"With the Pope's Resignation, Everything Has Changed"

... or at least that's the title the Huffington Post has given my blog entry there. Check it out.

Teens Just Say No

You might have heard about this teen in my home state, Minnesota (don't blame us, we voted for Mondale), who either was denied confirmation or refused confirmation because of his questioning of the Church's rejection of same-sex civil marriage.  (You may recall that the move for a "one man one woman" amendment failed in Minnesota in early November, despite the threats of the bishops there.)

Well, turns out there were two.

In the letter, addressed to the parish of Assumption Church at 307 Front St. N., the Rev. Gary LaMoine says “a couple of candidates chose not to enter into full communion with the Catholic community because of their disagreement with the teaching of the Church concerning marriage.”

It's a little more complicated than "chose not to enter," including public rejection of the family of the first teen and the rather unsavory revelation of extensive FB cruising by the parish staff.  (Is this routine?)

However that may be, I suddenly had this thought:  What if there were an epidemic of teens refusing to be  confirmed because they did not want to be -- very publicly -- associated with the Church's position on same-sex civil marriage?  

Confirmation, we tell them over and over, is voluntary.  Your parents carried you to baptism and they more or less walked you through reconciliation and First Communion.  But Confirmation?  This is when you claim your faith publicly as an "adult."

But what if confirmation becomes synonymous with rejecting same-sex civil marriage?  How will this play with teens raised on Lady Gaga and Modern Family and numerous school assemblies against bullying? 

I am not encouraging such an epidemic.  But if the choice to complete the great sacramental arc of one's initiation into the Church is now viewed in the teen mind as a public statement of intolerance, the bishops will  have only themselves to blame.

Meatless Monday or Fish on Friday?

As part of the Year of Faith, the New Evangelization, etc., Cardinal Dolan has asked his fellow bishops to consider re-introducing Friday abstinence:

The work of our Conference during the coming year includes reflections on re-embracing Friday as a particular day of penance, including the possible re-institution of abstinence on all Fridays of the year, not just during Lent.

He put this forward at the recent November meeting of the USCCB, as part of a push for to encourage more frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance (more on that in a future post).

I like the notion of retrieving the Friday fast -- abstaining from eating meat as an invitation to step away from our appetites and turn toward Christ. It is true that our sinfulness has many dimensions and thus our focus could just as well take the form of a fast from social media, or unequal financial dealings, or the consumption of overpriced coffee.  Yet, there is something very pointed in the call to mark, concretely, that the plentiful food surrounding me is denied to much of the world, the poor in whom we are to see the face of Christ.

Moreover, for those of us who "live in the land of overthink," such a fast is immediate and personal and bodily.  It's a pretty simple metric, a fairly straightforward way of reminding me how satiety can blind me to my real hunger.

But there's probably more to this. In a radio interview shortly thereafter, Cardinal Dolan mentions the 2011 move by the English bishops to re-introduce abstinence from meat on Fridays as the most immediate spur for this.  That may be true, bishops know what other bishops are doing.

I suspect, however, that a more recent development is behind this move: however: the secular movement toward healthy eating known as "Meatless Mondays," which is gaining enough ground in the US to catch on officially in Los Angeles, among other places.

When I heard of this movement, my first thought was, "Hey, that's a Catholic thing." But Catholics abstain from meat on Friday as a penitential sign, one that draws us close to the crucified Christ in a recognition of the timeless sign of Good Friday.  It's about turning to God; it's not about my muffin top.

The "Meatless Monday" movement, on the other hand, steps away from the religious tie.  It's progressive, a good word on this blog, in that it advocates a health benefit for you that, writ large, will also promote the health of others and get us all thinking about sustainable eating.  These are fine things, but there are clearly different agendas at work here.

It's in this context that Friday abstinence takes on a new energy for Cardinal Dolan.  I suspect that the real push for Friday is also a strategic cultural push-back against the realization that a traditional Catholic practice -- widely recognized as "Catholic" -- is on the verge of being reclaimed (and secularized) by the progressive left. These kinds of calculations are, for Cardinal Dolan, very much in the forefront.

