Sursum Corda
"an insightful Catholic Blog that eschews extremism in any direction."
--Commonweal Magazine
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Topical musings from a Catholic perspective

Friday, June 07, 2002
MY YOKE IS EASY: Today’s Gospel reading is from Matthew. It comes at the end of the eleventh chapter, where Jesus has been preaching in the towns and has encountered increasing resistance. The “wise and learned” reject his message, while the “little ones,” accept it. Nevertheless, Jesus calls all “who labor and are burdened…for my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

What might Jesus mean by this? Many scripture scholars believe Jesus is speaking about how those charged with interpreting the Jewish law had weighed it down with so many additional interpretations, rules, and prohibitions that it had become burdensome. Rather than binding the community together, the law had become a means of separating “the pure” from the “impure.”

But aren’t rules important? Doesn’t any community need rules? Absolutely. But one of the risks with rules is that obeying them can become an end in itself. We start to believe that if we obey all the rules, God owes us something, perhaps something more than people who aren’t as good at obeying the rules. We can come to believe that our obedience is due to our own efforts, rather than God’s grace.

Jesus’ yoke is light not because following Him is not demanding but because we do not carry His yoke alone. He is there beside us when we stumble and fall, as we inevitably do. He is the Son who reveals the face of a merciful Father who is always ready to forgive and who raises us back to our feet and beckons us to continue our struggle anew.
...

For a different perspective on today's readings, read Sean Gallagher's musings at Nota Bene.

posted by Peter Nixon 8:57 AM
. . .
Thursday, June 06, 2002
THE PROBLEM WITH FLEXIBILITY: In general, I am not a fan of things like “zero tolerance” or “three strikes and you’re out” kind of policies. They work fine in many situations, but inevitably there will be cases where the application of such a policy to a particular situation generates an outcome which is absurd and unjust.

The reason these policies get put into place is institutional failure. In the 1970s and 80s, many state legislatures adopted mandatory sentencing for certain crimes because they believed—rightly or wrongly—that judges were abusing their discretion and giving sentences that were too lenient. Only recently have we begun to realize the consequences of virtually eliminating judicial discretion.

What is fueling the demand for “zero tolerance” is a similar sense among Catholics that the institutions of their Church—principally the Bishops—have failed and cannot be trusted. That is a terrible thing to say, but I think it is an accurate reading of the sentiment among the laity. I suspect that many Catholics would agree, in principle, with the idea that each priest who had committed an act or acts of abuse needs to be evaluated as an individual. They do believe in a God of second chances. But first and foremost, they want their children to be protected. They are probably not closed to the idea that individuals who are truly low-risk could remain in the priesthood, and perhaps even in some form of ministry. But who makes the call? The problem is that most Catholics no longer trust those who currently have that authority.

So who should make the call about which priests deserve a little flexibility? I suspect that at this point there are very few left who believe the decision should be left to the Bishop or a committee that is entirely under his control. My wife, who has a decade of experience as a rape crisis counselor, suggested that a review board be composed primarily of survivors of clerical sexual abuse.

I think that, regrettably, the burden of proof is on those arguing for flexibility rather than a blanket “zero tolerance” policy. How would you ensure that “flexibility” does not become a loophole that permits future Paul Shanleys? Are we confident enough that individuals who have abused in the distant past are unlikely to offend again? That is a real question, not a rhetorical assault. I truly don't know the answer and I, for one, am open to a more balanced approach. Any ideas, gentle readers? Weigh in by clicking
here.

posted by Peter Nixon 12:27 PM
. . .
WITH ALL YOUR HEART: In today’s Gospel reading from Mark, Jesus is asked by one of the scribes “which is the first of all the commandments?” Jesus responds by quoting the Shema, the prayer from the Book of Deuteronomy that is at the heart of Jewish piety: “Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” He then offers the scribe a second commandment, one that is equally well rooted in Jewish tradition: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Is it really that easy? Well take a look at the Ten Commandments. The first three (first four if you are looking at a Protestant version) all relate to love of God, while the remainder deal with relationships with our family members and neighbors. Some Jewish scholars have divided the 613 mizvot of the Jewish law into these two categories. I suspect one could do the same thing with the canon law of the Church.

