Kasper's Right: The African Episcopate and Homosexuality

Suffice it to say that I never thought I'd see the day where I'd go to bat for Walter Kasper. Even less did I think that I'd be defending him during these tumultuous times where he's proven to be...well...less than helpful for the Church. However, despite my deep disagreements with the Cardinal's proposals on many issues, I feel compelled to stick up for him. Over the past day or so, veteran reporter Edwin Pentin released an interview wherein His Eminence waxes less than eloquently on the topic of his African brothers and homosexuality (emphases mine).

Pentin: It has been said that he added five special rapporteurs on Friday to help the general rapporteur, Cardinal Peter Erdo. Is that because he’s trying to push things through according to his wishes?

Kasper: I do not see this going on in the Pope’s head. But I think the majority of these five people are open people who want to go on with this. The problem, as well, is that there are different problems of different continents and different cultures. Africa is totally different from the West. Also Asian and Muslim countries, they’re very different, especially about gays. You can’t speak about this with Africans and people of Muslim countries. It’s not possible. It’s a taboo. For us, we say we ought not to discriminate, we don’t want to discriminate in certain respects.

P. But are African participants listened to in this regard?

K. No, the majority of them [who hold these views won’t speak about them].

P. They’re not listened to?

K. In Africa of course [their views are listened to], where it’s a taboo.

P. What has changed for you, regarding the methodology of this synod? [question from French journalist]

K. I think in the end there must be a general line in the Church, general criteria, but then the questions of Africa we cannot solve. There must be space also for the local bishops’ conferences to solve their problems but I’d say with Africa it’s impossible [for us to solve]. But they should not tell us too much what we have to do.

The incessant, frothing shrieks of racism from almost every corner of the Catholic blogosphere have eliminated almost any any chance of reasonable discussion on the topic. Rorate, God bless 'em, headed their piece with this: 

Da fuq...?

So, is Kasper actually a closet bigot who thinks himself superior than his Third World counterparts? Well, yeah probably. However, that doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong about large swathes of the African episcopate. Come with me for a second to Nigeria, where the Church is exploding and the faith is strong. You may have heard something about Nigeria's recent anti-homosexual legislation, which includes up to 10-year-prison sentences for "directly or indirectly [making] a public show of same sex amorous relationship." Assuredly the Nigerian bishops arose as one and, while reaffirming the moral illicitude of homosexual acts, denounced such draconian castings of the first stone. Assuredly, they adhered to the line of then-Pope Benedict XVI who, "opposed...‘unjust discrimination’ against gay men and lesbians.” Er, well, no. Not exactly. The Chairman of the Nigerian Conference of Bishops hailed the legislation as "courageous" and "a step in the right direction." They held Masses of Thanksgiving, for cripe's sake. In an age where the Pope is trying to achieve rapprochement with gays, without changing doctrine, the African bishops lag severely behind and don't even think its a problem.

Is it really racist to say that, maybe, these aren't the folks we should be taking our cues on LGBQT-Catholic relations from? Is it really all that condescending to suggest that the Afro-Islamic world, including the Christian clergy therein, could stand to catch up a bit with the West on human rights? Does anyone really think we should be listening to these people on how to deal with homosexuals in Seattle or Brussels? You'd have to be nuts to buy that. 

Now I need to go take a shower.

How Gays and (Real) Catholics can Coexist

It was not so long ago, historically speaking, that the Roman Catholic Church condemned religious liberty as a perfidious doctrine foreign to the apostolic faith and one to be fought at every available opportunity. It was likewise not so long ago that Blessed Pius IX ordered the kidnapping of a young Jewish boy who had been baptized by his nurse, separating him permanently from his parents and raising him as a Catholic. Of course, 150 years on, the sight of Popes praying with Rabbis at the Western Wall and in synagogues has become a perfectly normal one.  In a move which undoubtedly set Bl. Pius spinning in his sarcophagus, Vatican II declared in no uncertain terms that “the human person has a right to religious freedom.” What, exactly, changed between the 19^th and 20^th centuries? It is certainly not doctrine, for the Catholic Church knows no development of doctrine which would contradict what came before. No, what happened was a shift in practical realities and a corresponding adjustment by the Church. This shift in approach, accepted by most of the world’s Catholics and conservative Christians, has deep ramifications in unexpected places; namely, in Pauline Christianity’s relationship with homosexuals.

