during the time of the Visigoths and the time of the reunification of the kingdoms under Ferdinand and Isabella, there was an attempt to enforce unity in religion, political governance, and military might. In both cases, the society was ultimately destabilized by the creation of persecuted minorities. During the Visigothic period, those minorities welcomed the invading Muslim forces which overthrew the Visigothic kings. (Ironically, Muslim rule itself was undermined in Spain by the 12th century as the result of a turn towards fundamentalism.) During the 15th and 16th centuries, the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain resulted in the loss of large numbers of people with valuable skills and professions - banking, medicine, science - not fields a successful nation can manage without. The Inquisition, which did not originally begin in Spain but was a force there for far too long, was a terrible example of what can happen when religious beliefs become the legal norm.

The religious wars that accompanied and followed the Reformation finally were resolved with a great compromise. The religion of the ruler of a nation would be the religion of all his or her subjects. So, any time the religion of the ruler changed, everyone had to change religions. It sounded good on paper, but if one truly believes that one’s faith is the one, true, unchanging faith, one can’t just change it because a new ruler has come into power! Fortunately, a New World had been discovered, and dissidents could go there and have their own colonies, with their own religious beliefs. And so it happened.

The English colonies in North America did not begin as places with freedom of religion. That developed much later. In a couple of colonies there was tolerance of different beliefs. One colony was set up as a refuge for Catholics. But by the time of the American Revolution, Catholics were not allowed to vote in any colony. In fact, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was not a voting “citizen” of his own colony until the mid-1770s when the laws excluding Catholics were repealed. It was only with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 that the separation of Church and State in the United States was enshrined as the law of the land. A secular society was born.

So what does all this have to do with September 11 and the acts of terrorism in the United States?  I’d like to say it’s simple, but it’s not. The actions of those who planned and carried out the attacks were those of terrorists, acting out of misguided religious beliefs perhaps, but still terrorists. Their goals were not religious conversion. They were from a group that promotes theocracy as the preferred political structure, specifically Islamic fundamentalist theocracy. (This is not to be mistaken for a mainstream Islamic faith.) The United States, as the largest and most powerful secular society in the world, was a natural target in an essentially political battle.

Terrorism is not an act of religion. It is a political act, whether seen in Northern Ireland, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, New York City, Sudan, or in the bombing of abortion clinics or the homes of scientists engaged in animal research studies. It is an act of political violence. So the question becomes, how do we respond to political violence? One school goes back to the old, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (revenge).  Another says, “give them a little bit and maybe they’ll go away happy” (appeasement). Another says, political issues must be resolved with social solutions and tools. Look at the core issues - economics, healthcare, education, jobs, security for families, safety from violence. The Peace Corps initiative of the Kennedy administration is an example of this approach, which has resulted in much positive change in the world.

The response to the events of September 11, the military invasions of two countries claimed to have been responsible in some form for the actions of the terrorists, has not been a success. It will not be easy to undo all the harm that has resulted from those actions. But as we go forward, as Americans, as Christians, as people of good will in an increasingly tiny world, it is critical to be aware of the past, of the differences between societies based on corporate families and those based on nuclear families, of the danger of placing religious law as the law of the land, of the great protection members of all faiths receive from living in a secular society, and of the resulting freedom to work for the betterment of social conditions and life for people throughout the world. Secular societies can be welcoming places for people of all faiths. Together, protected by freedom of religion, we can do great things.

For related information, see:

God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215, by David Levering Lewis 

The Voice, The Word, The Books: The Sacred Scripture of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, by F.E. Peters

A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin

Secularity and the Gospel: Being Missionaries to our Children, by Ronald Rolheiser, OMI

Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace … One School at a Time, by Greg Mortensen

Post edited and revised Sept. 26, 2008 by the author.

Reprinted from http://blog.theologika.net with permission.

 

9/11 -- In memoriam

  • Rafael Pozos
  • Thu 11th September 2008, 11:30 pm

Today we remember in a special way all of the victims of the worst terrorist attack in US History. May their souls be at peace. Even seven years on, the shock and grief of the event is still felt by Americans even today. Therefore I especially pray, quoting in translation the final lyrics of the old Latin Funeral Hymn Dies Irae. At the time of the attack, I wish I had these words to pray, and now that I do, here they are.

That day is one of weeping
Therefore spare these ones oh God
Merciful Lord Jesus
Give them rest, Amen

 

American Communion Wars and Unity in the Eucharist – Can’t we all get along?