Indeed, Dolan is quite correct, in the radio interview, when he observes that "Religious communities have to have identifiable markers."  A big concern the Second Vatican Council addressed was the problem of practices ("identifiable markers") that had become lifeless and rote, broadly observed but lacking a strong basis in a mature faith.  Out of this concern, things like routine Friday abstinence, outside of Lent, fell by the wayside.But so did the sense of a visible Catholic community, as a clearly identifiable social group.  This is a loss, I think many will agree.  But how to re-engage this is the question of the hour:  by the re-inscribing of a tribal fiat?  Or by a retrieval of Catholic faith and practice that is deeply engaged with our own day? 

If the agenda is tribal ("I'm Catholic and I VOTE"), that's a loss. If the first movement in its promotion by the bishops is to offer legislation making the provision of fish sticks in public school lunches a religious liberty issue, it will be a disaster. (But mark my words...)

Catholics could, however, notice what's happening and, nevertheless, choose to name something deep about their bodies and the Body of Christ by the renewed observation of Friday abstinence, as a not-so-public yet still recognizable sign of our common catholicity -- and our common sinfulness. 

So I will cheer this and I encourage you to take it to heart as well.  But don't underestimate the reactionary impulse.  Googling around, I found reference to the restoration of Friday abstinence in England and Wales in 2011...after Meatless Monday had become a significant cultural movement in Britain.  Ah.

Pro-life? Not Romney

My op-ed on the state of the abortion question in this election is up at the Connecticut Post website, under the title, "'Pro-life' should mean all life."

In other words, the decision to allow an exception for rape reveals that this "pro-life" stance is not about "life" at all: judging women is the first commitment here. For Mitt Romney, the pregnant victim of rape deserves a safe and supported abortion; because the woman is innocent, the value of the child is suddenly negotiable. All other women (the forgetful, the guilty, the careless, the clueless) should carry their children to term, or be humiliated as they approach the clinic, or bear the risk of the back alley -- for the daughters of the wealthy, regardless of the law, there will always be quiet options -- because we are "pro-life..."

See also comments by Democrats for Life member Stephen Schneck, summarized by Vincent Miller at the America blog, "Schneck hits a nerve on abortion."

Schneck, the Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at The Catholic University of America, will deliver a lecture at Fairfield University on Thursday, October 25th at 8 pm in the DSB Dining Room, titled "American Catholic Citizenship: 2012."

Isaac's Gift to Romney

"Isaac and Mitt" -- sounds like a new buddy sitcom...

Media critic here.  Democrats should hold it on the schadenfreude, Isaac may well be a boon for Republicans.

What do you do during big weather events?  Keep the TV on, on CNN or MSNBC (now called something else) or that other channel.  (Ok, if your TV is always on already, set to catch Toddlers in Tiaras, I'm not talking to you.)

The convention alone is not enough to keep viewers, the speeches bore even this political junkie, thus the skimpy hour allotted to it by the networks.  But if cable is giving wall-to-wall coverage to Large Weather Event starring Anderson Cooper and lots of wind, those eyeballs will be there when they cut to Todd at the convention for variety. 

Plus, if they play it reasonably, the Republicans will get Romney and Ryan and Christie and Rubio talking on your screen about big solutions, intercut with scenarios of big problems.  It's ok, for them, that you're not listening to much detail -- it's a visual set-up that can be used to their advantage. 

Obama and the Mrs. should think about getting to the Gulf coast now, in shirt sleeves.

Give Us This Day

There's a new kid on the block:  Give Us This Day, a monthly periodical that supports daily prayer and is based on the divine office and the lectionary.  Obviously a Benedictine thing, it's a project of The Liturgical Press in Collegeville, Minnesota (full disclosure:  I serve on their board of advisors).

I've been writing very occasional reflections for it, today's musings engage the mass readings and the feast of Maximilian Kolbe.  It's posted at the blog Pray Tell today, and titled "A Pointed Observation."

Going for Bronze

Reminder to self:  Bronze is best, we’ve known this for years.

