Wearing religion on our sleeve.

At the time when Jesus started on his ministry and surrounded himself with twelve disciples (and some of their wifes)  it was unlikely they wore any kind of identifiable clothes or material that would have said ‘we belong to a very special kind of religious sect’.  Imagine no mitres, no chasuble, alb, stole, rings, croizier, just simple everyday clothes.  What made Jesus and his disciples truly distinguishable was what they did for the poor, the indigent , sick and infirm.  Only then did Jesus speak of the 'good news' often in the practised form of parables.  What most of us Christians and certainly the religious leaders of his time often missed or grasped is that these parables were usually expressed in upside down and contradictory terms against a  world of strict and accepted cultural, moral and religious values.  If anyone wanted to become his followers the ‘upside down’ kingdom values were the only way.  The narrow gate, eye of the needle represented the love and compassion necessary to bring kingdom values into practise. Jesus never wrote anything down, or dictated any rules or instructed anyone that what he did or spoke of should be formed into strict dogma or doctrine.   At the same time Jesus certainly never suggested that his listeners should become Jewish or insisted that they attend the synagogue at least once a week.  Instead, compassion and Love were to be practised everyday. Jesus associated as easily with despised tax collectors, as he did with prostitutes or women and men who did not even belong to his Jewish community. He was 100 percent inclusive and frequenly challenged the norms .  Jesus and his disciples healed the sick, cured the blind, forgave the sinner and promised listeners that they should pick up their cross and live a life to be lived to the full.

To live such a joy filled life all that was required is ‘repentance’ from the original Greek word metanoia meaning a 'change of mind and heart'.  And for most of us this can be a totally up-side down experience especially when dealing with difficult situations and people.  All you need we are told is a total trust in God  with his added proviso that his Holy Spirit will  then act as our guide, and teach us all we need to know to become true believers in this new way of life.  In so doing miracles will become an everyday event, even to the point of seeing people being raised from the dead. 

You would have thought that most of us would have jumped to the chance to give up our pain and suffering, but not so.  The ego quickly came to our rescue by immediately spreading  doubt that anything could be that easy.  And soon Jesus message seemed far too difficult and demanding for most of us   After listening to him talk about the laborers in the vineyard who all received the same amount of pay regardless of the number of hours they put in – we quickly figured this model was never going to become popular or fair.   What about giving up our hard earned and respected social position in life and sitting at the lowest end of the table?  No that wasn’t something most of us are ready to accept.  We worked to hard for that.  That guy Jesus and his disciples who looked like beggars were probably crazy and should be quickly chased out of town.

Today Jesus’ promise remains as true as ever,  yet few of us are willing to trust him so completely that we prefer to play it safe by putting our primary trust in worldly institutions instead.  Here the wages are scaled according to our performance while highly trained doctors and nurses will take care of our health.  As for concerns for the poor, sick and indigent, well various government organizations will take care of most of them. By the way political rules also help us to avoid any need for direct contact with the less fortunate. And, those who call themselves ‘street people’ probably prefer to live that way anyway. 

As for the worldly institutions even the religious ones have taken up the accepted social structure first introduced by the Roman Emperor Constantine.  Roman Catholic clergy today still follow a strict code or regimen with regard its political structure, dress and hierarchy,  which is based on Constantine’s military background. Up until the time of Constantine Christians were under constant threat of being persecuted in the most violent of ways by various Roman rulers.  After that the roles were reversed and the Christians became the persecutors.  History is filled with many dark periods of religious persecution. I  will spare readers the horrific details.  However while persecution may be less obvious today a lot of fervent and very militant Christians have trouble being compassionate with people living on the margins of life, particularly those with life styles other than prescribed by the their religious leaders. Calls for compassion are quickly dismissed in the most negative terms or un-Christian ways.  By denying any responsibility for such damaging teachings they  quickly deny them   by calling it ‘bashing  of the faith’! (their faith I guess)

"Religious symbols are contentious when displayed in the public sphere. They are seen as territorial marking, like a soldier planting a flag or a dog lifting its leg. So naturally the symbol of the Red Cross was rejected by Muslim countries, which adopted the Red Crescent, instead. But neither cross nor crescent was acceptable to Israel, which wanted a Red Star of David. However, that was rejected by the Muslims as symbolising Zionism. Finally they all settled on the Red Crystal, a secular symbol that includes everyone".  Source: Concordat Watch.

