Total Pageviews

Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Sunday, February 2, 2014

The eve of Saint Blaise



Today is Candlemas, when the Catholic Church blesses the candles to be used during its liturgy. Tomorrow is the feast-day of Saint Blaise, patron of ailments of the throat. Some churches still do the Blessing of the Throat, in which the priest uses the newly-blessed candles to bless the throats of congregants.


Saints become patrons in peculiar ways. Clare had a vision on the wall in front of her and became the patroness of television. Joseph of Cupertino levitated helplessly, yelping and crying, and became the patron of aviators. Blaise miraculously made a child cough up a fishbone, thus making him Mister Throat.



The Church asks and answers the question: Why doesn’t God always cure ailments of the throat, even if you pray for it? Why doesn’t he cure everything, while he’s at it? It’s a mystery.



Mystery schmystery. It’s still a pretty good question.



Disclosure: Partner gave a Saint Blaise medal last year, which I carry with me religiously, you should pardon the expression.



What could it hurt?



Thursday, December 26, 2013

DIY religion



Back during chemotherapy, while I was lounging in my recliner imbibing toxins through a tube in my arm and Partner was watching "Let's Make A Deal" on the retractable TV, a young hospital chaplain named Meredith came around to check on our spiritual needs. We politely let her know that we were all set, thanks very much, but she (like chaplains through the ages) was stubborn enough to chat with us for a while. She complimented us on being such a close couple, and quoted something I'd heard once before about "for better and for worse." She left before she became too obnoxious, so I liked her. "Did you notice," I said to Partner after she left, "that she never quite mentioned any one religion? Very non-committal and non-denominational."



"I like that," Partner said. "I could get behind a religion like that."




"I think," I said," that there is a religion like that."




So, a few weeks later, we both got ourselves ordained as ministers in the Universal Life Church.




Ordination is free; you need only provide name and email address. For a couple of bucks, they will send you gewgaws like a wallet card and an ordination certificate and a press pass (evidently for when I'm interviewing the Metropolitan of Constantinople). After that, you need only follow the church's one dictum, which is "do only that which is right." (They further define that you must peacefully determine what's right in every case; no gunplay and no rassling allowed.)




Partner and I are both obnoxiously pleased about this. We are both in the process of determining the dogmas of our new church. Mine is going to involve wearing a lot of pink and purple. (I determined peacefully that I like both, and why not? Pink and purple are perfectly nice devotional colors; just look at the candles in any Advent wreath.) I will use a lot of multidenominational texts involving silence. (Examples: "Let all the earth keep silence before the Lord," from Habakkuk in the Jewish Bible; "Sky says nothing," from the Analects of Confucius; "The way that can be spoken of is not the true way," from the Tao Te Ching; and maybe also "That which we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence," the last line of Wittgenstein's Tractatus.) My services will begin with maybe a piece of music, the reading of a text like one of the above, and then a kind of community silent meditation, the way the Society of Friends does it.




Also, did I mention the pink and purple?




Religion should be fun. It should be participatory, and it should be meaningful to the people who participate. If they crave mystery, well, life is crammed full of mysteries; meditate on a few of those. And if they crave certainty, there are lots of those too. Just think about them quietly, would you?




Partner has thought about his church too. He wants it to welcome all comers, and he would allow them to worship any god they please, and he intends to forbid proselytizing.




(I hope it also involves hats. Partner and I both look good in hats, and I hope he and I can lead some ecumenical programs down the road, once we've established ourselves as pillars of our respective faiths.)



Monday, November 18, 2013

The heresy test



Once upon a time, when the Internet was young – approximately 1996 – I had a funny little website which drew no traffic at all. (Almost like today!) It was mostly a nice way for me to practice writing HTML. I posted jokes, and had a family-history section.


I also had a nice heresy test.


It was very simple: five questions, multiple-choice. You were expected to answer from the dogmatically established Roman Catholic point of view. Otherwise, the test threw you out. You were a heretic and bound to burn in hell unless you renounced your heretical beliefs.


Here’s a sample question:


The Blessed Virgin Mary was the mother of Jesus. Jesus was, of course, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, which means he was God. If you follow this line of thinking, you will probably realize that this makes Mary (a human being) the mother of God (who is eternal).


How can a mother be younger than her own son?


