A Translation of the Our Father for our Times

The Lord’s Prayer, a beautiful, liberating prayer Jesus himself gave us, is a foundational Christian prayer. All of the patristic theologians considered it to be the foundation of all Christian prayer. It is said in all Christian churches, at the close of the vast majority of twelve step meetings, and in the privacy of all Christian homes. With such standing, it influences both the conscious decision making of all Christians, but also the unconscious attitudes we have toward reality, God’s initiatives and the way we live our faith. The very words of the prayer are internalized by Christian children who then carry them with them throughout their whole life. We develop an understanding that God is a loving father, that his name is holy, that he exists in some kind of heavenly state, that there is a fundamental difference between earth and heaven, that God’s kingdom is breaking into our world, that we need to forgive and that we are forgiven, that God provides for us, that evil is real, and that God acts and that we need to act as well. All of these concepts and symbols act on our conscious awareness and in our unconscious values, attitudes and feelings.

Because this prayer is so very important, it is important to ask if we are translating it correctly. We live in the twenty-first century and are influenced by the insights of science, the wonder of space travel, the tremendous accomplishments of collective action on behalf of peace and justice, and the prophetic work of feminist theology. How then are we to translate this prayer in the twenty-first century? In this essay, I will examine each verse of the prayer and propose a re-translation.

“Our Father, who art in heaven.” We have come to realize that since all people and things flow from God, both femininity and masculinity are present in God. “Mother” could be substituted for “Father” (as Blessed Julian of Norwich did in the fourteenth century). The reality of God includes all that is good in both men and women. Moreover, Jesus did not just experience God as Father, but as Abba—Daddy—tender, loving parent. Why then did Jesus maintain masculine language? He did so for the same reason that he refers to God as living in the heavens. He was fully human. Although his wisdom (sapientia) was infinite, his knowledge (scientia) was limited by space and time (as it is for all human beings). He could not have known about feminist contributions to religious studies in the same way that he could not have known about space travel or Einstein’s theory of relativity.

We know from critical Biblical scholarship that the phrase “the heavens” is a symbol for God. We know from science that there is no heavenly firmament dividing the upper atmosphere from the abode of God and his angels. Jesus was a first century Jewish man so he knew first century Jewish cosmology. Some might argue that because Jesus was divine he knew everything, including twenty-first century astro-physics and modern/post-modern science. This claim is a form of monophysitism which claims that Jesus’ divinity swallowed up his humanity. The Church has correctly taught that Jesus is fully human and fully divine. As a fully human being, his knowledge of science would be limited to the science of his day (once again the difference between sapientia and scientia). Hence, the double decker universe of heaven above earth. We also know from our collective spiritual experience that God is everywhere (an experience heightened by the dynamics of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius). So, the first line of the prayer could read: “Our Father (Daddy), who is everywhere” or “who is in all situations and people.”

“Hallowed be thy name” stands as it is. In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Robert Karris, O.F.M. interprets this verse as “may all the evils which defile your creation be removed, especially those in our hearts, so that the gracious love, witnessed to in your name, may be manifested.” I will also point out that it would be characteristic of a Jewish teacher such as Jesus to reverence the mysterious name of YHWH, the name revealed in the spiritual-political liberation of the Exodus. Since the name was revealed in the context of the Exodus--“I am YHWH, I will free you” (Exodus 6:6)—the name of God in and of itself is liberating and points to the reality of spiritual-political transformation of a sinful, oppressive situation (as Karris notes above).

“Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done” was prophetic in the first century and remains prophetic now. Robert Karris notes that from Luke 4:14 to the Our Father (11:2) Jesus “has been narrating the nature of God’s kingdom, which breaks boundaries separating rich and poor, hale and halt, men and women, clean and unclean, saint and sinner.” God’s kingdom undoes the dynamic of primitive social bonding over against a scapegoat and ushers in the reality of inclusion.