Look at the hassle of winning a gold medal.  Beautiful Gabby Douglas, solid gold from the inside out, has a stunning performance and glowing press about her world-class talent and smile one day -- and her every slip and clutch documented in detail forever after.  Before the Olympics are even over, bloggers are talking trash about her hair (Hilary Clinton should send an empathy bouquet) and the kid’s getting grilled about her family’s shaky finances (please, she’s sixteen).

And apparently silver is worse, a miserable place to be.  Exhibit number one: Best-in-the-world vaulter McKayla Maroney’s face on the podium as she gets a silver, which apparently is very typical of second-placers.  Silver medalists remember only one thing – whatever kept them from the gold.  And we’ll help:  tell someone you got second place and they will ask only one thing:  “what happened?”

But bronze.  If silver says “I lost,” bronze says “I went to the Olympics and got a medal!”  You can put your bronze on the mantel forever and be sure no one will ask what went wrong.  You went to the Olympics.  Your performance merited a medal.  You are one of the best, baby.

Life tip:  quit comparing yourself to others.  And go for bronze, you’ll be happier.

Cosmology and Catholic thought

A few reflections on cosmology and Catholic thought, prepared at the invitation of my colleague Professor Glenn Sauer, Biology, for his Templeton-funded project that brings the discussion of science and religion to parishes in our diocese. 

1.  We begin the discussion of cosmology by recognizing that Catholic theology has always had a theological understanding of the distance between humanity and God, and our inability to name this.  Thus, words like "eternity" and "infinity," as divine predicates, don't name really large instances of chronological time and dimensional space, but aspects of the divine that transcend our measure.  In a similar way, there is an interpenetration of meaning between the words "transcendence" and "immanence:" God's immanence is God's transcendence -- and vice-versa.  Otherwise put:  To be God is to dwell within the world in a way that isn’t bound by it.

2.  The point about the physical world that is equally difficult to comprehend is that we exist within space and time, these are not concepts that are separable from physical existence, nor are they separable from each other.  Time isn't ticking along and then suddenly chunks of stuff show up.  This is probably the most basic point, from the physical sciences, for our consideration.  Time and space are products of the big bang, not building blocks, they characterize our cosmos, they don't precede it.

William Stoeger, S.J., has a good summary of the science claims at issue from the perspective of cosmology (so, on the beginning of the cosmos) in his “Key Developments in Physics Challenging Philosophy and Theology,” in Richardson and Wildman, eds., Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue (New York:  Routledge, 1996), 183-200.  And he has a good summary of the science claims at issue from the perspective of eschatology (so, on the end of the cosmos) in his “Scientific Accounts of Ultimate Catastrophes in Our Life-Bearing Universe,”in Polkinghorne and Welker, eds., The End of the World and the Ends of   God:  Science and Theology on Eschatology (Harrisburg, PA:  Trinity Press International, 2000) 19-28.

3.  To understand the Catholic perspective, we need to have a good sense of the deep structure of this vision.  It relies on a notion of sacramentality -- a sense that creation itself reflects the God who gives it life; that creation is therefore good, and, more pointedly, that creation itself CAN mediate the divine (thus, the formal sacraments of the Church require things like water and oil and wheat and human bodies to be effective, not just pious thoughts!).  

The way in which this sacramentality permeates Catholic theology is already generously present in the work of the second-century Irenaeus of Lyon (the quick overview here is found in detail in Catholicism by Gerald O'Collins and Mario Farrugia).  Irenaeus affirms the extension of catholicity by insisting that the Catholic faith can unite many peoples and languages (horizontal catholicity), it is also connected to the past (so, a sort of vertical catholicity, as Irenaeus rejects Marcion's desire to cut Christianity off from its Jewish source).  Irenaeus claims that sin damages but does not destroy the imprint of Creator on creation, and that the entirety of creation is implicated in the great theological sweep of redemption (see also ITC, 2004).  Finally, Irenaeus affirms the goodness of bodily life, arguing that Mary's humanity is capable of being "Mother of God" and that, against Gnosticism, the world itself is good, not something to be discarded on the way to "spiritual" growth.