A: Oh, to hell with logic. Mary is the Mother of God. Period. End of story.

B: Mary was the mother of the human part of Jesus. She's not the mother of God; that wouldn't be logical.

C: Mary is the mother of Jesus in some sense of the word, but not in every sense of the word. We shouldn't try to define these things too precisely.


The correct answer is A. This was established (with some strife) at two Church councils: the “robber’s council” of Ephesus in 449, which claimed B to be correct, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (only two years later!) which reversed Ephesus and laid the Church’s path to the present day.


Did you get the question right?


I didn’t think so.


Burn in hell, heretic.


Saturday, November 16, 2013

Book review: “How to Train a Wild Elephant (& Other Adventures in Mindfulness)” by Jan Chozen Bays



I have been a wannabe Buddhist for decades now. I love its core ideas, and I accept the Four Noble Truths, but I find it difficult to practice any of the devotions or the meditations. My mind is just too busy and clouded with samsara.


So I was pleasantly attracted by the title of this book.


The human mind – your mind, my mind – is the “wild elephant” of the title. It runs in all directions at once. How do we tame it? This book offers suggestions.


I’ve found some of them very useful.


Examples:


Take three deep breaths. I close my eyes while doing this. Here’s the thing: don’t think. Slowly: inhale/exhale, inhale/exhale, inhale/exhale. Now open your eyes.


This is not just a calm-down exercise, or a “Serenity Now!” mantra. Just think about yourself, and your breathing, for a few seconds.


It works.


Whenever you see someone during the day, think: “This may be the last time I ever see him/her.” It reminds you of mortality. It keeps you from treating them slightingly or badly. And who knows? Once in a while it may be true.


Notice the color blue. This sounds stupid, but it’s very effective. Blue is the sky color, but it’s also everywhere. Take a moment and notice all the bits and pieces of blue around you. You’ll be astounded.


And the most difficult of all: When you’re eating, just eat. Take a bite, chew it, and swallow it. Do not take another bite until you’ve completely chewed and swallowed the first one. Make yourself aware of the taste of the food. Don’t read, or watch TV, or talk. Just eat, slowly and with appreciation.


Slowly, step by step, breath by breath, bite by bite, we may actually achieve nirvana.



Monday, November 11, 2013

The hundred-and-eight sorrows



I am not a Buddhist really. (Just ask Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse about that, and he’ll agree.) But I know some Buddhist doctrine, and it has actually helped me stumble through life.


How many different ways to suffer are there, do you think?




There are six senses in the Buddhist world view: smell, taste, touch, sight, hearing, and (the one we Westerners forget) the mind. Suffering can enter through all six of these.


What enters? The six stimuli: things we like, things we dislike, things we don’t care about, things that bring us joy, things that bring us suffering, things that make us feel nothing at all. Things we like may be bad for us (like alcohol). Things we dislike (like bitter medicine) may make us suffer, though they’re good for us physically. Things we don’t care about may be vitally important, but we don’t realize it. Joy is wonderful but it never lasts, and its departure causes suffering. Unhappiness is suffering itself. Indifference can lead to suffering later, through regret.


Six senses x six stimuli = 36.


All six stimuli can be past (remembering the six stimuli), present (experiencing them in the moment), or future (anticipating them).


36 x the three time periods of past / present / future = 108.


These are the hundred-and-eight sorrows.


In some Buddhist practices, there are commemorations of the number 108: 108 prostrations before the Lord Buddha, 108 circumambulations of his statue. Sometimes they ring a bell 108 times at the New Year.


Try this exercise: think of something you do, something you love or hate or don't care about in the least. It will be one of the hundred-and-eight.


How about smoking? I smoked for fourteen years. I liked the way it tasted back them.


So: (sensation: taste) x (stimulus: liking) x (time: past).


And now I have throat cancer, almost certainly as a result of those fourteen years of smoking. (See also karma.)


The one-hundred-and-eight sorrows go on and on, endlessly, so long as there’s a single unenlightened being in the entire universe.


We need to realize them, and name them, and let them go.


Then we can move on to whatever comes next.


Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Saints and talismans



I have cancer, and this is no time for quibbling about what helps and what doesn’t. Lots of people of different faiths have said they’re praying for me, and I accept their prayers gratefully. Why in the world would I be stiff-necked enough to say: “Nah, I’m an atheist. Save your prayers”?