“On earth as it is in heaven” should now be read as “now as it will be fully in the future.” As we noted above, heaven is not above our heads. Heaven is “the abode of God” and God is in all things, in all people, in all situations. Therefore, heaven is in all earthly situations. “Heaven” is a spatial symbol for the reality of God. Why was heaven chosen as a symbol of God’s reality (according to Aquinas it would be a symbol of reality itself since God is the being whose essence is existence)? One only needs to get away from the bright lights of the big city to see the awesomeness of the heavens at night. Using heaven as a symbol for God’s presence appeals to the sense of transcendence one experiences when one witnesses the grandeur of the sky. Rain also falls from the heavens, watering crops, making the land fertile, and God gives rain to sustain us, so it makes sense to think of the heavens having floodgates which God himself opens. The problem is that now, in the age of space travel, we know that there are no floodgates. Rain comes from the clouds, and an astronaut travelling through what was thought to be the heavenly firmament will not find a divine throne surrounded by angels, but will find the incredible expanse of outer space. Heaven is not the abode of God above the earth. Heaven is found in all situations when we allow God’s kingdom to break into our personal, ecological and social worlds. “Thy kingdom come” is an invitation to the person praying to allow the reality of triune God to move us to union with all of creation and history. “Thy will be done” is asking for the grace to let go of control so that, in the time we are living, in time, not above time, or outside of time, but in time, we might live from our deepest reality—the authentic thoughts and feelings that God is infusing into our hearts at every moment.

At this point, it is important to ask the following question: if we are to let go of the language of heaven and earth, will we lose our sense of the transcendence of God? Is God merely to be a material reality since there is no heaven above our physical earth? The Scriptures and our Tradition have always maintained both God’s immanence and God’s transcendence. It is very important to maintain God’s transcendence or we will fall into the errors of the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. No one reality, no physical reality, can exhaust the mystery of God. To maintain God’s transcendence we need to move from a spatial symbol (earth and heaven) to a temporal understanding of God’s will and kingdom. Thus we use the expression “now as it will be fully in the future.” The future is transcendent. It is beyond us. But, some will maintain, “now” is easily controlled by human beings. Let us examine this. Try to live in the now and you will find your mind wandering in a variety of directions. When you finally have the mindfulness of living fully (or almost fully) in the now, you will experience a transcending peace. To live in the now is a grace and thus is also transcendent.

We have now changed the translation of this important verse of the Our Father to “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, now as it will be fully in the future.” Now is an important reality. As a matter of fact, it is the only reality. We are now praying to live in the present moment, experiencing the great “I AM.” “Thy will be done now” leads to the question—how is your will operating now, YHWH? It brings me into my present reality, into mindfulness which Buddhists and others have demonstrated is the precondition of peace. One also is reminded of DeCaussade’s The Sacrament of the Present Moment. To know God’s will now, I must empty my mind of regret about past mistakes, resentment about past injuries, and anxiety about the future. I allow myself to just be, to live in existence (once again, we are nurtured by Aquinas’ understanding of God as existence and by Rahner’s understanding of God as the mystery of existence).

At this point, we need to think about history. God acts in history, not outside of history. We know this from the Exodus. God acted in history to liberate an oppressed people. We can also think of the Filipino People Power Revolution in which the Filipino community, in prayer, acted in tremendous solidarity to remove an oppressive ruler from power using non-violent methods. There are many other examples—the Solidarity Movement in Poland, many of the actions of the United States to liberate oppressed peoples (although some, and I mean some, have not always been completely Godly. Here I think of Abu Ghraib and the anxiety that led us into the Iraq War).

What can we then say about how God acts in history? It would seem that, in prayer and in reflection, there are thoughts that “bubble up” from the mysterious, transcendent reality of God that tend toward justice and charity (and at times that includes charity for oneself, which is what motivated the Filipinos to oust Marcos). We are drawn toward the actions these thoughts propose to us. We are not compulsively, or reactively driven to these actions. We feel drawn to them in a powerful, gentle way. Margaret Silf gives an excellent analysis of this experience in her book Inner Compass. When we share these thoughts with others, it consoles them as we were consoled. We are then led into collective action by something consoling. Consolation comes from God. It is God’s will acting on us, moving us to labor for his kingdom. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Benedict Viviano, O.P. notes that “God’s will is for justice and peace (Rom 14:17). The [Our Father] presupposes that the kingdom is not yet here in its fullness and thus represents a future eschatology.” In commenting on the verse “on earth as it is in heaven” he notes that “the prayer expects an earthly, this-worldly realization of God’s will.” The translation of “now as it will be fully in the future” integrates these insights.

The remaining verses of the prayer do not present any difficulty for modern or post-modern worlds. “Give us this day our daily bread” reflects the need of people of all eras to rely on God. It also refers to the importance of Eucharist. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” remains as the motivation for individual and collective action for justice and peace. We love others out of our experience of being totally accepted by God. “Lead us not into temptation” refers to the trials that many Christians, first century and twenty-first century expect to undergo in this final phase of human history. “Deliver us from evil” refers to evil in all of its forms, but especially to the activity of the enemy of human nature.

After having examined each verse, our proposed translation of the Our Father reads as follows:

Our Father (or Mother depending on the context), who is in all things,
Hallowed be thy name,
Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done,
Now as it will be fully in the future,
Give us this day our daily bread,
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us,
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.