Catholic life is worldly in the best sense, both connected world-wide through ecclesial structures that stretch across the globe and link over time.  It is also deeply immersed in that world, through the riot of devotional life and sacramental practice and bodily disposition.  To be Catholic is never to despise the world, but to join with it in praise and thanksgiving, singing already with the communion of saints of the salvation that is being made here and now.

4.  Catholics therefore read Genesis not as a chronology of events, but as a story of the drama between humanity and God, a story that limns carefully the breadth and depth of this engagement.  This means two things:  a) Catholics are not biblical fundamentalists, they do not see the literal sense of Scripture as the only sense.  But this further means b) Catholics don't see creation as simply a text, as if "the world" were just the stage or the backdrop for the story of humanity and God.  We read scripture sacramentally.

SO.  When a development like the "discovery" of the Higgs boson comes along, what to think?  

On the one hand, there will always be those who have a naive understanding of Christianity who will either reject the rigorous scientific account that supports this, or who will find this to be another "proof" that Christianity is untenable (scientism).  This is a zero-sum game (In Ian Barbour's 4 models of science and religion, these perspectives give rise to the conflict and independence models).

On the other hand is the account above, that tries to see both of these in more nuanced ways, as asking different questions yet both pushing for the most foundational account possible.  To the extent that one has a commitment to the discovery of a single comprehensive perspective, one is pushing for Barbour's notion of integration.  This is difficult.  For some, the answer is to argue that dialogue is the best we can do here, as beings that are both created by God but created (finite) nonetheless.

There's a third issue, for our own day, which is that our (contemporary, western) understanding of religion and religious faith is increasingly seen as a private and spiritualized phenomenon.  So, for example, we tend to find outward signs -- posture, gesture, etc. -- to be merely a sign of the real movement of faith, which is "in my heart," it is inner, spiritual.  (So, I don't have to go to church on Sunday, I can walk on the beach and think about God instead.)  

And, even when we do embrace outward manifestations of religion, the impulse to do so is still privitized, because it's seen as an individual choice -- "she's into that, it's her thing."  Both of these sensibilities work against the sacramentality mentioned above, which is communal and material, it has (specific) extension in space and time.  "Stuff" matters to the Catholic sensibility, there are specific gestures and materials and words that, we hold, really do "call down" divinity into our created world (we say "epiclesis"), a world already restless with the divine image.

5.  One more point about the physical world.  I mention above the "totalizing" account that is the story of the big bang.  There is also the "end" of the cosmos to consider, which may happen in several ways, but will certainly happen.  It is interesting to me that, just as both cosmology and Genesis play out an account that seems to require a "first point", both Revelation -- that wild and baggy tale -- and the variety of "ends" possible for this world seem to both be curiously open-ended.  We seem much more fixed on the past as dogma, while comfortable with much more ambiguity and speculation when it comes to the future.  This may bear further consideration in the future.

An interim summary, for a discussion to be continued.  Both Catholic thought and our unfolding understanding of our universe and its origins are accounts that purport to be "total" accounts.  They have the same inner impulse:  to trace the pattern of what is most real, and to think and live through that as faithfully as possible.  They both hold that, in some (perhaps quasi-)foundational way, their account is the most true; it is the most comprehensive understanding of the order of things.  They both, interestingly, at their best RESIST the drive to fundamentalism, they both have an inner dynamism in creative tension with their foundational claims.  My purpose in trying to lay out these two "systems" is simply to demonstrate how comprehensive (in an extraordinarily nuanced way) each is -- which is why trying to integrate them is so difficult.  Yet that is the question for both, as each of these systems has an extraordinarily powerful inner drive toward integration, a drive which is centered on the human person and our capacity to know ... and yet, wonder.

And finally, the Higgs boson ring-tone!  You know you want it.

SCOTUS upholds the ACA

My statement on today's news...

Today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is good news for Catholics, who care for the common good as a religious value.

As a Catholic, I look to the Obama administration, as it considers the parameters of the religious exemption, to address the reasonable concerns of Catholic institutions in a way that will seal this important victory for broadened access to health care for all Americans.

Huh.