There is always a temptation to favor one of these commandments at the expense of the other. There are individuals who are very devout, who pray regularly, attend mass, and so forth, but who are rude to family members or indifferent to the suffering of the poor. One might ask if it is really possible to adore Christ in the Blessed Sacrament but be indifferent to the Christ in the beggar on the church steps.

There are also people who have the opposite problem. They are very devoted to caring for the poor and the sick, but seem to have little time for prayer and worship. “God doesn’t care about that stuff,” we are told, “he cares about whether you care for your neighbor.” But the witness of scripture and tradition suggest that God very much wants us to pray and to participate in communal worship. There is a reason that loving God “with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and all your strength” is the first commandment.

A balanced Christian life requires that we attend to both commandments. We need to make time for personal prayer, communal worship, and the study of our tradition. But our faith needs to manifest itself in concrete deeds on behalf of our neighbors, especially the poor. We cannot claim to love the God we do not see if we do not love the neighbor who we can see.
...

For a different perspective on today's readings, read Sean Gallagher's musings at Nota Bene.

posted by Peter Nixon 9:01 AM
. . .
Wednesday, June 05, 2002
THE PROPOSAL: I’m going to break my self-imposed ban on commenting on the abuse scandal and the Bishop’ draft proposal. Amy Welborn posted something today where she clearly wrestled with the issue of zero tolerance. Her remarks are worth reading in their entirety, but I'll give you a taste. Here is Amy’s reaction to calls for “flexibility” and “room for grace” as opposed to “zero tolerance:”

Then let's have flexibility and room for grace for divorced, unannulled and remarried people. Flexibility and grace for priests who leave active ministry to marry and, even if they leave in good standing and in fidelity to the Church, are absolutely banned from serving in any type of parish ministry at all, not to speak of being denied any part of their retirement pension, while pedophile priests are supported and get checks from the very same funds until the Boston Globe finally outs them and the archdiocese is shamed into cleansing them from the rolls. Flexibility and grace for lay Catholic school teachers and parish ministers who may be fired for any reason or no reason, at the whim of administrators, pastors and bishops. So what's the difference? It has nothing to do with sin, frankly, and everything to do with membership in a certain club.
I am pretty much in agreement with Amy’s position and generally consider myself a supporter of “zero tolerance.” But I have a situation that gives me pause and I’m curious what my readers think of this one:

A priest who is retired or close to being retired who has one substantiated allegation of abuse that was committed 20 or more years ago and has only recently come to light. I don't know what percentage of the priest abuser population these cases represent, but I'm pretty sure it's not zero.

Is it reasonable to remove the man from active ministry? Absolutely. Defrock him? Perhaps. But after a lifetime of service as a priest, it's a fair bet that his pension is the only thing he'll have to live on (plus a little Social Security) in his retirement. I'm a little uncomfortable just kicking him out the door and saying "fend for yourself," particularly if the Bishops who let abusive priests continue in ministry aren't going to be punished at all.

Now someone might ask, “would you feel the same way if it turned out the priest had committed a murder two decades ago and concealed it?” Perhaps I would. As a legal matter, there is generally no statute of limitations on murder. I’m not sure what the state of the law is on sexual abuse of a minor. But the law does not treat the two crimes as similar, and I’m not convinced the Bishops should either. In most cases, an individual convicted of a crime does not lose vested pension rights, but I don’t think those laws cover religious employers.

If we can solve the retirement income problem, I’m quite comfortable with a zero tolerance policy that would include involuntary laicization of past abusers. It may seem like a bizzare thing to be concerned with, but I think this concern is actually driving some of the resistance to zero tolerance from some parts of the Church. I think it’s something that at least needs to be discussed.