Now that we have analyzed the Our Father and updated its language so that it better reflects our post-modern understanding, we need to ask if the temporal translation should replace the traditional spatially symbolic translation? I would answer no. The traditional prayer is a classic. Tertullian thought that it summarized the entire Gospel. I think we should use both translations. Liturgically, to contemplate the mysteries of the heavens as they point to the mysteries of God is beautiful and uplifting, but when it comes to action, the temporal understanding is very helpful. God communicates with us through our imaginations which are the “psychic places” where our minds meet the future, the great temporal beyond (I use the phrase “psychic places” as a metaphor or analogy for the “places” in our minds are the dynamics of neural pathways). Our imaginations communicate with the whole of our beings, especially with reason and emotion, stirring us to particular actions. Frequently, our understanding of a situation is multi-faceted and God calls us through the polyvalent, multifaceted universe that communicates with our minds and within in our minds. In short, it is good for our minds to then have more than one version of this prayer. Praying different versions of the Our Father will help us understand that we are rooted in a liberating, active tradition which nurtures us through self-reflective liturgy and prayerful action on behalf of peace and justice.

Christmas, an Act of the Imagination

If 99% of modern and post-modern Biblical criticism is to be accepted (and I accept both), all of the Gospel texts dealing with the birth of Jesus are, more or less, acts of the imagination. None of the disciples knew Jesus in his childhood. Luke and Matthew’s accounts do not really complement each other. So that we don’t all panic over this, it is pretty clear that there is some history (interpreted history, but history) in the Gospels’ accounts of the public life of Jesus.

When I first began to study this, there was a part of me that was a little threatened by it. For this reason, I understand why some Christians are hesitant to accept this criticism. Nevertheless, once you let go of some of what Paul Ricoeur called the naiveté of a precritical Christian faith, you find that historical critical reads of the texts are liberating. They basically contend that the early Christian communities imagined what the birth of Jesus was like and that these communities read some very rich symbolism into this beautiful, awe-inspiring event.

In Christmas, we celebrate that God took the form of a human being, specifically that God trusted humanity so much that God took the form of a vulnerable child. That is worth imagining! Since the evangelists and their communities imagined what the birth of Jesus was like, we can do the same.

So, let us imagine: imagine Mary giving birth. What are her labor pains like? Did Joseph feel any fear about her labor? How did he cope with that fear? Did he ever worry that he could lose her and the child? Does it console us to know that Mary and Joseph understand what our fears our like? Does that give new meaning to our reverence for the Holy Family?

Imagine holding the Christ child. Feel his soft brow. Hold his cheek to your cheek. Smell his baby smell. Little miracle! Feel how fragile he is. You are holding the Messiah in your hands. You are holding God’s son. He needs you. He relies completely on you. What an act of trust! That God might let human beings, with all of our virtues and vices, hold his son. What does that say to you about how God feels about you? What does that say to you about finding God in all children?

Imagine Jesus growing up in Nazareth. Imagine Mary teaching him. Imagine Jesus imitating his earthly parents. This is how all children learn, which is why there is a very tender, very real truth to the idea that Mary was a great theologian. She and Joseph taught the Christ child right from wrong. They held him when he was frightened. He could not have carried out his mission if he had not been loved by his earthly parents.

Now return to your own life: where do you need the tenderness of the Christ child? Do you believe that God trusts you? Talk with the Lord about that. Consider Mary and Joseph’s wisdom in raising the Messiah. Do you have questions for them? Do you need their help? Talk with them. Let your prayer go where it will . . . . .

Merry Christmas!

Imagine Lake Erie Olympism

Imagine the possibilities of the Lake Erie region. Just imagine. Rather than focusing on what we have lost, imagine new possibilities. This is the path to a renewed economy, to a new vision, to a new attitude about our lives. Imagination, the psychic “place” where the mind meets the future. Ignatian imagination, the human openness in which and through which God draws us into a future wholeness.

Imagination. The imagination bears fruit as we contemplate the future, but it is true that we also need to learn from past mistakes. Otherwise, we will repeat them. Our imagination helps us as we learn from the past. For example, we could imagine that we might have followed a better path and we could imagine what it was that urged us to make the mistakes that we made. Nevertheless, we produce even more fruit when, after briefly reflecting on mistakes made in the past, we open ourselves to live in the present by imagining the virtues of a better future. What does this mean for the Lake Erie region which is home to the two poorest cities in America—Detroit and Cleveland? What does this mean for Northeast Ohio, where I currently reside, a region I have grown to care about, a region with some of the brightest and most talented people in the world that paradoxically continues to lose jobs and industries to global competition? What does this mean for our world, in which the gap between the wealthiest and poorest continues to grow?