In the wake of the silencing of yet another priest in Ireland (also common in the U.S.), the blog for a group of Irish priests who are concerned about the situation in that country, reminds us that, not so long ago, bishops themselves were asking for a more open discussion of issues in the Church...
[h/t: andrewsullivan.com]

Early in 1995, a group of U.S. bishops submitted a document to the [U.S.] Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee on Mission and Structure. It appeared in ORIGINS (19/6/1995), a publication of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference:

‘The need to find ways to have more open discussion in a climate of trust is best illustrated by considering current issues in the church that seem not to be addressed openly. These include the priest shortage, priest morale, ecumenical issues, school funding, women and equality in the church, the relationships of youth, Hispanics in the church, better preaching, better liturgy, better relationships with the poor, the relationship of the conference with Rome, the public face of the church on abortion, the annulment process, the loss of Eucharist, alliance of the right wing with some fundamentalist leaders, contraception, sexual ethics, the kind of candidates being attracted to priesthood, anticatholic feeling surfacing in the United States, the ordination of married men, rumours of a high percentage of homosexual men in the seminaries and in the priesthood. In particular, the issue of paedophilia among priests continues to create a very serious credibility problem for the U.S. bishops because of our perceived unwillingness to fully address and explore the reasons for this terrible tragedy.’

These bishops were not silenced, and many of the issues have not gone away. In fact some of the issues have increased in urgency.

Desmond O’Donnell omi, Dublin

Inviting Catholics to Parish Life

Jack Rakosky has an informative post on the PrayTell blog, "CARA's Parish Data [and] the New Evangelization:  A Social Network Approach." Using his own experience with what I call "mediating structures," -- in his case, the delivery of public mental health services -- he breaks down a recent report by CARA on parish demographics into useful categories, and then presents his own sociological analysis of these groups as well as some suggestions for evangelization that analysis generates.  The parish data is drawn from a recent post by Mark Gray on his 1964 blog. 

Rakosky's contribution here is that he points out the strengths and pitfalls of trying to reach the various groups that comprise the Catholic population of a given parish, making a helpful point about the potential tension between those who are entrenched in parish life and those who would like to be more involved but can't seem to crack the code for engagement there -- or simply get sidelined by the entrenched structure.  He also suggests that there is life at the margins of a parish (Catholics who are less likely to be actively practicing) if the parish wants to reach out to these Catholics in a decentralized, small group fashion. 

But that outreach relies on the goods offered.  Anyone who does this will need to make a pitch for the Catholic story, the good of which might not be all that evident to those "lukewarm" and "weak practicing" Catholics. The problem isn't that their faith is weak, the problem is that there are more compelling stories out there -- from other Christian groups, from a more private spirituality gleaned from and nurtured by the internet, from a cultural story about "family life" that doesn't connect to community outside of PTA, sports/music fans, recycling club, etc.

These marginal Catholics are probably not going to be lured back by the "New Evangelization" project of the U.S. bishops, although the bishops are right on one point:  people really don't know a lot about the Catholic faith.  To be fair, of course, it's not just the Catholics who are uncatechized, many people don't know much about any specific Christian tradition, thus the rise of the non-denominational churches. [Increasingly, in the popular mind, these traditions are often treated in the same way that scripture is seen in the general culture:  as collections of helpful maxims gleaned over the centuries, rather than as centuries-long engagements with the question of the human person before God.]

And it's not just the gang in the pews.  Those who train Protestant ministers (according to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education) observe the same thing that is sometimes found in recent Catholic seminary applicants:  Students who feel called to ministry are often fairly recent converts themselves, they are full of "faith" but lack a deep understanding of the religious community they wish to lead. 

That deep understanding will be necessary to reach out to the "lukewarm" and "weak practicing" Catholics.  These may not know the tradition well, but that doesn't mean that the catechism in bullet form will help.  We need to be able to hear the tendrils of their tenuous connection, in order to offer, from 'the storehouse of old and new,' an insight, a toehold, a word that will give a large context to those tendrils -- and connect them to a social network that will help them to find a home in the sprawling story that is Catholicism.

Ashes at the Debate?