Today we hear that Christians are targets when they enter countries where they are considered a minority.  Is that because we walk around with crosses on chest, bibles under our arms and erect large crosses on mountain tops?   Christian or ‘followers of the way’ would have little to fear if we practised what Jesus told us to do with compassion for all strangers.         Most if not all the worlds religions accept the Golden Rule ‘do unto others as you would them have  unto you’.  So I’ll end with this crazy thought what if all religions stopped wearing their religion on their sleeves and practised indiscriminate compassion might it result in less violence (after all how would you recognize the competition?)  and how would we know who to reject?  

But now I will come to the real point of this brief essay and again ask the question ‘is it necessary to wear our religion on our sleeve?’ Or more pointedly does Christianity depend on what we wear, what denomination we attend, what version of the Bible we read, or who is in and who is out in our community, what prayers we need to recite and ritual we must perform, what we must believe, and most importantly for some 'who will go to heaven or hell'? Do we really need to fear or distrust other religions, athiest or agnostics, and gays? Do we trust the institution, ourselves or God, to save us in the end? Or is there something far more wonderfully positive beyond our limited understanding of God and his unconditional love, from what we have been taught thus far?

Readers may be interested to read noted author and religious historian Karen Armstrong's latest book 'Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life', (2010).  What was especially significant for me was her chapter on "Compassion for Yourself'  highlighting the point that we really cannot love others until we learn to love ourself. 

The Wisdom of the CHRISTIAN MYSTICS

In his introduction to ‘The Wisdom of the Christian Mystics, author Timothy Freke describes Mysticism as follows:   

"Mysticism is the spiritual essence of Christianity. The great Christian mystics, however, have often found themselves horribly persecuted as heretics by the established Churches for their outrageous claims and idiosyncratic ways. The mystics are not content to have a relationship with God via priests and institutions, but look inside themselves to know God directly. When they do, God is revealed as an all-embracing love that unites the universe into one indivisible whole. In communion with God, the mystics no longer experience themselves as separate individuals but as expressions of the Oneness. God is the only reality. God is everything. God does everything. This mystical vision is not a psychological anomaly: it is the natural state; human beings fail to experience it only because they believe themselves to be separate from God, when in fact He is their very essence. All mystical practices are designed to dispel this pernicious illusion of separateness.

The teachings that the mystics have left for us are not their opinions about God for us to believe or disbelieve. The 16thThey are testimonies to the possibility of certain intuitive knowledge of the Truth, that may tempt us with their sublime intensity lo make the mystical journey for ourselves. 16-century Spanish mystic, St. John of the Cross, writes, "God does not reserve the high vocation of mystical contemplation for certain souls only. On the contrary he wants all to embrace it, but finds few who will permit Him to work such exalted things for them." The very purpose of human life is to come to knowledge of God, and if we simply turn toward God we will find that He has been waiting for us all along. The 17th-century French mystic, Brother Lawrence, assures us "Knock, persevere in knocking, and 1 guarantee that He will answer".

 In recent years more and more people have come to realize that God cannot be confined to the dogmatic teachings of any religious institution.  The God most people seek today is the God who meets us where we are – not where others would have us be.  At best a religious institution can point the way but it must never become confused with the destination. Knowing God is not about studying religious text, repetitive prayers, elaborate rituals, or withdrawing from family and friends to a desert island or cave. It is not about belonging to a religious institution. While the sound of bells, or the smell of wax candles and incense may cause us to recall a special moment in time, they are not necessary to experience the longing presence of God in the most sacred place in the world – i.e., our heart. Knowing God is the intuitive experience deep within the human DNA or psyche.  It is present in all human beings from the time of creation to eternity.  It is our indestructible soul that moves beyond space and time – ‘I was there when He laid the earth’s foundations’ Proverbs 8: 22-31.  Knowing God does not require anyone to recite or study passages of Holy Scripture, the life of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, or Moses.  How can we make these seemingly outrageous claims?  Just think of an infant, perhaps only days old, the young soldier killed in battle, the individual bound by an incapacitating disease or the native born in the remotest forest on the earth – do we really believe God forsakes the least of his people?  Do we believe that people who are incapable or have never read the Bible, the Koran etc., do not share in the mystery of God’s presence?