All of these questions occurred to me as I read a little book called Olympism, a 1996 publication by the United States Olympic Committee. Yes, Olympism. What could possibly be the connection between Olympism and the economic plight of the Lake Erie region? Well, for one thing, athletics has always been an important cornerstone of the Lake Erie region, especially in Northeast Ohio, the cradle of football. A few years ago, I found myself asking myself the following question: why can’t we intelligently harness this love of sports and develop something new? At the same time, I had been reading about the martyrdom of four American Church women, two of whom worked with the Cleveland diocese, as they protested against an oppressive regime in El Salvador. Love of sports, local intelligence, and a commitment to social justice—the three came together in two blog essays I published in November 2009. In those two essays (one of which was the reproduction of a letter I sent to the International Olympic Committee) I considered the possibility of developing a progressive Olympics—one that would help liberate the poor.

How then did my reading of Olympism bring me back to that blog? As I read, I was drawn to a passage that reflected the importance of imagination in Olympic training:

"The Greeks’ recognition that the care of mind and spirit were integral to athletic performance was an important part of the Olympic tradition. However, only in recent years did sports psychology and mental training in imagination reintroduce the view that mental and psychological attitudes were an important aspect of physical performance . . . .And so we are no longer surprised by the statement that ‘the more man’s thought communes with the divine harmony, the more spiritual, powerful and healthy he becomes,’ made by modern Greek anthropologist Theodore Papadakis, reflecting once more the spirit of ancient Olympism." (2)

Pondering how mental training in imagination improved athletic performance, I was drawn to a related question: how can mental training in imagination improve the social performance of the Olympic Games? For years now, the organizers of the Games have been criticized for neglecting the needs of the poor in host cities. In a parallel way, the makers of sporting uniforms and shoes have been criticized for paying workers in developing countries unfair wages. It is time to train our imaginations so that the Olympic Games maximize their social performance. In doing so, our thought communes with what Papadakis calls “the divine harmony.” Why is this so? In teaching how to commune with the divine harmony, all of the great spiritual traditions of the world emphasize the need for their adherents to be compassionate and to care for the poor. In the Christian tradition, we have developed the specific teaching of “preferential option for the poor,” which means that when one imagines various social alternatives, one chooses the alternative that most aids those with the most need. If the Games are truly a global celebration, then they need to invite and include all, especially and preferentially the poor and the vulnerable. Christians will understand this as the Olympic movement caring for the least of Christ’s brothers and sisters (Matthew 25). In order to abide by preferential option, the Games cannot force evictions of the poor from their homes, and they cannot take funds away from social programs by leaving host cities with overwhelming budget deficits which pressure host cities to cut social spending. Abiding by preferential option, the International Olympic Committee needs to encourage wealthy Olympic countries to help fund the training of athletes from poor countries. The IOC needs to abide by preferential option when choosing among candidate cities. That is, when faced with the choice between two cities with the capacity to host the Games, the IOC should choose the city most in need of development which can also demonstrate that its Olympic effort will not cause evictions of the poor from their housing.

So, let’s use our imaginations. Imagine the Cleveland Olympic Park, built on what is now Burke Lakefront Airport. Its construction would not force one person into homelessness. Imagine the Olympic torch, sitting in the midst of a fountain in the Lake, lighting up a blue collar city, a symbol of Cleveland’s desire for renewal and Cleveland’s interdependence with the poor of the Western Hemisphere. Imagine the Cleveland Center for Intercultural Healing and Reconciliation, a place of peace, a place where athletes and spectators from the entire world can meet to plan and discuss actions on behalf of global peace and justice. Imagine this center built next to the Cleveland Olympic Park so that people can visit and meditate and tour the art while they wait for the next Olympic event. Imagine that some of the topics participants will meditate about and discuss include the planning of an Olympics in the Holy Land, one that would unite Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians, Saudi Arabians, Jordanians, Syrians, and the Lebanese. One of the goals of Olympism is the promotion of global peace. Imagine a global forum about peace in Cleveland, during the Games, attracting international attention. Imagine that at this forum we discuss the possibility of expanding and re-defining the Olympic truce by promising to award host city status to countries currently at odds with each other if they reconcile. Such an expansion might include North and South Korea co-hosting the games as a reward for unification and nuclear disarmament. Imagine bringing the Winter Games back to the Bosnian city of Sarajevo, helping the Bosnian people re-build and renew a beautiful Olympic city that has been scarred by war. There is so much more that we can imagine.