Tonight's version of the wafer-watch sideshow (or the display of the lapel flag pin)  is whether any of the candidates will wear ashes on his forehead. 

I don't know why this is an issue. Catholics (and other Christians) receive a cross of ash on their forehead to remind them of their frailty at the beginning of Lent.  It's a popular practice, probably because ashes are simple and concrete and speak pretty clearly to people's hearts.  For Catholics, "getting ashes" is not a requirement; Ash Wednesday is not a holy day of obligation (but we sure don't get these crowds at my parish for Ascension Thursday).

Ashes do not confer special powers, they are simply a sign, like a reindeer holiday sweater.  Their presence or absence should not take our attention from the serious issues that will (hope springs eternal) dominate the debates tonight.

On the other hand, if you talk like a sanctimonious jerk, yes, the ashes will sort of intensify that impression.  And it might be easier to get rid of the ashes.

"...a worthy and humane solution..."

From the “Letter of the Hispanic/Latino Bishops to Immigrants,” Monday, December 12^th, 2011, Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe [h/t:  Rocco Palmo, emphasis added]

“We... wish to let those of you who lack proper authorization to live and work in our country know that you are not alone, or forgotten. We recognize that every human being, authorized or not, is an image of God and therefore possesses infinite value and dignity. We open our arms and hearts to you, and we receive you as members of our Catholic family. As pastors, we direct these words to you from the depths of our heart.

In a very special way we want to thank you for the Christian values you manifest to us with your lives—your sacrifice for the well-being of your families, your determination and perseverance, your joy of life, your profound faith and fidelity despite your insecurity and many difficulties. You contribute much to the welfare of our nation in the economic, cultural and spiritual arenas....

In your suffering faces we see the true face of Jesus Christ. We are well aware of the great sacrifice you make for your families’ well-being. Many of you perform the most difficult jobs and receive miserable salaries and no health insurance or social security. Despite your contributions to the well-being of our country, instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as criminals because you have violated current immigration laws.

We are also very aware of the pain suffered by those families who have experienced the deportation of one of their members. We are conscious of the frustration of youth and young adults who have grown up in this country and whose dreams are shattered because they lack legal immigration status. We also know of the anxiety of those whose application process for permanent residency is close to completion and of the anguish of those who live daily under the threat of deportation. This situation cries out to God for a worthy and humane solution. …"

Santorum on the three-way, bigots on the left

Here we go again.  This afternoon Rick Santorum was booed loudly and roundly at a collegiate event (hello?  fellow professors?) in New Hampshire when, challenged on his rejection of civil marriage for gays and lesbians, he suggested that such a right might also include marriages consisting of three or more partners.

(In the past, he has, idiotically, also suggested that the argument for gay marriage might be extended to "man on dog."  I'm not even fond of dogs in the conventional sense so, yes, this does seem like a different case to me.  Call me conservative.  But for heaven's sake, don't call this guy Mr. President.  Nevertheless...)

Those on the left of him (most of the room) seemed to think that introducing the idea that the grounds for gay marriage and the grounds for plural marriage are similar constitutes a smear campaign designed to make gay marriage seem radical.  But the grounds for these two cases are not similar, they are the same.  If marriage is to be understood as a civil institution joining two people together in a contract that includes things like commitment and intimacy and fulfillment and a communion of support, well, why would this be limited to duets?

I'm not being sarcastic here.  I can readily imagine a home of two men and one woman, maybe with a child or two from a previous marriage or one of the sexual unions, in which the three adults are genuinely committed to a community of intimacy and partnership.  We always imagine the suggestion of plural unions as swinging sexy "three-fers," when in fact, I'm guessing, in real life these communities may well develop out of a web of long-term friendships and support (you know, the way your marriage did).

You are disagreeing, saying we outlawed this already.  Didn't I just see the trial, with oppressed pale women in oversize Laura Ingalls Wilder get-ups and a really sick misogynist at the helm of it all? Well, yes.  But these sins are not unique to people living in compounds in rural Idaho, bad romances are all over my lovely Connecticut suburb.  If the guy on TV had been happy with just one abused woman, of course, this would all be on the up and up.