Knowledge of God has therefore nothing to do with any intellectual knowing.  It is not dependent on any religious status or degrees.  We do not achieve holiness. We simply are!  God created us in his image and we can never be any holier than we already are.  The further we move away from any idea that we are separate from God the closer we will find him in our heart and mind and recognize him in others.  God does not favour anyone or anything over another, nor does He make demands, punish or reward.   God simply is and His love (expression) is found throughout creation and in every human being. God’s love is unconditional.  God does not get upset by the events and happenings of the world.  God simply observes and brings all things to good.  God is the Oneness that brings us all together not just now but for an eternity.

“ The very purpose of human life is to come to knowledge of God, and if we simply turn toward God we will find that He has been waiting for us all along”.  T. Freke


Timothy Freke (born 1959) is a British author of books on religion and mysticism Freke is perhaps best known for his books, co-authored with Peter Gandy, which advocate a Gnostic understanding of early Christianity and the Christ myth theory , including The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? and The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom.
Freke also runs experiential seminars in the UK, USA and Europe.

                          

Catholic Church and Intolerance

Recently a relatively well known, Canadian Catholic TV & Newspaper columnist, with strong fundamentalist views, triumphantly declared that, “once someone denies basic and absolute Catholic teaching they are no longer believing Catholics”. Furthermore, he added “for a Christian who refutes papal authority, the teachings of the magisterium and the integrity of the sacraments there is an obvious alternative. It’s called Protestantism". This exclusivist attitude may perhaps  serve Pope Benedict XVI who has expressed a preference for  a leaner, smaller, purer church dedicated to the observance of a strict orthodoxy, but it hardly addresses Catholics struggling with  Church teachings. 

More importantly we must now ask - does the Church belong only to the conservatives? And what of the millions of Catholics, who cannot for one or another reason, follow certain Church teachings. Where would you draw the line? How would anyone know? And, finally who would decide? Is church (community) only for those who claim they never deviate (or question) from church teachings?  (Without sin?)

It is estimated that almost 80% of Catholics believe the Church should allow Catholics to use birth control. Contraception is strictly prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church. Such acts are considered intrinsically disordered. Ultra orthodox groups within the Catholic Church believe that sexual activity not aimed at procreation is considered sinful and even evil.

Recent statistics reveal that a majority of Catholics would permit abortion in cases where the pregnancy was initiated through rape or incest. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that ending the life of a pre-embryo, embryo or fetus cannot be allowed, except in very rare cases where a life-saving operation on the woman results in the unintended death of the embryo or fetus.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, a homosexual orientation is deliberately chosen. The church regards all homosexual behaviour to be intrinsically sinful, regardless of the degree of love and commitment within the relationship. It is estimated that some 10% of the population is gay. Six in ten Canadians (59%) oppose the Catholic Church and other religious groups issuing directives to politicians on how they should vote on such issues. One in ten Canadians who oppose gay marriage say that politicians should vote as religious leaders direct them.

Three-quarters (74%) of Canadians believe that interfaith dialogue would have a “positive impact” on their community. However, Catholic dogma still teaches ‘no salvation outside the Church’. Additional obstacles to true ecumenism were pronounced in 2000 through a new doctrine Dominus Jesus under Cardinal Ratzinger as he declared “the Catholic Church as the sole true Church of Christ“ and all other Christian churches to be deficient in Truth. At the same time the Roman Catholic Church has steadily refused to accept an official role in the World Council of Churches.

The Roman Catholic Church today comes down heavily on those that do not follow its teachings. The Code of Canon Law (1436.1) states, One who denies a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or who calls it into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract it after having been warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with major excommunication. Under these terms opposition and any further discussion is quickly squelched.

Of course like any other Christian, Catholics are also sinners and thereby equally deserving of God’s salvation. The problem is how does one determine which teaching a ‘good’ Catholic fails to follow or accept? Surely the answer to that question can only be God. Once a religious institution decides that it has the exclusive power to determine ‘who is in and who is out’ it becomes a cult. Charles Kimball, author of When Religion Becomes Evil, identifies five warning signs of such corruption in religion.

1. Absolute Truth Claims

2. Blind Obedience

3. Establishing the "Ideal" Time

4. The End Justifies Any Means

5. Declaring Holy War

Recent statistics gathered by Ipso-Reid in 2006 suggest that there are more than just a few Catholics who simply cannot follow or agree on certain Church teachings.