The Catholic Church should accept gay marriage in the same way and for the same reasons it has accepted religious pluralism. Tolerance does not equate approval, and the same toleration which we extend to other religious communities should equally be extended to alternative lifestyles. I’m convinced that the only reason most homosexuals treat conservatives Christians as pariahs, and at every opportunity marginalize them from the public square, is because they see us as an existential threat to their liberty. This perception isn’t some grand, leftist delusion. It’s the only logical conclusion they can come to when observing the behavior and rhetoric of mainstream Christian leaders over the past 35 years. When Pope Benedict XVI referred to the gay rights movement as a threat to humanity on par with global warming, or when Pope Francis asserted that gay rights is “a plot from the Father of lies,” can we honestly blame the LGBQT community for seeing us as anything less than a threat? I don’t think so.

Of course, the LGBQT community has much to answer for as well. Just because someone holds the same sexual ethics as Jesus, Gandhi, the Buddha and Martin Luther King Jr. doesn’t automatically mean that they’re a bigot. The LGBQT community needs to accept the fact that religious opposition to alternative sexualities can, in fact, stem from intellectually respectable worldviews. They also need to denounce the increasing incidences of anti-Christian bigotry, such as the crucifixion of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich and the more recent persecution of artistic director, and Mormon, Scott Eckern.  It is precisely these sorts of incidents which force many religious conservatives to see LGBQT equality as directly inimical to religious freedom, and the LGBQT community has just as much of a responsibility to end this conflict as the religious conservatives.

Coexistence is most definitely possible, but it will necessitate both sides laying down their arms, agreeing to disagree and letting one another live in peace. Fellow Christians: gays are not going to destroy the family any more than no-fault divorce has, and if you need somebody to blame, blame the Protestants for accepting it in the first place.  We have bigger fish to fry than gay marriage, like the millions of abortions taking place every year and the steep decline in religious faith of any kind. Gays: We’re not your enemies. We (for the most part) genuinely care about your happiness and spiritual health. For whatever wrongs we have committed against you in the name of God, we apologize unreservedly and beg your forgiveness. We also ask, however, that you accept us for who we are and what we believe. Don’t ask us to alter the Word of God to accommodate your lifestyles. Just as we need to stay out of your bedrooms, you need to stay out of our Bibles.

I believe that we can make it out of this mess together. Let us pray that, at the dawn of a new decade, people of all religious backgrounds and sexual orientations can find it within themselves to live together in peace.

Filial Reflections on the Pope's Abidcation

Danke, Heiliger Vater.

Words seem mute at this point. How can we adequately express our gratitude for a man who has, in humble obedience, devoted his entire life to the service of the Lord, His people, and the good of mankind? How can our hopelessly small words convey the depth of our love for him, our admiration for his labors or the sting of our collective grief over his abrupt departure? I guess they can't.

I don't think I exaggerate when I say that many of us feel personally bereft, like we're losing a beloved guide and mentor; a grandfather in Christ. For eight years, his has been the face of the papacy. For eight years, when I'd crawl out of bed at 3:30 a.m. on holy days, his were the words, the chants, the reassurances and proclamations of the Gospel that helped sustain my sometimes wavering faith. For eight years, he was our rock, an unfailing source of stability in a time defined by its chaos and uncertainty. No matter what happens, I'd say to myself, God is still God and Ratzinger is still speaking for Him.When that happens, you get attached. Now he has decided that,for the good of God's Church, he must surrender the Keys which had been entrusted him almost a decade ago. I trust his judgement, and I have no reason to doubt that it was the right decision, but I confess that this hurts. It hurts a great deal. However, c'est la vie. The Church will roll on as it has for the past 2,000 years, saving souls and preaching the Gospel, until Christ returns in glory.