And I am not un-superstitious. I read Tarot cards, after all, and I look at horoscopes, and find profitable information in them. (Not the newspaper ones, kids. The real ones.)


So who am I to scoff at talismans and charms?


When my father was diagnosed with cancer in 1975, I was in my sophomore year at Gonzaga and just on the verge of converting to Catholicism. As you can imagine, I became very devout in no time at all. I attended mass almost daily, and said novenas, and prayed like a banshee.


Dad died anyway, in May 1976, despite all my masses and novenas. But it didn’t stop me from believing, deep down in my soul, that prayers and talismans are effective, if you only use them correctly.


For years I carried two holy medals on my keychain: Saint Dymphna (who guards against mental illness) and Saint Peregrine (who guards against cancer).


Somehow both of them disappeared from my keychain some years ago. And look what happened!


I found Peregrine and put him back on my keychain a few weeks ago, and told him to get back to work.


Also: Partner, being a cradle Catholic and understanding my state of mind, recently gave me a medal of Saint Blaise (who guards against afflictions of the throat).


Whatever happens now, I’m prepared.



Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Prayers



I was amazed to see how concerned people were about me when I told them about my illness.


Everyone seems to want to help. Some have offered food, or rides to and from my treatment sessions. (I will probably take some of them up on these.)


But I didn’t expect to be on anyone’s prayer list.


I am informed that I am on the prayer list of a Episcopal church in a town in eastern Rhode Island. Also, a Jewish acquaintance told Partner that she was praying for me. Also, a number of Catholic friends are praying for me, as is one Orthodox friend.


And I confess (weak superstitious thing that I am) that I recently dug out my old Catholic St. Peregrine medal and attached it to my keychain. (Peregrine is the patron of cancer sufferers.)


I only hope that all of these prayers and intercessions and magic spells are arriving at the correct destination, and not getting crossed up by the celestial telephone operators.


From Muriel Spark’s “The Gentile Jewesses,” concerning the death of her grandmother:


“She was buried as a Jewess since she was buried in my father’s house, and notices were put in the Jewish Press. Simultaneously my great-aunts announced in the Watford papers that she fell asleep in Jesus.”


I don’t want to fall asleep in Jesus, or Abraham’s bosom, or anything else. I don’t want to go anywhere, for that matter. I’m happy right where I am.


I feel much as did Muriel Spark’s father:


“My father, when questioned as to what he believes, will say ‘I believe in the Blessed Almighty who made heaven and earth,’ and will say no more, returning to his racing papers which contain problems proper to innocent men.”


I am probably less of an innocent man than Muriel Spark’s father was. But he had the right idea.


Let us occupy ourselves with matters proper to our station.



Saturday, September 7, 2013

I hate David Brooks




I’ve written about David Brooks before. He is a toffee-nosed middle-of-the-road sort-of-conservative social commentator for the New York Times. He is priggish and frequently clucks his tongue over our decadent society. His preferred society would, I think, be a cartoonish Eisenhower-era America, with everyone living in a little white house and going to church every Sunday, in a rocket car (because David Brooks is a great believer in progress).


Seriously, people like this kill me. They long for the days of Big Religion, when everyone went to church except the really bad people. People like Brooks often whine about how society has suffered without Religion as a Unifying Force.


O yes indeedy, it’s a unifying force, all right. Go ask all the Lutherans and Catholics who died in the Thirty Years War, back in the seventeenth century, about how powerfully they felt about their religion as a unifying force.


But religion is also a civilizing force! the David Brookses cry. Music! Poetry! Art!


(They overlook all the music and poetry and art that’s been created without benefit of religion.)










This gives me a splitting headache. First of all: “pockets of spiritual rigor”? Does Christian fundamentalism, or Muslim fundamentalism for that matter, constitute a “pocket of spiritual rigor”? If so, in what way do they add to the value of their respective cultures?


And why would a “secular” future be “propelled” by “religious motivation”? This baffles me completely. I’m a non-believer myself. Can I somehow “propel” myself with “religious motivation” that doesn’t involve believing in a particular religion? Or do I just sideline myself, and allow my culture to be “propelled”?