What can you imagine? Following the ancient Greek tradition of Olympism, we have successfully imagined paths to developing well-rounded individual athletes. Can we now imagine a path to a well-rounded global society? Share the fruit of your imagination: help plan the Lake Erie Olympics. Help renew the Olympic vision.

Christians, Our Doctrines Of Original Sin And Redemption Are Evolving

Only 30 percent of Americans consider evolution to be a scientific fact. Many of those who refuse to accept evolution do so on religious grounds. They consider the myths in the Book of Genesis to be factual accounts of creation. They are afraid to accept a non-literal interpretation because they fear that to do so would undermine the doctrines of original sin and redemption. As I understand it, their analysis goes something like this: Adam and Eve were the first human beings. They sinned and fell from paradise. This condition of being fallen has been passed on to their children and their children’s children all the way down to you and me. If we were to let go of the idea that Adam and Eve committed the “original sin,” we would have no need for a redeemer—Jesus. Jesus is the redeemer because through his suffering and death, he paid the price God demanded for Adam and Eve’s sin, thus opening the gates of heaven for all believers.

This particular understanding of original sin and redemption is problematic. It is very popular among Christians. It even found its way into C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Please recall that Aslan had to substitute himself for Edmund to “save” Edmund and that in doing so, he utilized the deeper magic that raised him from the dead and then overcame evil. Although this understanding is popular, it is very flawed. The Protestant theologian Dorothee Soelle has even called it a form of divine child abuse: an angry God demanding someone’s death for human sin whose anger is appeased by the torture and death of his own son. What kind of a God would be satisfied by that? The God of love wants no human being to suffer, especially not his own son.

A more loving and thus more Christian understanding of redemption would be as follows: Jesus empowers human beings to identify and act on their most authentic, most human desires and feelings. Our deepest desires are to be at peace with all of creation and, in the specific circumstances of our lives, to co-create with God through acts of charity. The resurrection of Jesus reveals that the divine power at work in and through Jesus has no limits: it can even transform the murder of an innocent into a life-giving event. Moreover, in his death and resurrection, Jesus enters into every aspect of humanity. In his suffering, Jesus is our companion in our suffering. In his resurrection, Jesus reveals our deepest reality: we are not beings defined by death. We are beings defined by and destined for eternal life. God does not demand the death of Jesus. Rather, God the Father allows Jesus to die, to reveal the depth of his compassion for us, and to set the stage for the historical, cultural, and personal transformation that is the resurrection.

Having offered a more humane and thus more divine understanding of redemption, I will now return to original sin. We are beings blessed with faith and reason. As a Catholic, I understand that there can never truly be any conflict between faith and reason. There may be temporary misunderstandings due to human fear and limitations, but in essence, since God is the author of faith and reason, faith and reason will support each other. We find this harmony in the writings of Rene Girard, James Alison and Gil Bailie. Girard, a literary scholar who noticed a certain pattern to desire in various writings, turned to cultural anthropology to further understand desire. He then developed an astounding theory concerning the development of culture and religion. What Girard uncovered about desire is that it is mimetic: it is unconsciously copied. There are countless examples of mimetic desire. In Violence Unveiled, Gil Bailie, one of Girard’s students, points out that we see the mimetic nature of desire in the nursery. Consider the following: one child sits in the middle of a nursery, inattentively holding a toy. He then leaves the toy and moves to a corner of the room. A second child enters the room and begins to play with the toy that the first child has abandoned. We all know what happens next: the first child suddenly wants what the second child has—the toy he had previously shown no interest in. He wants the toy simply because the other child has it. His desire for it is mimetic, imitative. The first child reaches for the toy. The second child pulls the toy away from the first child. A conflict ensues and if an adult does not intervene, the children will hit each other.

We see mimesis in pre-teen and teenage fashion. When I was in high school, one kid came to school with a polo shirt. Then a second kid did the same. Soon everyone, myself included, had to have polo shirts. A contemporary example would be the current fascination with silly bandz. My kids want them because everyone else has them. What a silly band actually does for a person I do not know, but kids want them and they want them because they are unconsciously copying their classmates. How dangerous mimesis amongst the young can be was demonstrated in the 80s and 90s when a few teenagers threatened to kill others because they mimetically desired their gym shoes.