The only thing we can do now is besiege Heaven in thanks for this "humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord", and that he may have a blessed, happy retirement. Enjoy it, Holy Father. No one deserves it more than you.

Reflections on Reason and Faith: Part I

 A long time ago, possibly before I turned 10, maybe after, I made up my mind to never, ever, consciously, concurrently hold beliefs that either contradict one another, or that have simply been proved false. From creationism to nearly all strains of Dharmic religion, to objective morality in an atheistic construct of the universe, I've critically examined and dismissed so many creeds (Mormonism, anyone?), philosophical propositions and other, half-baked, no-brained postulates that I can't even remember half of them. I can say with a considerable degree of confidence that there was never much uncertainty in my conclusions, nor have I ever clung to any belief, religious or secular, after it had been conclusively shown to be false. People who have known me long enough can attest to my gradual shift from Biblical literalism, Creationism, Manicheanism and a whole horde of other idiotic "isms" to the glorious spiritual and intellectual harbor of Catholicism, in whose embrace faith and reason have struck the perfect balance of interdependence and autonomy. Since that time I have taken as my motto and philosophy the words of that luminous mind, Aquinas, who said over seven centuries ago that, "The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

    Indeed, no one who has faith in the God Who wrought existence from the void should ever fear the progress of science, for, as the Fathers unanimously attest, science and revelation can never truly contradict; on the contrary, they can only serve to clarify one another, and, in the process, allow the light of truth to shine forth with ever-increasing radiance. Any such fear of science, then, betrays both a lack of faith in revelation and a stubborn resistance to the irresistable force of Truth as unveiled by our God-given faculties of reason and critical-thinking. Indeed, if one were to trace this fear to its root causes, the sentiments that give rise to it might be deemed heretical. Despite all this inherent sense, I don't want to give the impression that Catholicism has always, even on an official, magisteral level, lived up to its own standards. Nobody needs to be reminded of Galileo (whose condemnation and subsequent incarceration, ironically, had almost nothing to do with the doctrinal implications of his astronomical theories) or Copernicus (same story), however, people should know, for example, about the initial hostility to Darwin's theories on the part of the German episcopate, apathy on the part of the Vatican, and seemingly willful non-engagement or tacit condemnation by all pontiffs until Pius XII. Even today, critical literary and archeological concerns which have been raised concerning the pre-Davidic Patriarchs such as Noah and Moses, figures essential not only to Catholics, but to all claiming spiritual descent from Abraham (who himself has evidently fallen under the blade of historical-critical exegesis), have gone unaddressed by Church authorities. Their hesitancy is, at best, understandable. The policy espoused by Aquinas would require Mother Church to shed, almost certainly with great difficulty, certain propositions which, despite having attained practical dogmatic status, have failed to withstand the modern advances of biology, geology and literary criticism. Even more difficult is the matter of reconciling the truly fundamental doctrine of Original Sin with what we now know about the true origins of humanity, an issue so tense and volatile that even the indefatigable Pius XII himself ducked it, effectively foisting responsibility for this particular reconciliation of faith and reason onto future generations. However, despite the self-imposed difficulties the Church in grappling with these issues, She has not only the equipment to do so, but an obligation to do so, as well. To continue as is without addressing these crucial concerns would be nothing less than a wholesale betrayal of Catholicism's own philosophical methodology as enunciated by Aquinas, Augustine and the other Latin Fathers. Which brings me back to my opening statements and the point of this essay.