  • Rafael Pozos
  • Sun 24th August 2008, 2:39 pm

 

Now that Senator Barak Obama has chosen Senator Joe Biden as his running mate in his quest for the Presidency of the United States, the issue I had hoped and prayed would not enter the fray this election cycle has – the communion wars. Biden is Catholic, and as most know, the Democratic party, of which both Obama and himself are members, is pro-choice. Because of only the abortion issue, Archbishop Charles Chaput, the Archbishop of Denver, where the Democratic National Convention will be held starting this coming Monday, has effectively excommunicated him, saying he should not present himself for communion. This is the same thing that happened to John Kerry in 2004 when he was running and more recently to former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani (who received from the Pope earlier this year) and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Even further, there are segments of Catholic society in this country – including some bishops – who feel that it’s an all or nothing proposition, namely you either accept all of the Church’s teachings as they stand with no nuance and act accordingly or you are not Catholic – end of story – or as a document from the Council of Trent might say, Anathema Sit (Latin: Let him be cursed/damned to hell, etc.).

This is not, however, the view of most American Catholics. In fact, some would take exception to being referred to as less than Catholic over this one issue. In fact, the social welfare and peace and justice issues that make up the majority of the Democratic party platform are much more in line with Catholic social teaching than the Republican platform. Even further, on the abortion issue, this year the Democrats have decided to work for ways other than criminalizing abortion to reduce the number of abortions that are out there. When Governor Kathleen Sebelius vetoed an anti-abortion bill because she deemed it would not be good for Kansas, and was promptly excommunicated for it, Lisa Cahill, a moral theologian at Boston College, said it fundamentally boiled down to a disagreement between the bishop and the governor about the best way to reduce the number of abortions.

While this issue is emotional on all sides, we need to evaluate somebody and their commitment to the faith based on the whole picture, not just one issue. So far that one issue of abortion has not been that important to American voters, who are more worried about the cost of power, gas and the overall state of our collapsing economy. The bigger picture of what these issues are going to mean to the poorest of us is far more important than the process of criminalizing abortion and getting the Supreme Court to go along with it. In fact, it should not even be something that should be considered as a matter of public policy. Should we do everything we can to minimize it? Most definitely yes. Should we criminalize it? OH HELL NO! – It would result in too much of a public health and safety hazard to do so, on account of coat hanger practitioners and other unsafe and unscrupulous practitioners.

Some would argue that taking this stance is somehow diluting Catholic teaching. I don’t think it is at all. While some of us may feel like shoving our rosary beads down the throats of those who would say we aren’t Catholic because we don’t literally accept that part of Catholic teaching, vote for the Democrat, etc., that would do more harm than good and therefore not be a good practice. Best practices here would include compassionate things that can be done - like providing shelters, job training, education, placement for adoptions, etc. for women who find themselves pregnant under duress. In my home diocese, Oakland, next to nearly every Church there are billboards in both Spanish and English letting people know where they can get help if they need it. That kind of response is far more helpful and far more effective than excommunicating and cursing people who have abortions or are pro choice – including politicians who are trying to stand up for these people and see the public health issue that criminalizing abortion will cause.

Therefore, in the spirit of Paul the Apostle, I implore all of us, laity, clergy and religious: Lighten up. Bishops: The bigger imperative you’ve been charged with is proclamation of the Gospel. Focus on that. Excommunicating Catholic politicians who are exercising the best judgment they can regarding what is best for our non-Catholic society and culture as a whole, is counter productive and distracts from the primary proclamation of a good message. It also undermines your credibility as a whole when you reduce it to politics. Catholic Politicians: We know you have constituents to answer to as well as your own consciences. Listen to your bishops, and research the issues you face fully. Use reason informed by faith, the crux of moral theology to help you make the tough calls as to where to stand on an issue. If you’ve gone through this process, you’ve done your duty and almost nobody will hold it against you. Catholic Laity: Listen to what the bishops have to say, but be mindful of your own life experience and views as well. Listen to what your heart is telling you about the issues as well as being mindful of the overall effect on society, namely that a choice you make in the voting booth now could come back to haunt you much later on in life. If you come to your views, whatever they are, in this manner of reason informed by faith and experience, again, nobody can in good conscience hold it against you

One thing about human nature the Catholic Church recognizes quite well is that humans are social pack animals that depend on each other to survive. The nature of the Eucharist reflects that. Therefore, again, I implore these bishops in question to stop politicizing what is supposed to be our supreme moment of unity in Christ. It is not for you to make the judgment as to who is worthy – only God can. Therefore, for your own souls and the good of humanity, let God make that judgment. Despite what Jesus told Peter in Matthew, in the end, Christ has the final word in all matters. Therefore, let us not make an issue out of whether a Catholic politician supporting abortion rights can or should receive communion, but rather, let’s unite in the Eucharist to face the problems we face not just as the United States of America, but as a whole planet.

For more that I have written about the contemporary church and American Politics, see:
Eucharistic Danger
Politics and Catholicism -- An Independence Threatened?
Here We Go Again -- Another Bishop getting involved in politics.