As Girard explains, in the evolutionary process, before the founding of cultural institutions like chieftains, monarchies and judicial systems, hominids lived in a chaotic way. Their lives were ruled by mimesis. There was no language or cultural institution to resolve differences. We had evolved beyond the animal dominance-submission mechanism which maintains order in many mammalian systems (for non-human mammals, when a conflict arises, it is resolved in a forceful but basically non-violent way). How then did culture develop from this chaotic state? To answer this question, I propose the following story which is informed by Girard’s analysis: imagine one pre-linguistic hominid (a “nearly” human being, one of our immediate evolutionary ancestors). Let’s call him “Ug.” Ug has found something useful in a field. Let’s say that it is an animal tooth which he then starts to use as a tool. He walks around, fascinated by his find, until he happens to walk across the path of “Oog,” another pre-linguistic hominid. Because of the power of acquisitive mimesis, Oog immediately begins to imitate Ug. That is, he unconsciously imitates the gesture of holding the tooth, which means that he reaches out for the tooth that Ug is holding. Because Ug wants to continue using the tooth in his hands, when Oog reaches for it, Ug pulls it back toward himself. Oog then copies this gesture, like the child in the nursery. That is, he attempts to hold the tooth and pull it toward himself. Ug will not allow him to take the tooth from him so the two begin to wrestle. One eventually strikes the other. That act of hitting is then copied by the other and the two continue mimetically attacking each other like the three stooges mimetically slap each other.

This conflict continues and then spreads because the other pre-linguistic hominids who happen to be walking by begin to imitate the two fighting hominids. They are not interested in the tooth; they just unconsciously copy the fight the way young people walking by a snowball fight feel the urge to imitate and begin throwing snowballs themselves. We can also liken the antagonistic mimesis of this scene to a bar room brawl. One person insults another near him. The insulted man throws a punch. The two begin to fight. Suddenly someone on the other side of the bar, seeing the fight, inexplicably hits the man next to him. Soon the entire bar is chaos.

These contemporary examples prove the validity of Girard’s theory: if mimesis can generate conflict now, it certainly did so in the pre-historic past. However, the story does not end there. If evolution did not generate a mechanism for channeling the mimetic chaos into order, humanity would never have come into existence. The mechanism that channeled mimetic conflict into order was the first building block of culture, what eventually turned the pre-linguistic hominids into homo sapiens—what Rene Girard has called the “victimage mechanism.” The term victimage mechanism is a scientific term for scapegoating.

Let’s continue our story. Ug and Oog began to mimetically fight. The conflict spreads through mimesis. Now, in the midst of total chaos, one of the hominids is wounded and becomes extremely disgruntled about it. He or she then makes an extremely hysterical, grunting accusation at the one who has wounded him or her. It is so loud that it immediately grabs the attention of the other hominids. Because of their mimetic character, they copy the accusation toward the one who wounded the first grunting accuser. At this point, we now have 20 or so hominids violently screaming at one hominid. The rage spills over and all of their vehemence is vented on the one. Whether through stoning or beating, the crowd kills the accused. They now stand before the corpse of their victim, strangely awed by what they have just accomplished. They are simultaneously repelled by the consequence of their violent act and awed by what it has accomplished. They notice that there is no longer chaos. No one is pelting them with stones. There is a strange “peace” (though not a real peace). The act of collective murder has brought about a form of social solidarity, the first society. It is not a pretty truth, certainly not something to celebrate, but our primitive ancestors were awed by it because they had never experienced widespread social solidarity before. They had had some kind of solidarity with their mates and their offspring, but never had they been able to act in such unison. Because of all of the mimetic conflict that had preceded the unifying act, the unifying act stood out.

The crowd takes notice of the benefits of this act—social solidarity and the end to chaotic mimesis. From time to time, social order would break down again and the crowd would once again assemble to repeat the founding social act. The first form of religious sacrifice, human sacrifice, was born. Now, what evidence do we have to support this thesis? Well, first of all, we have plenty of evidence in our own society. Consider what happens at prisons where the death penalty is carried out: crowds of people gather to hurl accusations at the convicted and to cheer as he is murdered by the state. Consider what Hitler did to the Jewish community: he falsely accused them, united much of Germany against them, and murdered many of them. Consider international relations: one nation claims a piece of territory, another mimetically copies the act. Each nation forms social solidarity against the other then there is a mimetic escalation of the conflict. Finally, there is violence.