No high-tech comments function on this Blog. You’ll just have to send e-mail by clicking here.

posted by Peter Nixon 2:50 PM
. . .
NO MORE MARRIAGE? In today’s Gospel reading from Mark, Jesus is confronted by a group of Sadducees, who were a powerful party affiliated with the temple priesthood. They denied the resurrection from the dead as having no basis in the Torah. In an attempt to embarrass Jesus, they give the example of a woman who successively marries seven brothers, with each one dying in turn. They ask Jesus “at the resurrection, whose wife will she be?”

Jesus’ response is that resurrected life is not like the life we experience before death: “When they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven.” What might Jesus mean by this?

Part of what brings men and women together in marriage is a sense of their own incompleteness. As we hear in Genesis 2:18, “it is not good that man should be alone.” We often hear couples speak of their partner as ‘making them whole’ or some similar phrase. We might imagine that, after the resurrection, we would no longer feel any sense of incompleteness.

But what of those who are already married? I’m certainly hoping to continue to spend time with my wife in the hereafter. Will my marriage simply cease to exist after the resurrection? I confess the thought makes me a little sad.

Perhaps what Jesus is trying to say is not that I will no longer be married to my wife, but that I will, in a sense, be married to everyone. I will experience the same sense of marital union with all who have risen in Christ. In this life, we could never hope to accomplish such a thing (and it would be destructive to try). Jesus’ exchange with the Sadducees makes clear that our finite minds have a difficult time imagining the joy that we will experience in the world to come.
...

For a different perspective on today's readings, read Sean Gallagher's musings at Nota Bene.

WORLD CUP UPDATE: We interrupt this regularly scheduled broadcast of Sursum Corda to bring you the following announcement:

USA 3, PORTUGAL 2: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.

The following reflection on yesterday’s Gospel reading was supposed to run yesterday, but didn’t because of my illness. Seems almost appropriate after my World Cup cheerleading:

RENDER UNTO GOD: There are times when we can become too familiar with stories from the Bible. We’ve heard them so many times that we miss the real drama with which the evangelists have infused some of these scenes.

The story from today’s Gospel reading is a good example of this. Jesus is asked by a group of “Pharisees and Herodians” (the latter are most likely officials associated with the court of King Herod) whether it is lawful (under Jewish law) to pay the Roman census tax. This tax was widely unpopular among the Jewish people

The question puts Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. If he affirms the legality of the tax, he will anger the crowd. But if he condemns the tax and urges non-payment, he will be committing treason, a capital offense. The presence of the Herodians adds an extra element of danger to the story. Herod, after all, had ordered the execution of John the Baptist.

Jesus slips out of the noose with the famous phrase “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” In some ways, it is a challenge to both sides of the dispute. If you are already “rendering unto Caesar” by using imperial currency and thus implicitly acknowledging the authority of the Roman Empire, is paying the tax any more of a moral compromise?

On the other hand, Jesus’ statement makes clear that the will of God and the will of the State are not the same thing. There is at least the potential for a conflict where the believer would need to make a choice. While it seems clear that Jesus does not believe that the census tax requires such a choice, He appears to leave open the possibility that on other issues, a choice may be unavoidable.

The theologian Stanley Hauerwas once said that “the God in ‘God and Country’ is not the God of Jesus Christ.” Hauerwas was trying to make a point that is not dissimilar to the one that Jesus makes in today’s Gospel. It is legitimate for Christians to love our country because it is ours, to feel pride in its accomplishments and to wish for it to continue. But love of country is not the highest form of love, nor can our country—whatever its virtues—demand our highest loyalty. That loyalty is owed to God alone..
...

For a different perspective on today's readings, read Sean Gallagher's musings at Nota Bene.


posted by Peter Nixon 9:06 AM
. . .
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
SICK DAY: I left today's reflection at the office yesterday and now I've got a bad chest cold. I probably won't be posting anything for a couple of days. My apologies.

posted by Peter Nixon 8:53 AM
. . .
Monday, June 03, 2002
CATHOLIC PRESS UPDATE: The cover story in this week’s Tidings is about Delores Huerta, one of the founders of the United Farmworkers of America (UFW), which compliment’s Richard McBrien’s tribute to the late Monsignor George Higgins. Fr. Ron Rolheiser’s column talks about the truths that we must hold in tension. An example: “A healthy capacity to drink in life and enjoy it without guilt -- but one that befriends an equally healthy capacity for asceticism, selflessness, and discipline.”