    Despite being in the era of the Enlightenment, what some have somewhat preumptiously dubbed "the Age of Reason", some individuals and religions, unlike myself or my faith, have neither the tools nor the desire to reconcile faith and reason. This is tolerable (not, I emphasize, good or desirable) when said religions have no global aspirations, open themselves to criticism, questioning and examination by those who disagree with their fundamental tenets. I'll openly name some; Mormonism, Rastafarianism, and Buddhism. Yeah, they're bullshit, alright; but, and this is crucial, Rastafarians won't decapitate you if you say it. I've sat down and talked with Mormons and Buddhists and we've actually made headway, albeit in Catholicism's favor, but, still. They were willing to sit down and talk, as are 99% of their co-religionists. And, all of us are, really. We pick, we nag, we ridicule one another, but, that's pretty much the extent of it. Bill Donahue ends up frothing on Fox News, Richard Dawkins will sneer condescendingly about the evils of religion, the Dalai Lama will laugh like your mentally-unstable Asian great-uncle and the world keeps on spinning. Nobody gets hurt. One religion, however, is not playing nice. Not only is it refusing to submit itself to critical evaluation, or let others do so, for that matter, but, on top of all that, it will not shut up and leave the rest of the world alone. Its not small, either. At 1.57 billion adherents, its the world's second largest and fastest growing religion, claiming over 1 fifth of humanity. And it speaks Arabic.

Know thy Enemy: Understanding Atheism and the War on Faith

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

- Luke 19:27

Triumph of Faith over Idolatry. Jean-Baptist Theoden. Chiesa del Gesu, Rome.

In case you've been living under a rock for the past 10 years, there's been something of war on religion in the public square. The chief assailants are atheist intellectuals, the most prominent among them being the aptly-named, "Four Horsemen"; Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennett, and a whole host of knuckle-dragging secularists who can't tell the difference between Kierkegaardian existentialism and Nietzscheism. As Catholics, its incumbent upon us to stand up and defend the role of religion in society. And, in a world where knowledge is power, the first step in this defense is understanding the intellectual divide between believers and atheists. Here are some tips in that regard.

1. Familiarize yourself with atheist thought (and its flaws): Nothing is more agonizing than watching an ignorant, albeit well-meaning, Christian debate an atheist. Unfortunately, the average atheist is better versed in the art of debate and philosophy than the average Christian. In a particularly cringe-inducing example, I recall a debate broadcast on British television wherein an African Archbishop, someone whom you'd hope would know how to handle himself intellectually, was being verbally pummeled by atheists extraordinaire Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. With copious amounts of platitude and logical fallacies, the good Archbishop somehow managed to convince an initially ambivalent audience that Christianity was not a force for good. FYI, these things are not good for Christianity.

Not for the faint of heart.

A good way avoid looking like an idiot in similar situations is to read up on atheist literature. From Hitchens to Russell, familiarizing yourself with the Apostles of Godlessness, and the flaws of their arguments, can do enormous good when trying to establish intellectual credibility. If you know their sages better than they do, you're already a step ahead in the game. If you've never heard of "the problem of evil" or the "omnipotence paradox", you're really not doing Christianity any favors.

2. Don't act like a jackass: I myself am prone to it; acting like a pompous idiot during a debate with an atheist, that is. Its very easy to fall into, really. So convinced are we of the truth of our faith, that we sometimes forget to consider the (improbable) possibility that we've got it all wrong. In doing so, we permit ourselves to turn our noses up at unbelievers, declaring them unworthy of taking seriously. This is toxic, brethren. Firstly, it makes us look like arrogant pricks who are themselves unworthy of taking seriously. Secondly, it can lead to intellectual laziness that allows the opposition to tear our own arguments apart. Either way, it isn't good.

3. Pick fights: After having equipped yourself with adequate knowledge, its time to go out and pick a fight with an atheist. Now, let me clarify. I'm not saying to go declare a crusade on the normally amiable, unbelieving co-worker in the cubicle next to yours, nor am I suggesting that you punch an atheist activist in the face whilst screaming "GOD WILLS IT" (as satisfying as that is in theory). What I'm saying is this. If you run into a person who states, "I'm not that religious" or "I don't believe in God", start a conversation.For example...

Ted: Man, Obama's really assaulting our religious liberty...
Bob: Eh. I don't believe in God, so...
Ted: You don't believe in God?
Bob: Nope.
Ted: Tell me, have you ever heard of Thomas Aquinas...?