I don’t know why people read Brooks seriously. I only read him to reassure myself what a completely fatuous bore he is.


Now excuse me while I propel myself into the secular future.



Thursday, August 15, 2013

More reasons that I am not a Christian




I am no longer a practicing Christian, but I have some respect for the founder of the religion; he said some very profound things about how to treat other people, and how to think about our lives on earth.


Which is why I am so charmed by this comment, made by Stephen Colbert:




Like most people, I love the idea of altruism. Sometimes I’m actually altruistic myself. I spent three and a half years of my life as a Peace Corps volunteer, which I suppose counts for something, but I have to admit it wasn’t exactly like spending time in prison; I had some pretty entertaining times in Morocco and Tunisia, and quite a few laughs.


Sometimes I try to help the needy. I contribute what I can, when I can. A British friend in Morocco gave me advice on how to deal with the armies of beggars there: “Choose one whom you see every day. Give him or her some money on a regular basis. You will have done your duty.” I still remember this. There’s one homeless woman in downtown Providence who sings and preaches on the street corner, and who always smiles when she sees me and says “God bless you.” I give her money when I have a bit extra.


But I’m also very selfish. I think of my own needs before those of others.


I am very far from being Christlike.


Which is why I shudder with revulsion when I watch and listen to the soldiers of the Christian Right – people like the repugnant Pat Robertson – spout all kinds of hate and nonsense.


They claim Christ as their lord and savior, and then they act as if the New Testament and all of the things Jesus said and did were irrelevant.


They have created a religion in their own image.


They can have it.






Thursday, July 18, 2013

For Ramadan: Harira



Ramadan began last week. I have some Muslim friends on Facebook, so I see lots of “Ramadan kareem!” messages going back and forth.


The Islamic months don’t correspond to the seasons as ours do; their year is roughly 354 days long, so Ramadan happens roughly twelve days earlier every year. In 1984, my first year in Morocco, the first day of Ramadan was roughly the first of June. (There was some trouble that year. It’s not officially a new month until the new moon is sighted in Mecca, and the weather was bad that year in Saudi Arabia. Finally, around the third or fourth of June 1984, Ramadan was declared to be officially begun, almost by default.)


Summer is a bad time for Ramadan, and June is the worst of all, because June days are the longest days of the year. Muslims are enjoined to fast from the time in the morning when it’s light enough “to distinguish a black thread from a white thread” to the prayer-call at sunset. “Fasting,” in this sense, means no eating, no drinking water (very devout Muslims won’t swallow when they’re brushing their teeth, and there’s a lot of spitting in the street going on, because swallowing your own spit might qualify as drinking), no sex, no smoking (tragic in a culture like North Africa where everyone smokes).


That first year, in 1984, I tried to fast. I couldn’t do it. I realized, after two or three days, that no one could see me eating during the day if I just closed the window blinds.


Later, in Tunisia, I was more casual. I knew I was a “kouffar” (unbeliever), and so did everyone else, so I closeted myself in my office and smoked and drank water and coffee to my heart’s content. One of my Tunisian coworkers, who’d studied extensively in Europe and who was very worldly, joined me.


Then, a day or two later, someone else joined us.


After about two weeks, the whole office was smoking with me, on and off. It was okay, because they were with an unbeliever, and I was exerting an undue irreligious influence on them.


Ah, kids, those were the days.


There was a restaurant in Tunis not far from our house, which was also not far from the az-Zeituna mosque, one of the most famous mosques in Tunisia. During Ramadan, about fifteen minutes before sunset, we’d go there. They’d seat us and serve us soup.


But no one ate.


We waited for the boy at the mosque to give us the signal that the evening call to prayer was complete.


Then, in unison, we all dipped our spoons into our delicious thick chicken / tomato / chickpea soup, and broke our fast.




advertising
Makes about 12 cups
·         1 whole chicken breast, halved
·         4 cups chicken broth
·         4 cups water
·         a 28-to 32-ounce can whole tomatoes, drained and puréed coarse
·         1/4 teaspoon crumbled saffron threads
·         2 medium onions, chopped fine
·         19-ounce can of chick-peas, rinsed
·         1/2 cup raw long-grain rice
·         1/2 cup lentils
·         3/4 cup finely chopped fresh coriander
·         3/4 cup finely chopped fresh parsley leaves
·         dried chick-peas, picked over water

In a heavy kettle (at least 5 quarts) simmer chicken in broth and water 17 to 20 minutes, or until chicken is just cooked through, and transfer chicken with a slotted spoon to a cutting board. Add to kettle tomatoes, saffron, onions, chick-peas, rice, and lentils and simmer, covered, 30 minutes, or until lentils are tender. Shred chicken, discarding skin and bones, and stir into soup with salt and pepper to taste. Soup may be prepared 4 days ahead (cool uncovered before chilling covered).