The point here is that we have already, in the civil realm, re-defined marriage in such a way that plural marriage is simply another form of Heather's two mommies and Tommy's life with his single dad and your cousin's two-person straight marriage on the beach with a Universal life minister. The consensus at the moment is to regard civil marriage as a private deal about the happiness of those involved, and the rest is none of your business.

Santorum is quite right to point this out, and those who boo to shut down thinking are the bigots in the room.

Advent reflection

A reflection on today's Gospel, written for the Fairfield University community:

Jesus said to the crowds: "To what shall I compare this generation? It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another, "We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn." For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, "He is possessed by a demon." The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, "Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is vindicated by her works." (Mt 11:16-19)

Today’s gospel could well have been written any day this week, as the news shouts at me on all sides and the jumble of daily living picks up in tempo as we race toward the end of the semester.

Somehow, the need is to keep a steady hand on the tiller, aware of the choppy seas, making small adjustments as we go, yet staying on course. I know that a combination of steadiness and flexibility is the most productive approach to a turbulent time.

But at the moment all I can hear are the voices calling me to zig and zag. Like children, they need attention right now; their anxiety is shrill with complaint: faster, please -- and bigger and louder and brighter. Every email brings either a shameful reproach or a fresh temptation. Even my own spiritual practices leave me up for grabs: my silence feels like a cop-out, my attentiveness merely self-serving.

In panic I grasp a quiet mantra that appears as a moment of sheer grace, a sturdy phrase that holds the pieces of my life in place with a finely-delineated integrity – until a quick internet search finds that these same words first appeared as the laugh line in a year-old advertisement for appliance repair. In the age of Google, everything we hold as dear will, at some point, serve as burlesque.

The only lodestar I find, in the gospel story with its needy cast and conflicting pieties, is wisdom. Wisdom does not beg and she rarely exhorts; she is neither given nor taken. Wisdom strides through the marketplace, her hand is sure, she is “vindicated by her works.” In this Advent season, as the children cry out for a dance and the whirl of images seem never to resolve, I cling to her.

Romney, religion-talk, take #2

Some people just don't pay attention when they read my blog.  Let me repeat.  It is not bigotry to say that, in a yes-or-no situation, Mormons are not Christian -- unless you consider "not Christian" to be a slur.  The issue is that Mormonism is a variant form of Christianity that many would place outside of the mainstream, because Mormons claim a definitive revelation after Christ.  It is reasonable to observe that fact ("a variant form of Christianity") -- unless all your other observations are generally ugly, in which case, yes, "not Christian" IS probably just more of your usual bigotry.

Deep sigh.

Romney's Mormon Underwear

One good thing happened in the Republican primary recently, and it's not that Sarah Palin was put permanently out to pasture. I'm calling this weekend the end of the Mormon wars. Mitt's been accused of belonging to a non-Christian cult.  I don't think it will stick anymore.

In terms of the religious landscape in the US, the charge that Mormonism is a cult says much more about the accusers than about Mormonism (it's not a cult, in the academic sense of the term). For my readers, you should note that most of the folks who call Mormonism a "cult" make the same charge against Roman Catholics. It means "not-us."

Are Mormons Christians?  Mormons claim a revelation that is largely based upon, but also does claim in part to surpass, the revelation of God in Christ.  What is of interest is that the story of  Joseph Smith is tightly lashed to the wilderness narrative characteristic of the early days of the United States.  In this sense it is an example of a riff on Christian belief that takes this "new country" as a visionary starting point.

Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich weighed in on the "is Mitt Christian" question on Face the Nation this morning.  Gingrich seemed to think Mitt fell under the Christian umbrella, Cain was trying hard to be inclusive in tone, but non-committal on the question.  In my book, Mormonism is non-standard, a variant form of Christianity.  Cain's demurral this morning -- he's usually way out on a limb -- is fair enough.

