Celebrating Our Religious Freedom

The following letter (italics) was recently submitted to a conservative Roman Catholic U.S. website in an honest effort to gain some insight on several distinct politically motivated issues.  Whether or not you agree with the viewpoints in this letter is not the issue.  Nor is a question of who is right and who is wrong about the various issues facing many Roman Catholics today.  What is of concern is that so many adult Christians seem to submit to the opinion of others rather than searching their own hearts through the gifts of the Holy Spirit which they received following the Sacrament of Confirmation. Surely God’s gift of faith is unique to each individual and can only be celebrated when we learn to trust directly in our hearts rather than by simply abrogating this gift to others?  To do so will only lead to a continued and destructive form of co-dependency. Remember God accepts us where we are - not where others would have us be.          

I am a relatively new Catholic (2 years confirmed on May 1, so please be patient with me), and am running into some confusion over the correct balance between obedience to the Bishops and where prudential judgment comes into play when it comes to the matter of finding political solutions to problems. I tend to run into Catholics, either in person or online, who fall into one of two categories: (a) Everything the Bishop says or supports is 100% gospel truth and you are not Catholic if you don't automatically jump on the bandwagon of whatever the Bishop is promoting right now, and (b) Everything the Bishop says is just a suggestion and you can make your own judgment about these things. Position B is obviously wrong. No question in my mind on that one. But where I am confused is on Position A and to what degree we are to submit our own logic and reason to the opinion of the Bishop on political matters when you disagree with the manner of implementation of our moral principles. I was under the impression that the Church and the Bishops are to teach the moral principles that should undergird our solutions, but that the actual work of solving these problems falls to the laity and implementation itself is a matter of prudential judgment so long as we are working within the boundaries of those moral teachings. I've read quite a few things lately that suggest (or flat-out say) that this is wrong and that we are supposed to submit ourselves to whatever the Bishops think on matters of implementation.

Now, for me issues such as abortion and SSM are no- brainers. The Bishops teach that intentionally killing an unborn person is wrong. Therefore abortion must always be wrong because it is the intentional killing of an unborn person.That's a pretty direct correlation. Same thing for the issue of same-sex unions. But when it comes to other political matters I get very confused.

For example (and this is only one of many I could give), the current illegal immigration debate. The Bishops have lent their support to the current "comprehensive" bill. Now as far as the morals undergirding their position, I agree completely that all people have intrinsic value and should be treated with dignity and respect. So I can agree that we should not be kicking down doors and dragging kids out of their parents arms and I also agree that no entity should interfere with the Church's ability to minister to people, regardless of their status.

But when it comes to supporting this bill, I have issues. First, I don't think it's a good idea to do "comprehensive" anything. Look at Obama-care for the prime example of the kind of gigantic mess these types of bill cause. There are also, historically, lots of awful little surprises tucked into these type of bills that come back to bite us eventually and has we known that x was snuck in there we might not have supported it. In this particular bill it's just come out that there is a biometric database of all US citizens that would be implemented if the bill passes and is signed into law. Hello, Big Brother! Second, I would rather this be done in pieces and in the daylight- instead of in back rooms between "gangs" where who knows who is even writing these bills, and we all know no one reads them- so we can see what is actually passing, and make sure it is actually implemented.

So I guess my question is am I a bad Catholic because I would see this problem be solved in pieces instead of defaulting to the "comprehensive" position of the Bishops? I have these same views on a lot of other subjects as well. Economics and the reach and role of government are other areas in which I struggle with their conclusions. I agree with the moral premises that the Bishops teach us (keeping the well being of the poor front and center) but I disagree with the various methods of implementations that they endorse and I think that some of what they endorse does not help the poor in the long term and undermines our position and our charitable mission in communities and the lives of individuals. Is is OK for me to see the implementation part a different way or does that make me a bad Catholic or a cafeteria Catholic?

Sorry to write a book for you. But I truly want to be loyal to the teachings of Our Lord and His Church and in this area I am really struggling to see things clearly.

Thanks so much for your time!

Again, as a reminder, you may not agree with the writer’s position on some of the issues, but he/she has every right and duty under canon law, to express them without fear of condemnation.  My sole purpose in bringing this matter to the fore is to ask ‘why, as adults, does your religious institution not teach us to rely on our unique gift of the Holy Spirit?’   

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”  John 14:26

 
Roman Catholic adults should be encouraged to trust in their hearts, the place where their treasure lies. See also 1 Corinthians 13:11. All Church teachings and other trusted teachers who understand this can be helpful, but until such time that we have come to rely on ‘the God within’ we probably have not learned to trust in God as well as our hearts.

For those who feel they must obey church teachings or have difficulty accepting them remember that Vatican II established for the first time in church’s history, that an informed conscience will always take primacy over any church teachings.  As such Roman Catholics are asked to discover the depths of their own conscience. To obey one’s conscience is the very dignity of the human person; according to it the human person will be judged. See Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World n. 16 and the Declaration on Religious Freedom, nn. 2,3,14.

Great spiritual teachers, be they bishops, deacons, Popes, etc. will always tell you “except for our Creator we as adults cannot expect others to direct or be responsible for our spiritual growth and development.

Addendum August 26, 2013:

Freedom

Jesus’ notion of the Kingdom is a different understanding of freedom than that of most religious and secular leaders today. We think of freedom as not having to do what we don’t want to do, but divine freedom is the capacity to be fully who we already are, to develop our inherent and true nature, as much as possible—really wanting to do what we know we have to do. Only God can create that freedom inside of us. Love can only proceed from such inner freedom. A mustard seed, yeast, and light—that all develop from within—are some of Jesus’ central metaphors for this freedom-loving Reign of God. Paul just calls it “grace.” For him grace and freedom are almost the same thing (see Ephesians 2:7-10, Galatians 5:1). And I would add to that “heaven.” Freedom, grace, and heaven are the same thing.

Secular freedom only creates individualists and private freedom, but not a society. It never gets around to the common good, which is a central principle of the Gospel and Catholic social teaching, which instead demands from you and demands for others—while ironically giving you all that you really need. Then you become who you most deeply and truly are, a member of a family, a neighborhood, a society, and a planet. If you are trying to “go to heaven” alone or on your own merits, you are preparing for a place other than heaven. - Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM

 

   

 

 

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.