I find this recipe incomplete. It needs ras al-hanout, the traditional North African seasoning (you can buy it online, or make it yourself from regular ol’ supermarket seasonings), and some eggs (Ramadan harira usually has pieces of hard-boiled egg in it).


Also: if you make this soup, serve it with lots of Italian or French bread, for scooping and dipping.


And if you don’t feel like cooking soup the long way, especially during this long dismally hot summer, I’ve discovered that Campbell’s makes some very nice soups in plastic bags, which are pretty authentic. Their “Moroccan Chicken with Chickpeas” is a very passable Moroccan shorba, verging on harira.


Pinch a penny and spend a couple of bucks and buy a packet of it, and enjoy it.


With some Italian bread, and a lemon wedge to squeeze into it.


Ramadan kareem.



Friday, June 7, 2013

Vacation Bible School






Neither of my parents was a churchgoer. We were, in general, scornful of people who went to church. I don’t recall why exactly.


But, about two weeks after regular school let out, the local church (a generic Protestant denomination) held Vacation Bible School for a week.


I went several times, and I adored it. I loved memorizing Bible verses, and making crafts with coffee-cans and macaroni and papier-mache, and eating lunch outside.


I even took it to heart once or twice. One of our memorization verses was Jesus saying “Fear not,” and I remember saying it to myself when I was frightened once or twice, and it helped, for some reason.


I was young and credulous. I liked the “school” part of this, and I wasn’t terribly receptive to the religion part, but then again maybe I was. Several of the Bible School teachers saw me as an eligible convert and gave me all kinds of books, some of which I still have: Bible guides and such.


Here’s my problem: I love the feeling of belief, but I don’t really believe the doctrine. I don’t believe that the creator of the universe entered into a man two thousand years ago, just to make a point. I don’t believe that Old Testament doctrine is superior to any other religion doctrine (although some of it is very profound).


I miss the calm serene feeling that Vacation Bible School gave me, when everything was nice and orderly.



But I’m afraid I’ll never be able to feel that way again.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

What makes me not a Buddhist




Alfred North Whitehead said that Buddhism is not so much a religion as a philosophy. Here is its root teaching, the Four Noble Truths:


-         Life is suffering.
-         Suffering is caused by desire.
-         To stop suffering, you must cut off desire.


Notice there’s nothing about god here, or creation, or the fate of the soul, or life after death. There is only the nature of our life here, now.


Different schools of Buddhism have emphasized different aspects of the path. The Theravada emphasizes individual renunciation and monasticism. Mahayana believers say that we all need to help one another toward enlightenment. There is the Vajrayana of Tibet and Mongolia, which invokes the aid of spirits and gods, which are – after all – manifestations of our own minds. There is also Zen, whose practitioners defeat their own minds and end by living in the moment perfectly.


I love reading about Buddhism. I have a large collection of Buddhist texts: the Sutras, ancient and modern explanatory texts, collections of koans, translations of Tibetan scriptures. I can quote them endlessly, and I sound very wise and mysterious when I do.


But I’m a fraud.


A Bhutanese monk named Dzongsar Jamyang Khentse wrote a book a few years ago entitled “What Makes You Not A Buddhist.” He explains in great detail that Buddhism is not vegetarianism, or non-violence, or a method of interior decoration or flower arrangement. It is a way of life, a way of thought.


Well, sometimes I’m a Buddhist and sometimes I’m not.


I am sincerely sick and tired of the Wheel of Life and Death. I long for Nirvana, which is not extinction, and which is not not extinction. (See, I’ve read the Heart Sutra.)


But there is a special Buddhist condemnation for people like me, who read and quote, but who don’t follow the path. I paraphrase the following story (which I believe I read in “Zen Flesh, Zen Bones”:


In a monastery there was a monk named Bright Star. He was the most learned, and had read the most books of study and teaching, and the other monks were in awe of his erudition.