• Eight in ten Canadians (81%) agree that “you don’t need to go to church to be a good Christian.”

• 70% of those who call themselves Christians agree that “my private beliefs about Christianity are more important than what is taught by any church.”

• Every-week church attendance in Canada in 1946 at 67% had dropped to 20% and is continuing to drop.

• Six in ten Canadians (59%) oppose the Catholic Church and other religious groups issuing directives to politicians on how they should vote on such issues.

Church attendance continues on a sharp decline. Only one in five attend a place of worship on a weekly basis. Another 13% attend about once a month, which represents only one-third of the population. Nineteen per cent go a few times a year, and 11% show up once a year or so. No wonder they're selling off churches. While the reasons for the decline vary belief in God (88%) has remained virtually unchanged in a century! These staggering statistics suggest what while people strongly belief in God they are still turning away from the institutional church. One can only conclude that there exists a serious unresolved problem between the two parties.

There is no absence in the Catholic Church today of growing fundamentalism, self-righteousness and exclusivism, along with an anti-Christian and militant attitude on question of human sexuality. The latter particularly as it affects abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Religious tolerance has clearly given way to name calling, angry accusations and even public excommunication. At the same time the Catholic Church remains in serious denial by refusing to address the endemic and systemic problems related to the ongoing sexual abuse crisis. Politically the Church refuses to acknowledge the relevant needs of the people it serves. While the “People of God” have spoken, the patriarchal Church remains silent in response; preferring monologue over true dialogue. In an effort to blame its problems on modernism, relativism and secularism the Church continues to block the progress and enthusiasm that was generated by Vatican II. Obviously there are many more issues that contribute to the current demise of the Catholic Church, but these can only be resolved with kindness, tolerance, and the love that God offers to ALL his people so that they may become ONE. Let’s thus begin with dropping a self-righteous attitude with the knowledge that God meets us where we are not were others would have us be.

A Word from a Reformer

St. Angela of Foligno

There is nothing in Canada's secular newspaper the National Post Religion Blog to suggest it cannot be ecumenical or is restricted to one religion. In fact, the invitation to 'get down on your knees and blog' clearly states that "this section is intended as a forum for everyone who has an interest in today's great religious issues. You will find a range of commentary on religion and society, intercine(?) battles within faith and the meaning and purpose of religious beliefs and observance. All views are welcome and being religious is not a requirement to join in the comment sections." However, its articles and views often appear to have a particular Roman Catholic interest sparking a variety of debates. It even has acquired a 'resident' Roman Catholic priest. Perhaps we could now invite a representative from each major religion.

If the Catholic Church seems to be a frequent target, in this blog, it is only because many people, Catholic or otherwise. are directly and indirectly affected by its global influence and exposure. You don't have to be Catholic to notice Pro-Life rally's, to be aware of its position on gays, abortion, etc. and its ongoing demand to impose legislation of its particular brand of ethics and morals throughout the country. The fall-out of these issues affect everyone. It should not come as a surprise that some of these views are going create battles within the faith when they conflict with inherited beliefs.

Some of the issues raised in Charles Lewis' recent article 'Dear Catholic reformers: thanks for the advice, really' suggests that the Catholic who does not share the Orthodox view of the Church is 'free to go'. We know that many have. But does the Church belong only to the conservatives? Where would you draw the line? How would you know? And, finally who would decide? A religion based on such criteria is better known as a cult. Religion that 'grows like wildfire' due to the strict observance of orthodoxy will not survive. History has shown it will be quickly taken over by more evangelical religions such as is happening in South America. The Church may continue to resist change or reformation, but change is the way of the Spirit.

Statistics reveal that today, in North America, there are more lay people (especially women) studying theology then members of the clergy in our seminaries. This represents a major shift in what was once, and until recently, considered to be the exclusive domain of the clergy. Educated lay people are learning today that matters of religion belong to them as much as it does to the institution. While this may be seen by some, especially the clergy, a serious assault on their authority, it does not really need to be so. When scripture tells us that the 'body of Christ' is made up of many parts we need to consider sharing our combined and unique God given gifts for the good of building his Kingdom.