The British Catholic magazine The Tablet usually has a world news roundup that is worth reading. This week, the magazine reports that two Filipino Christians have been deported from Saudi Arabia. They were found to be in possession of a Bible and some Christian CDs when police raided their apartment in 2001. Originally, they were sentenced to a month imprisonment and 150 lashes, but the latter part of the sentence was commuted and the two men were ultimately deported back to the Philippines.

This week’s National Catholic Reporter provides more coverage of the sexual abuse crisis, with a number of articles, columns and editorials on the subject. One interesting piece details a growing scandal in the Italian Church.

Our Sunday Visitor has posted a story on the simmering feud in Russia between Catholics and the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox have been using their political clout to tighten restrictions on the Catholic Church in Russia. For example, in April, the head of Irkutsk’s newly created St. Jozef’s diocese, Bishop Jerzy Mazur, was barred from returning to Russia after he traveled to his native Poland.

The June issue of The Priest has a reflection from Father Mark Gurtner on the sexual abuse crisis. Gurtner has been a priest for six years and has experienced the “deep, unquestioned trust” that many Catholics place in their priests. The failure of chastity in a priest is thus particularly devastating.

The June issue of Saint Anthony Messenger has a fascinating story about Appalachia-Science in the Public Interest (ASPI), an environmental group founded by Jesuit priest Al Fritsch and based in rural Kentucky. There is also an article about how to infuse a spiritual perspective into your summer travel plans.

It is the (understandable) practice of First Things magazine to wait until their new issue hits the stands to post the contents of the previous issue on their web site. Lately they have been offering at least one piece from the current issue on-line, and this month it is "Scandal Time," a reflection on the sexual abuse crisis written by FT Editor Father Richard Neuhaus. The previous issue contains some interesting pieces on“wrongful life” torts and a discussion of Glenn Loury’s new book The Anatomy of Racial Inequality.

posted by Peter Nixon 12:23 PM
. . .
THE WICKED TENANTS: Today’s reading from the Gospel of Mark is the parable of the wicked tenants. A man plants a vineyard and leases it to tenants. When harvest time comes, he sends a servant to the tenants to collect his share of the produce. But the tenants beat the servant and send him away empty handed. The man sends other servants. Some are beaten, others are killed. Finally the owner sends his son, thinking the tenants will respect him. But the tenants, thinking this is their chance to seize control of the land, kill the son.

Jesus tells this parable immediately after the Jewish religious leaders have challenged His authority. The wicked tenants symbolize the chief priests and the scribes, the servants symbolize the prophets, and the son, of course, refers to Jesus.

What is it about the religious leaders that so angers Jesus? After all, from the perspective of the Mosaic law, these men are as orthodox as they come. They keep all the statutes, ordinances and decrees that were given to their ancestors by the Lord. One cannot doubt their personal piety.

Perhaps a clue can be found in the parable itself. The first sin of the tenants is that they come to believe that the vineyard, which has been given them in trust, actually belongs to them. When confronted with the fact that it belongs not to them but to another, they react violently. Many of the religious leaders of Jesus day had come to feel something similar about the Law. They thought that they, and only they, had the authority to speak for God. They tried to exclude from the religious life of the community those who they felt did not live up to the standards of the Law.

The fact that Jesus rejects this attitude seems clear from the way he behaves. He is always reaching out to those who the Law has pushed the margins: lepers, the disabled, tax collectors, and others. For Him, the Law is an expression of God’s love, a means of binding the community together, not tearing it apart. We who follow Him would do well to remember that.
...

For a different perspective on today's readings, read Sean Gallagher's musings at Nota Bene.


posted by Peter Nixon 9:12 AM
. . .


. . .