One day suddenly he died.


A few weeks later, the abbot saw a stirring in the garden outside his window. It was the spirit of Bright Star, moaning and suffering, begging for release from his punishment.


I understand. Reading is not Buddhism. Learning is not Buddhism.


But I’ve had glimmerings of understanding – what the Japanese call “kensho,” the lesser enlightenment. You know? Those quick moments in which you almost understand how the universe really works.


So maybe there is still hope for me.



Thursday, March 14, 2013

Why did Pope Benedict retire?

Pope_resignation


Popes do not resign very often. Official Church history doesn’t even give an exact number, because several very early popes may or may not have resigned. The two most famous are these: Celestine V in 1294, who hated his job, and Gregory XII in 1415, because there were three popes at once, and – well, it’s a complicated story.

 

 

The outgoing Pope, Benedict XVI, said he retired because he’s “infirm.” Aha. Well, popes generally stay put until they crumble into dust. The previous Pope, John Paul II, was very ill for at least the last ten years of his life, but continued to do his job, and was respected for it. Here’s the reasoning: the Holy Roman Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity gives spiritual guidance to the College of Cardinals when they elect the new Pope. Presumably, the Holy Trinity will not guide the College of Cardinals to elect someone who needs to step down after a few years.

 

 

So: we are forced to conclude that His Holiness Benedict XVI stepped down for more earthly and/or carnal reasons.

 

 

Here are a few earthly and/or carnal suggestions:

 

 

-         Benedict (formerly Josef Ratzinger) was a member of the Hitler Youth, and fought in World War II. His family, and the Church, has maintained that young Josef was defiantly anti-Nazi, and went so far as to avoid Hitler Youth meetings! (Well, really, if he’d wanted to be anti-Nazi, he could have gone underground.) Is it possible that someone has positive proof that young Josef was an active member of the German National Socialist Party, and is blackmailing him with the information?

-         One rumor goes like this: Benedict commissioned an investigation into the “gay Mafia” that runs the Vatican. The report was so overwhelmingly damning that Benedict decided he couldn’t run things anymore.

-         Same rumor, different twist: the “gay Vatican mafia” got so mad at Benedict that they forced him out.

-         Benedict is a famously bad personnel / money manager, and so are his lieutenants. Could this be about something as simple as financial mismanagement?

-         How about this? There are lots of sex scandals, both within the Vatican and outside. Let’s say Benedict discovered an embarrassing one – some cardinal or monsignor – and was silly enough to think he could pay off a blackmailer. Now it’s all about sex and money.

 

 

And here’s the thing: there was a time when we would never have known the truth. But things are changing. People are speaking up. People aren’t so much afraid of the Church hierarchy anymore.

 

 

Stay tuned, kids. Who knows what we might learn?


 

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Papal election update

Pope_shoes


A surprising number of my friends and acquaintances are paying attention to the Papal election. One of them wants me to be the new Pope (I’m a baptized Catholic, so I’m eligible). Another wants the Roman church to go the Anglican route: an African church, a South American church, etc.

 

 

Maybe I’m wrong, but this will not be a brief conclave. I see a couple of opposing forces here, as follow:

 

 

-         A retiring Pope, who thinks it’s within his power to name a successor;

-         A College of Cardinals whose members know very well that the outgoing Pope has no such power;

-         A largely Third World congregation, which would love to see a black or Hispanic Pope;

-         A strongly European Church hierarchy, which thinks that the Catholic Church is still a European entity.

 

 

Yikes!

 

 

The funniest part of this is that Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley (from Ohio), is being touted (by the local Boston / Providence media) as a frontrunner. Well, nothing’s impossible. But, really: an American Pope? I doubt it.

 

 

Same for an African Pope, or a white South African Pope. Not much of a chance.

 

 

Shortly after Benedict’s resignation announcement, the Vatican leaked the implication that this would be a quick conclave; there’d be a Benedict-approved candidate (probably the Italian Cardinal Scola), and the cardinals would vote for a day or two, and it’d be over.

 

 

But I just don’t think so.

 

 

But then again, it’s all in God’s hands, isn’t it, kids?