What the Catholic Church is experiencing is a challenge to its authority. But that challenge is no different than it was for Peter and Paul on the question of circumcision. A wise spiritual advisor once said "A Church in crisis is a church alive"! The battle between 'conservative' and 'liberal' was every bit as intense between rivalling Bishops at Vatican II. At times it was even vicious! Just read O'Malley's book What Happened at Vatican II. Change is inevitable – Jesus said it was even necessary if we were to experience transformation- it's called metanoia or repentance.

We may not all be experts on matters of religion but our unique experience of God cannot be denied. Nor should this experience be dependent on fixed formulas or legal requirements. God meets us where we are – not where someone or an institution would have us be. There is the mystery! Vatican II teaches that while Dogma and doctrine can inspire and guide us it must never become the substitute for an informed conscience in Christ.

In recent years the Catholic Church has indicated a desire to return to a more predictable understanding of the 'faith'. This has been expressed in various documents such as 'Dominus Jesus' (2000), Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993), Canon Law 1983). Some of these documents contain wonderful scriptural interpretations, but they all reflect a legalistic rather than a 'holistic' approach to religion. This negative approach makes it extremely difficult to encourage any true and honest dialogue among God's people. Instead we become angry and issue forth judgments based on unquestionable teachings of the Church. This attitude leads only to division. Who is in and who is out. Jesus never turned down anyone, that I recall. So, what is really needed is dialogue, not monologue. We need dialogue between clergy and laity and more importantly with God - that requires reformation!

The role of the any religious institution is to bring people into a personal relationship with God. A God, to quote St. Angela of Foligno, who is present in everything that exists, in a devil and a good angel, in heaven and hell, in good deeds and in adultery and murder, in the beautiful and the ugly. So why can't we learn to see him in all those issues that are being presented in the Holy Post Blog. In the end these exchanges must lead us to grow in our faith and not force us to pour new wine into old wine skins.

A Matter of the Heart

The most frequent lines of defence used by some religious individuals to trump a religious argument is "the church teaches that . . . ." or "the church has always maintained that . . . ." or "the church fathers made it clear that . . . ." And finally, "the Bible says that . . ." Has it ever occurred to these individuals that while these are helpful tools, they need to first and foremost consult the ultimate authority within? That is where they will find the peace and compassion that will help them resolve many of the issues confronting them.

To claim victory on an argument merely on the basis of someone else's opinion ignores the hidden motives behind the original argument – more importantly it minimizes or devalues the potential of your own unique insight into the issue which may prevent you from searching for a deeper truth. Yes, you may be wrong but by expressing your own personal views but you will at last have claimed the very freedom that God gave us in the first place. This attitude will only help you to grow in wisdome and become more compassionate and understanding toward people. Conflicting ideas can give way to new understandings. We need to learn how to respond with God's wisdom and patience to any contrary views. Revelation has not happened once and for all time; it is an ongoing process that can never end, because there are always fresh teachings to be discovered. (Karen Armstrong 2007).
Tradition and scripture must therefore be interpreted not in historical terms but in our own modern everyday experiences.

The writings of the Church and the Bible are often expressed in obscure and complex terms. Some interpretations or passages have even been found to contradict each other. Words expressed in writing, when not taken to heart, have a habit of becoming absolute truths in the eyes of many a fundamentalist. And that is precisely why the ancient Israelites struggled so intensely with the question of committing their oral tradition to writing.

One of the most divisive issues to arise within our religious communities today concerns the question of homosexuality. To give readers an example of contradictory teachings on one of this issue I will compare the Roman Catholic teachings on homosexuality based on two separate but official Church documents not published less than twenty years apart. The 1969 Catholic Catechism describes homosexuality as follows: "It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown. In their human isolation, they look for friendship. But even where they find true and loyal responses, the perfect fulfilment of their human longings is not granted them". Compare this compassionate view with the one expressed by Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal to the Bishops of the Church, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986) describing homosexuality as an intrinsic moral evil and that gay services are not to be tolerated and that Church facilities cannot be made available [for gays]".