Oremus: Praying in the midst of Despair

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:"

- Matthew 7:7

Christ in the Wilderness, Ivan Kramskoy, 1872

The painting pictured above happens to be my all-time-favorite of Jesus. People often make a big deal about how God became man, sharing our physicality in both its glorious and mundane aspects. However, no one seems to want to paint the mundane aspects. Except for this guy, that is. I mean, it figures. Leave it to a Russian to paint Jesus as one of us, really one of us. There's nothing glorious about Him here, no rays of majesty or ethereal light. Just a dude sitting on a rock. Bored. Slightly despondent, even. Substitute the robes with skinny jeans and he could be the spitting image of your jobless, pot-smoking cousin. And, yet, He's God Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, the Lord of Majesty and Master of the Day of Judgement. Creator of the Universe, Savior of the World. God! Sitting on a rock. Bored. Crazy, right? Damn near unbelievable, even. And yet, there it is. What does this have to do with prayer, you ask? I'll tell you.

As anyone who has ever prayed and felt nothing should be able to relate to this painting. Even Christ's physical position, sitting with head stooped and hands folded, eyes staring blankly forward whilst trying with ever-increasing futility to barge mentally into the divine presence, should ring a bell with any amateur mystic. And this painting, intentionally or not, tells us that, you know what? That's okay. Not every prayer, Christ's bags show us, will result in spiritual ecstasy. Perhaps not even most prayers. Perhaps not even any prayers. Even Jesus, GOD INCARNATE, had His spiritual dry spots. How do we mere mortals, then, deal with them?

1. Integrity: "He who loves me keeps my commandments" says Christ in the Gospels (cf?). 

Verbum Domini: Familiarity with the Scriptures

"Ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ."

- St. Jerome

Jerome being studious.

As with most things, the Doctor of the Church minced no words when telling others what he thought of scriptural ignorance. For Jerome, the guy who single-handedly re-translated the entire Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin without the internet, biblical literacy was kind of a big thing and it was incumbent upon all believers to familiarize themselves with the holy texts. Its common sense, when you think about it. For Christians, the Bible is an essential component of their knowledge about God. It contains all the confirmed teachings of Christ, the Apostles, Prophets, Sages and Kings. It records salvation history, and is bursting with poetry, myth and all sort of spiritually efficacious materials for the average Homo Sapien. How is it, then, that people, and Catholics in particular, have almost completely lost touch with the scriptures?

Well, that's a complicated question that we don't necessarily have time to delve into within the confines of this blog. What we do have time for, however, is solutions to this problem. 

1. Get a good Bible: Unfortunately, while most homes in America have a Bible, its usually some expired, unintelligible edition of the King James which sits on a shelf gathering dust. The Bible, unfortunately, is not an integral part of people's lives. A Christian's Bible should be ragged, worn down and dog-eared from merciless, daily use. Its pages should be stuffed with sacred family mementos, highlights and personal notes. It should also be understandable. For all its historical and aesthetic value, the King James version is not a scripture fit for men of the 21st century, unless these men happen to be fluent in 17th century English. Aside from that, its missing books. Every Christian should find a version of the Bible (Catholic, of course) that is both easy to understand and faithful to the original languages. 

2. Set aside time to read it: Its crucial that we make the Bible a normal part of our lives, and a crucial component of doing that is actively setting aside time every day to contemplate its message. Personally, I like to get up just before dawn and immediately start reading after my prayers. You'll find that your mind is more relaxed and that the quiet of the early morning is the perfect time for contemplation. It also helps to put everything in perspective. Make sure to supplement the particular verses your reading with musings on the same by Saints, popes and other Christians who have something informative to say about them. We're not Protestants. We don't read the scripture in a vacuum, as though we're the only ones we need to reference. We read scripture as a family. Just as you might ask a parent about something, so to we should unabashedly run to the Saints to inform us on one thing or another.

3. Let it influence you: Someone, though I can't remember who, once said that the Gospel is like a wild animal, and that if we simply let it lose it will conquer everything. I buy that. I think that if we take the Bible, properly interpreted of course, and simply let it be itself and actually have a say in our lives, the world would be a very different, and better, place. So, crack open that old King James on the shelf and start making notes. Its a start, anyway. Who knows? You might just light the world on fire.

Someone who took the Bible seriously.