 

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Kooky konklave

Conclave


The Pope (as you probably know) resigned recently. Well, he sort of resigned. The Vatican announced the other day that he will be “Pope Emeritus,” and will continue to be addressed as “His Holiness.” In other words: he’s not giving up very much of his beloved privilege.

 

 

Except, of course, he won’t be in charge of the Holy Roman Catholic Church anymore. So he won’t be responsible for what happens from here on.

 

 

When he acceded to the Papacy some years ago, his questionable background – Hitler Youth? – was known to all. Christians were expected to forgive him for this. Also, he’d been John Paul II’s right-hand man for a long time and it was expected – expected! – that he would succeed John Paul II as Pope.

 

 

Well, Joseph Ratzinger got his wish, and became Pope at the age of 78. He wanted an old-fashioned Medieval papacy, sitting on the throne, making occasional pronouncements. He got a modern papacy, presiding over a church awash with scandal: financial, sexual, quasi-political. Every day brings a new scandal. A Scottish cardinal has agreed to stay away from the conclave electing the new Pope. An American cardinal has, contrariwise, refused to stay away, though he’s accused (along with a Mexican cardinal) of moving pedophile priests from post to post. Then there’s the Vatican butler who released papers last year. There was nothing really dreadful in those papers, but there’s always the suggestion that there’s something terrible in the wings, just waiting to be revealed.

 

 

According to Malachy’s list, the next pope – Benedict XVI’s successor – is the last.

 

 

I hope so.

 

 

The Catholic Church is worn out. It’s time for something different.


 

 

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

This week in the Papacy

Pope


It was big news the other day when we heard that old Benedict XVI had resigned. “Are you getting ready?” a coworker asked me. “Ready to be summoned to Rome?”

 

 

“If called,” I said modestly. “Who am I to ignore a summons from Holy Mother Church?”

 

 

Let’s not even worry about why Benedict is resigning; we’ll never know the real reason in any case. (I’m assuming the “age and feebleness” rationale being advanced by the Vatican is a big fat lie; he became Pope at the age of 78, and he wasn’t exactly a spry little bunny in those days either.) It’s fun to theorize about scandal, hidden secrets, blackmail, etc., etc., but it will end up being one of the Mysteries of Church History, like Pope Joan and the throne with the big hole in the seat.

 

 

The word is that there’s already a top contender, Cardinal Angelo Scola, to wear the Shoes of the Fisherman. The current Pope (soon to be Herr Ratzinger again) has apparently given him his blessing. We will see how well this works. (Two Africans and a Canadian are in contention too, but – I mean really – is the Church ready for a Canadian?)

 

 

To be honest, I’d love to be Pope, for about a billion reasons. The hats alone would make me deliriously happy.  I love being chauffeured around. I’ve always thought candles and incense dress up a place.

 

 

And then there’d be all the fun I could have with Church dogma. I have a couple of ex cathedra statements ready for my first couple of weeks – priesthood for women, marriage for priests, etc. It’s time to shake some of the cobwebs off the Church; the Second Vatican Council was a nice start, but it didn’t go anywhere near far enough, and the last two Popes did everything they could to take the church back to the way it was before Vatican II.

 

 

You might think it’s unrealistic of me to think I’d be made Pope, given that I’m not in holy orders. Not a problem! Any baptized Roman Catholic man is eligible. See?

 

 

Best of all, I could probably figure out a way to pre-canonize myself, so that I’d go straight from the Papacy to the Litany of the Saints upon my expiration.

 

 

I tell you: if there were a Pope like me, I might actually become a practicing Catholic again.


 

 

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Sweetness and cruelty; or, the Christian religion

Lawrence


I recently picked up a translation of a sixteenth-century Catholic treatise on “Christian tortures,” mostly concerning the various ways in which the martyrs died.  There’s a modern (illustrated) appendix explaining how crucifixion works. A Protestant version of the same book – the famous “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs,” narrating the tortures and deaths of the early Lutherans and Calvinists at the hands of the Papists – was very popular in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

 

 

Before you say “Ugh!” and turn away, ask yourself: why were these books so popular? And why do we continue to be so morbidly fascinated with pain and torture and death?