Second, we have evidence from archaeology and religious studies: the Canaanites and the Phoenicians performed human sacrifice. We have uncovered mass graves in northern Africa where the Phoenicians lived. We have evidence from the Bible: the prophets constantly remind the Hebrew people not to imitate the child sacrifices of the Canaanites. Abraham thinks he hears God telling him to kill his son and then at the last moment, God tells him to substitute a ram. The story of Abraham is prophetic for it reminds us of the existence of the victimage mechanism but it shows that the true God does not want it. Human beings had formed human society using mimesis and scapegoating, but God speaks to Abraham to reveal a new form of social order. The Hebrew people were the first people of the Near East to reject human sacrifice. Eventually, the prophets begin to condemn the religious formalism of the Temple animal sacrifices. As a Christian, I see the definitive form of Hebrew prophecy in the acts of Jesus who condemns animal sacrifices in the Temple and reveals a new sacramental understanding of human ritual. He also reveals the total path out of scapegoating—love of enemy.

Now, all of this analysis was to call attention to an evolving understanding of original sin and redemption. Given Girard’s analysis, we can better understand what “original” sin is. It is the sin of the origin: disordered mimesis leading to collective violence. Consider how the ten commandments operate: worship only the true God, not the gods of the nations who glorify collective violence. Worship only the God who creates peacefully, by his word. Do not kill. Do not commit adultery, which is the result of losing track of the authentic desire for your own spouse and copying the insubstantial desire of another. Do not steal which is the result of wanting something that another has. Pay special attention to the last two commandments: do not covet. Do not want what another has in such a way that you become obsessed by that desire. The obsession, what Buddhists know leads to suffering, is the product of disordered copying.

The whole doctrine of original sin is not found in the Bible. It evolved out of St. Augustine’s reflecting on his experience and the stories of the Bible. You will not find the words “original sin” in the Biblical text, but it is quite a liberating doctrine. Augustine knew that there was something about our psychological and social structure that tended toward attachment, mimesis, chaos and violence. What he was discussing in his time is what Girardians call “disordered mimesis”: envy, jealousy, greed, lust, pugnacity, and violence. The Good News of the Biblical tradition is that not all mimesis is disordered. We can and must imitate God in God’s creativity. We are called to love as Jesus loves. We can and must imitate God in God’s agapic and charitable love. If we truly want joy and fulfillment, we must, as Ignatius Loyola discovered, in our freedom, accept and surrender to the real desires that God mysteriously infuses into our hearts. As George Ganns notes in a footnote to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius, these authentic desires always tend toward charity and justice.

Now, why the extended analysis of desire, sin and redemption? Because it makes a critical difference in the way we act in the world. If we accept the substitutionary theory of redemption, in which Jesus is paying for our original sin to appease an angry God, then we will mimetically copy this image of an angry God. We will join in the chorus celebrating the murder of a prisoner on death row. We will unify with others over against our enemies and hurl angry accusations at them. We will make outlandish accusations at our political opponents, demonizing them, calling them depraved and hoping for their humiliation. We see all of this in our contemporary America. From time to time, we are seized by spasms of psychic and actual violence. We see others as infidels to be excluded, rather than as human brothers and sisters to be embraced. We will bond with our fellow scapegoaters (and I mean our—I sin as well), ignoring our own sins, focusing on the sins of others, and treating them mercilessly.

In our primitive understanding of original sin and redemption, we will fail in our great calling to imitate Jesus the Christ, who felt the creativity of the Father when he told the angry mob not to throw a stone at the adulterous person unless they were without sin. We will not discern as Christ discerned when he felt great love for, and made himself the friend of, sinners and outcasts. A non-evolutionary understanding of original sin and redemption interferes with that most important relationship a Christian has—our personal relationship with Jesus the Christ. Once we understand that original sin and all forms of sin flow from disordered imitation, we then understand why we must spend time with Jesus everyday. We must sit with Jesus as we pray over the Biblical text so that we might imitate him. The pulls and tugs that try to draw us away from Christ do so through disordered mimesis, what has been called concupiscence. As we feel driven to lust, to copy insubstantial desires, to envy and hate the one we envy, we feel a countervailing drawing (not a drivenness, but a gentle draw) to just be with Jesus. We feel the gentle invitation to use our imagination and enter into a scene from the Gospel. We watch Jesus and see how he reacts to others and how others react to him. We ask for the grace to feel the great freedom in the heart of Christ and ask him for the consoling grace to internalize that freedom and act on it ourselves. We walk with Jesus through our developing lives. We evolve. We grow in grace, stumble at times, ask for and accept forgiveness, try again, grow some more and accept Christ as the Lord of our personal history and of all evolving history.

Not only is it important for us personally to understand that the doctrine of original sin has evolved, it is important for us politically. An understanding of original sin as just the spiritual (biological?) stain that we inherit from Adam and Eve and that separates us from God leads to a particular politics. A substitutionary understanding of redemption does so as well. As I mentioned before, it leads to violent attitudes because we imitate the violent angry God who demands the death of his son.