Historically institutional religion has always assumed a supremist position on matters of morals and ethics. Yet there are plenty of examples of non Christians and non believer who have exhibited far greater moral ideals. There have been too many instances in history where unbending religious attitudes have been responsible for much human suffering. Humankind is a Holy gift from God, but we have shown that we are definitely capable of many unholy acts. Is does not help anyone when we defend our negative actions with words like "The dogmatic teaching of the Church is in no way affected by the question as to whether the Inquisition was justified in its scope, or wise in its methods, or extreme in its practice. The Church established by Christ, as a perfect society, is empowered to make laws and inflict penalties for their violation. Fortunately Pope John Paul II recognized it otherwise and declared the Inquisition as the "greatest error in church history".

Our very human errors and arguments for and against any religious issue must be overcome with the heart rather than the head. More importantly we need to recognize our individual and unique role in resolving these issues. It must not be left just to the institution or a literal interpretation of scripture.

It would be very different if Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups where to dialogue about abortion if it were understood as embracing life from the Alpha to the Omega. Finger pointing and confrontational attitudes merely present fodder for the media. Morals and/or ethical values are usually taught or passed on by parents, teachers, etc., but more often directly through the experience of life's difficult circumstances. Only when we are prepared to surrender our frailties can we be open to the inner gift of compassion and understanding. This gift brings a growth that is beyond the scope of legislation and law making. By forcing people to choose on the question of abortion without having experienced God's gift of compassion is not the way Jesus taught.

On religious fundamentalism

Jacob wrestles with Angel
by Delacroix (Genesis. 32:26-28)

As a religious convert in the mid eighties, I struggle with a number of religious teachings . Not because I think they are necessarily right or wrong but because they are often stated in unbending legalistic terms.

Many religious teachings have become inflexible over time and have produced a back-ward orientation. In the hands of fundamentalist they are dangerous weapons of judgment and condemnation. Many religious beliefs surrounding homosexuality, abortion, same-sex marriage etc., are now expressed in militant terms. An increasingly zealous approach to religion has been responsible for many random acts of violence throughout the world. Fundamentalism, it must be admitted, is completely devoid of God's gift of compassion. Have we perhaps forgotten that God's gift of compassion and understanding reaches far beyond the written word?

To the fundamentalist, a 'true believer' is someone prepared to submit to an unquestioning obedience to religious teaching. To a struggling member of a religious institution, it can bring both fear and distrust. Any suggestion which hints at the introduction of change, is frequently met with fear and suspicion. Even the mere act of questioning established dogma and doctrine teachings can be considered heresy in some religious circles, while a virtual anathema or a promise of hell awaits those who dare to openly challenge these teachings. Because virtually all world religious teachings, and their interpretation, are usually held in the hands of a select few, they are not held subject to individual interpretation. But it is important to note that our unquestioning dependence on religious dogma is a relatively new phenomenon. According to respected historians such as Karen Armstrong, fundamentalism first surfaced as recently as the nineteenth century. Since then it has bred the foundation for much religious strife in the world today. Until the twentieth century "the Catholic Church presented itself internally and to the world at large, as the church that did not change. It took great care, as well, to show a united front on all issues and to deal swiftly and discreetly with any occurrences within the church that might seem to suggest otherwise." ( J. W. O'Malley What Happened at Vatican II (2008),P. 34.)

.

But then came Vatican II (1962-1965). For the first time in its two-thousand year history the church showed a desire to accept change from the outside. At its conclusion Dominican Edward Schillebeeckx of Nijmegen University called it "the triumph of anti-triumphal ism"—the rejection by the council of the world-hating, anathema-hurling Counter Reformation conviction that Catholicism alone possessed the truth of life. In contrast to past councils, which devoted much of their time consigning to eternal flames those who did not agree with majority decisions, Vatican II issued no such condemnations. On the floor of St. Peter's, Vienna's Franziskus Cardinal Konig argued that the church has much to learn from the world, even from atheism. (Time Magazine Friday, Dec. 17, 1965).

Clearly the Vatican II authors responsible for the following statement recognized that obedience to a higher norm takes precedence over external authority:

Deep within their consciences men and women discover a law that they have not laid upon themselves but which they must obey. Its voice, ever calling them to love and to do what is good and to avoid what is evil, tells them inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For they have in their hearts a law inscribed by God. Their dignity lies in observing this law, and by it they will be judged . . . By conscience that law is made known in a wonderful that is fulfilled in love for God and for one's neighbour. Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to others in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems that arise both in the lives of individuals and in social relationships. - Pastoral Constitution on the Modern World