Does it matter? For the purposes of his proposed leadership of this country, the differences between Romney's Mormonism and the Christian mainstream are about as important as the question of whether Jesus had brothers and sisters or not -- a real issue, for some, but one with zero impact on public policy. Romney's been in public life for years, and it seems that the notion that his faith informs a broad social conservatism that would be very similar to mainstream Republicans has been a consistent theme.  As would be the case with most religions, there are Mormons and there are Mormons.  Religions all have wacky currents, but the thing about Romney is that he is, above all, genetically non-wacky.

I'm not a Romney fan.  What I do admire, though, is that he has brought to the discussion a pretty cool head in handling the religion question, which could be a real service -- a reset point? -- for the Republican party.  He neither apologizes nor dwells on the mud being thrown.  The arguments against his candidacy based on religion are bunk and will increasingly, one can hope, marginalize those who mount them.

Does Mitt Romney secretly wear funny Morman underwear?  Could it be any stranger than the "mainstream" thongs -- huh, guess that makes them Christian -- in Victoria's not-so-secret display at the mall? 

Bedtime reading: Andrew Sullivan draws attention to a piece in Salon by Alan Lightman, on the question of God in an age of scientific method.  It is a response to Dawkins and friends, and makes several helpful distinctions.

"A Catholic Call to Abolish the Death Penalty"

Thanks to Gerald J. Beyer, Alexander Mikulich, Emily Reimer-Barry and Tobias Winright, for their work in writing the text of "A Catholic Call to Abolish the Death Penalty," which I have signed. 

"... Therefore, in concert with our recent popes and bishops, we oppose the death penalty, whether a person on death row is guilty or innocent, on both theological and practical grounds. While we especially deplore and lament the killing of Troy Davis, we also decry the death sentences of the more than 3,200 inmates on death row and the 1,268 executions since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976. We urge our nation to abolish capital punishment, and we also implore our churches to work unwaveringly to end it as well as all other threats to human life and dignity."

Phyllis Zagano, "Women & Catholicism"

My review of Phyllis Zagano's new book, Women & Catholicism: Gender, Communion and Authority is available on the NCR website.

Elizabeth Scalia on Homosexuality

Over at First Things, Elizabeth Scalia has a thoughtful post on homosexuality.  I confess that I often find her too snarky and almost didn't click on the link.

In fact, snark is where she begins, rolling her eyes at an awards-show winner, as he claims exuberantly that gays are "exceptional people."  But then she pauses, and wonders...

Perhaps homosexuals are in fact “special and exceptional others,” whose distinctions are meant to be noted. Perhaps they are a “necessary other” created and called to play a specific role in our shared humanity...

I have a theory that our gay brothers and sisters are, in fact, planned, loved-into-being “necessary others,” and that they are meant to show us something of God from a perspective that we cannot otherwise broach...

If that is so, our homosexual brothers and sisters deserve a full participation in our human adventure, right down to the “plans of fullness, not of harm; to give you a future and a hope.”

But those plans, in the life of every fully-engaged human, involve not just gifts but also challenges, not just “yes” but also “no,” not just satisfaction, but also sacrifice, not just ourselves but also obedience. That’s the fullness; it comes from embracing the plan, but it is not easy.

What she is saying, I think (but check out the comments, they're all over the place), is that being gay is a gift from God that comes with a special mandate to love -- and, I suspect, she'll add that that such love is only fully realized as the gift it is when it is expressed in ways other than having sex.  Indeed, if being out means being sexually active, Scalia argues (crediting Camille Paglia) that gay artists work best in the closet.

Maybe I mis-read her.  I agree with her that gender identity and sexual orientation are primary modes of being human, not social constructs that can be endlessly deconstructed. So then, if hetero-sexual sexual activity is primarily about procreation, must a same-sex orientation be primarily about something other than sexual activity?

Or is it possible that same-sex sexual activity is the "necessary other," part of plan of the "fullness" of sexuality?

I am not sure.  I do appreciate that Scalia is assuming that there is a particular integrity in the same-sex orientation, and asks, in a careful way, what it might be.

But still, I wonder about the potential extension of this argument as, in the background, I hear an application of it to another "very special" group, women, whose form is claimed to be so special that it literally cannot receive the sacrament of holy orders.

Hmmmm. What if most of us are "necessary" "others?"  Necessary to whom?