 

 

Let’s look at it more closely. Saint Lawrence (my name saint!) died on a barbecue grille, and is often depicted holding the instrument of his death (see the above image). Barbara was thrown from a high tower by her own father. Catherine was broken on a wheel. Many early martyrs were thrown to wild animals, or torn apart. The Protestant martyrs were mostly burnt or hanged, but often suffered horrible tortures beforehand.

 

 

Again: why do we read about these things, over and over again?

 

Maybe it’s the same reason we enjoy picking at a scab: it’s a mild agony, a remote pain. It reminds us that we’re alive.

 

 

Also we seem to like gruesome stories, up to a point.

 

 

However: religion – and in particular the Christian religion – seems to like to tell us that pain and suffering and death are a positive experience. We will get there sooner and more smoothly, we’re told, if we accept and even welcome suffering into our lives.

 

 

(A co-worker spoke to me once, with great feeling, about her experience in Catholic school back in the 1950s and 1960s. She was taught about Maria Goretti, the twelve-year-old who’d been raped and murdered, and later made a saint (mostly through the agency of her very aggressive mother). She was, therefore, for some perverse reason, presented as a model of Catholic girlhood: suffer, and you’ll go to Heaven.

 

 

(My friend said that, even as a child, she was horrified by this.

 

 

(I don’t blame her one tiny bit.)

 

 

We need to remind ourselves – we, who are comfortable in our lives – that human suffering is very real. But we should not revel in it, or reassure ourselves that it’s the summit of the human condition. And we should not in any way make it a religious trial, as if suffering were a prerequisite for happiness.

 

 

This is a poem by Stevie Smith. I’ve quoted it before. It’s her response to the doctrine of Eternal Hell. It’s the most eloquent rejection of suffering in the name of religion that I’ve ever read.

 

 

Is it not interesting to see

How the Christians continually

Try to separate themselves in vain

From the doctrine of eternal pain

 

 

They cannot do it,

They are committed to it,

Their Lord said it,

They must believe it.

 

 

So the vulnerable body is stretched without pity

On flames forever. Is this not pretty?

 

 

 

The religion of Christianity

Is mixed of sweetness and cruelty

Reject this Sweetness, for she wears

A smoky dress out of Hell fires.

 

 

 

Who makes a God? Who shows him thus?

It is the Christian religion does.

Oh, oh, have none of it,

Blow it away, have done with it,

 

 

 

This god the Christians show

Out with him, out with him, let him go.

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Theory and belief

Bill_nye


People on the right/conservative side of the political spectrum have taken to saying that science is “just another theory,” and that religion – or craziness like “intelligent design” – is just as valid as any scientific “theory.”

 

 

But science is not “just another theory.”

 

 

Science is based upon observation. A real scientific theory begins with observed phenomena, and posits explanations for those phenomena, which can be disproved. (That last phrase is very important. Read it twice or three times.) If these explanations can’t be disproved by modern methods, then – huzza! – the theory is valid. (Until a better or more elegant theory comes along.)

 

 

Here’s an interesting statement: “I have a theory that Satan buried dinosaur bones to confuse us into believing in the false theory of evolution.”

 

 

Is this a real theory?

 

 

 

Well, is it based on observation? Not really. There are certainly dinosaur bones, but Satan’s fingerprints are nowhere to be found on them. 

 

 

Is it disprovable? Nope. The more I argue with this “theorist,” the more he insists that I’m a dupe of Satan.

 

 

Is this, therefore, a real theory? Nope.

 

 

Here’s another theory: “Dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years ago.”

 

 

Here are some facts:

 

 

-         Dinosaur fossils have been found all over the world, and have dated to the right periods, using reliable methods.

-         These fossils have been found in geologic layers which have also dated to the right periods.

 

 

(Is this disprovable? Yes, in many ways. Our dating methods might be found to be unreliable, or the fossils might be found to be fake. But, at this point, neither is the case.)

 

 

-         Thus: we have no reason to doubt that there were dinosaurs back in the Jurassic.

 

 

Except, of course, that the Religious Right tells us that God doesn’t allow for that kind of thing.

 

 

Here’s your friend and mine, Bill Nye the Science Guy, explaining sweetly and reasonably why science is important:

 

 

 

 

I respect people of faith, but I do not want to hear them dismissing science anymore.

 

 

Because they just don’t know what they’re talking about.