Regretfully, even as the Church stood on the threshold of change beginning with Vatican II, it has once again expressed fear of change by denouncing various forms of relativism, secularism, liberalism, modernism, capitalism and just about any other 'ism' it can name. Each article of faith is once again protected in an unbending and unchangeable doctrine which if challenged, might reveal a crack in the concrete of its two thousand year history. Its religious dogma is carefully preserved under 2,865 articles of faith contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church supported by 1,752 rules prescribed in the Code of Canon Law. Both were published after Vatican II under the watchful eye of Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI. The Catechism once again states that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This statement completely contradicts the pastoral views held by the fathers of Vatican II extending God's salvation to all humankind! Similarly, documents released by the Vatican in recent years, state that the Catholic Church considers itself in sole possession of the complete truth. It appears then that in spite of a brief venture into the future, the Church would prefer to remain locked in a safer past. As a consequence, Catholic theology will probably continue to reflect the mistaken belief that:

As God is unchangeable therefore the church must also resist change. Religious practise must be based on proven doctrinal formulations not subject to modern 'novelties'. The church, while in the world, must resist any integration into the world. Reconciliation with any principles outside the church will ultimately cause irreparable damage to church life and a serious dilution of its teaching.

Is there a way of changing religious teachings that will be less likely to form unbending literal interpretations? Author John W. O'Malley thinks so.He shares the belief that the documents of Vatican II were expressed in a new way of speaking. Its persuasive and inviting language encouraged an inner transformation. O'Malley recognized that "persuaders do not command from on high. Otherwise they would not be persuading but dictating. Persuasion works from the inside out. To be successful, persuaders need to establish an identity between themselves and their audience and make clear that they share the same concerns and even the same sentiments, such as hope, joy, and sadness. Implicit in it, therefore, is an invitation to rise above all pettiness and to strive for an expansive vision and a generous spirit."

The question for many of us at this juncture will be "do we follow a religion rigidly frozen in the past or do we follow a faith based on 'unknowing' but securely guided by a Creator who leads us in the present - safely towards the future? Will it be a religion of the heart or a religion of the head? Perhaps, like Jacob, we will have to struggle with our own internal demons (Ego) to make this decision.

And then finally, religious fundamentalism will eventually give way to religious liberty which recognizes that all of God's creation is Holy and that we are all equally Holy Sons and Daughters of God called to community with one another.

We need not think alike to love alike - David Ferenc

On the Question of Apologetics

My initial interest in the Catholic tradition was sparked by the enthusiasm and openness of Vatican II. One of the key phrases uttered by our pastor at one of the initial RCIA sessions was “the Catholic Church does not hold the corner on the faith market”. The simplicity and truth of this statement will remain with me forever. It eased the transition from one religious tradition to another. It did not diminish or exclude my Protestant background and more importantly my paternal/maternal families.

What a disappointment it has been to see this Church once again make exclusive claims such as “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” (Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994 --paragraph 846) followed by the Compendium of the Catechism (2005 --article 171). As such the Church has signaled a desire to completely reverse the pastoral views introduced by Vatican II. Similarly the Congration for Doctrine Faith’s 2000 document Dominus Iesus claims that followers of religions other than Christianity are “in gravely deficient situation” with regard to salvation of their souls. While more recently the new Roman Missal awaiting approval by our Canadian Bishops pushes the question of salvation back even further. If accepted, Canadian Catholics will be instructed to respond that Jesus came to save "many" instead of the current "all." To quote Sr. Joan Chittister " The theological implications of these changes speaks volumes. Who is it that Jesus did not come to save?"

Catholic apologist Dr. Scott Hahn has stated that God’s revelation came to a close with the death of the last Apostle . This might suggest to some that Jesus died on the cross and did not rise. (Might this be a reason why Catholics have identified with the crucified Christ for so long?) Halleluiah, Christ has risen and is alive! Creation is ongoing and we are his co-creators. God’s gift of faith is a dynamic. It is communion with God through which he reveals himself to us daily. We only have to listen with the ear of our heart! God is alive and well and resides in the heart of each human being (aka the divine indwelling). Whether or not we chose to listen – is His gift of freedom. What an incredible gift considering that so often we choose to do things our own selfish way – and yet he continues to love us.
On the matter of Papal Primacy and Succession I find myself asking these questions. Was Jesus (and his apostles) not born, and raised as a Jew? Did he not die as a Jew? Did he give up his own Jewish tradition in favour of an institutional substitute bearing his name? To suggest that he told Peter to build a church complete with a hierarchical structure and all its trappings profoundly contradicts Jesus’ temptation in the desert where he rejected such earthly kingdoms of the world. More importantly, Jesus came to save ALL and is unlikely to have demanded that membership to a particular religion was necessary to experience his promise of salvation or live out a life based on his kingdom values.
The word ‘church’ is not found in the original Greek version of the Bible. The original Greek term Ekklesia meant assembly or community and is much more compatible with Jesus’ intent to establish God’s Kingdom here on earth. A kingdom based on compassion, understanding, equality, etc., as illustrated through his many parables which many of his disciples did not understand. For me Jesus came to teach us a way to live communally in peace and harmony, to bring healing and forgiveness.
Leadership in any community is essential. Leadership guided by the Holy Spirit would be ideal. God chooses his people not because of their strengths but because of their weaknesses and their desire to trust in the Spirit. Apostolic Succession as interpreted by our Catholic Church suggests that the power is the exclusive right of the hierarchy. Apostolic succession or the carrying forth of the Good News is the happy duty of every individual created by God.
Papal Infallibility is a difficult topic and misunderstood by many Catholics. However, Jesus never made claims or suggestions in this direction from any readings I have been able to find in the Bible. In fact, he always deferred directly to God the Father. The Church too must always be the finger pointing to God and never act as the ‘destination’. Jesus said, “What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God who sent me”. Dogma and Doctrine can be helpful tools to help us grasp and understand life’s difficult questions. But ultimately they must lead us to our hearts to bring about transformation and our experience of God’s salvation. Rigid observance or following of Church teachings without consulting our inner experience of God may result in an unhealthy co-dependency for both parties. Who do you trust God or the Church?
Finally, some Catholic apologist havesuggested that God will hasten the end of any Judas type that might occupy the Chair. Does this statement not completely dismiss those Popes in history who enjoyed a generous term on the Chair at the expense of many lives and much cruelty? If God did not stop these individuals it is easier to understand why would he not have intervened in the case of Hitler, Stalin and many other notorious individuals before they unleashed so much pain and suffering onto the world? Incidentally, this same idea was regretfully expressed by a Roman Catholic Apologetic in our parish several years ago.
In conclusion, I recognize that my views on these theological points may differ significantly from those expressed by an expert. And perhaps more alarmingly (to some) may be in direct opposition to official Church teaching. However, I have come to love the God who moves beyond static doctrine and dogma. It is a God who loves all humankind unconditionally, and invites us with all our questions rather than blindly accept prepared answers. Here again I see the Church’s role to guide, not force, and help each other to discover the God within. We are all unique and Holy individuals capable of many unholy actions. The bigger question is should we look at others through their sinful nature (false self) or look for the God within (true self) however deep it may be hidden?

There was a man who invented the art of making fire. He took his tools and went to a tribe in the north, where it was very cold, bitterly cold. He taught the people there to make fire. The people were very interested. He showed them the uses to which they could put fire—they could cook, could keep them­selves warm, etc. They were so grateful that they had learned the art of making fire. But before they could express their gratitude to the man, he disappeared. He wasn't con that this man was drawing crowds and they were losing their popularity. So they decided to do away with him. They poisoned him, crucified him, put it any way you like. But they were afraid now that the people might turn against them, so they were very wise, even wily. Do you know what they did? They had a portrait of the man made and mounted it on the main altar of the temple. The instru­ments for making fire were placed in front of the portrait, and the people were taught to revere the portrait and to pay reverence to the instruments of fire, which they dutifully did for centuries. The veneration and the worship went on, but there was no fire.

Where's the fire? Where's the love? Where's the drug uprooted from your system? Where's the freedom? This is what spirituality is all about. Tragically, we tend to lose sight of this, don't we? This is what Jesus Christ is all about. But we overemphasized the "Lord, Lord," didn't we? Where's the fire? And if worship isn't leading to the fire, if adoration isn't leading to love, if the liturgy isn't leading to a clearer perception of reality, if God isn't leading to life, of what use is religion except to create more division, more fanaticism, more antagonism?

Anthony de Mello, Awareness, ‘The Land of Love, p. 174-175, Image Books, Toronto, 1992