The non-evolving, literal interpretation of Adam and Eve’s sin as original sin, coupled with a penal substitutionary theory of redemption, sees Christendom as the realm of God’s faithful and everything outside of Christendom as not being saved by the cleansing waters of Christian baptism. As such, it fails to see the gifts of all great religions. An understanding of original sin as the theological code phrase for disordered mimesis and an understanding of the redeemer as the one who empowers us to act on our most authentic, most human desires empowers Christians to see the wisdom of the great traditions as they liberate their adherents from disordered mimesis. Every great religious tradition—Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Jainism—has rituals, literature, and reflective activities which liberate their adherents from slavery to disordered mimesis. If the non-evolving interpretation of original sin and the substitutionary theory of redemption were true, then the Dalai Lama and Rabbi Heschel never would have been able to practice and teach about social justice as they have done. Moreover, the social scientific methods which led to Rene Girard’s breakthrough would never have taken place. If a literal understanding of the Biblical tradition is the only source of truth, then the helpful methods of psycho-therapy never would have developed.

A literal interpretation of Genesis 2-3 (the texts for the story of Adam and Eve) coupled with a substitutionary theory of redemption leads to an us versus them mentality. There are the saved and there are those who are not saved. The United States is “the Christian nation,” led at times by the saved, who must go it alone in order to conserve what is good in this world. Our acts of violence are different from others because we are the saved (now I am not denying that the Church has a just war tradition and that the US has engaged in just wars; I am just examining how an attitude about sin and redemption can even inform foreign policy).

Christian believers need not be threatened by evolution. As Rene Girard and others (including Teilhard) have demonstrated, evolution supports Christian doctrine and helps us understand it in a truly rational way. Specifically, evolutionary analysis within the social sciences has given us helpful understandings of original sin and redemption. It has given us tools for understanding how sin operates in our own personal and collective lives. It helps us understand why imitating Jesus counters the imitation of sinful structures in our world and reveals the path of freedom.
As I conclude this essay, I would like to draw attention to a recent essay written by President George W. Bush. He writes about our need to progress in our battle against the AIDS virus. Another word for progress is evolution. If even a conservative president can write about progress, then progress, though not inevitable, is extremely possible. To embrace the need for progress, we must have authentic understandings of redemption and original sin, understandings which flow from each person’s personal relationship with Jesus and which unite faith and reason. Rene Girard has given us a very rational and hopeful understanding of our social order, one informed by Christian faith.


In short, original sin and redemption are evolving doctrines, the real natures of which are totally in harmony with the scientific fact of evolution. Original sin, redemption and all Christian doctrines are in the process of evolving because they are living doctrines. They are living doctrines because their truths flow from the reality of our living Lord. We are not called to merely recite Christian doctrines. We are called to live them. Because our understandings of original sin and redemption are evolving, we can do just that. We can live them and give life to the world as we do so.

Gratitude for Our Veterans

On this Veterans' Day, I wish to thank all of the service men and women who have served and who continue to serve our country. You keep my family and my country safe, you fight to liberate others from oppression, and you risk the ultimate sacrifice on a daily basis.


My family and I pray for your safety and for the health and safety of your families.

Peace to all of you.

Gratitude and Hope for the American Way

As I was reading a column by Charles Krauthammer, a column which is very critical of the President I strongly support, it occurred to me just how fortunate I am to live in a country that respects freedom of press and all of the fundamental freedoms that are necessary for a free society to discuss and work for the common good. It also occurred to me that the existence of these freedoms and the commitment to let them structure our lives strengthens our nation.


At a time when Americans worry about the presence of terrorism, environmental threats like global warming, and the ascendancy of China—a nation with enormous potential to create wealth without enshrining fundamental human rights, it is important to reflect on our history. In the 1980s, some thought that communism was so strong that eventually the USA was going to find itself an island among a sea of authoritarian socialist countries. That did not happen. The reason that did not happen was that our freedoms strengthened us. Our openness to inquiry and our commitment to individual liberty allowed us to develop technological systems that the Soviets could not even dream of. Gorbachev himself has admitted that it was the technological superiority of the US that led him to seek openness and dialogue with the West. He knew the Soviets could not win. It might seem strange for a religious educator and spiritual writer like myself to use such language when discussing the cold war. The fact of the matter is that a fact is a fact whether you theologize about it or not.


Speaking of theologizing, the theological roots of freedom are profound. Thomas Jefferson, highly critical of much of the theology of his day, wrote that the roots of freedom are the self evident truths written by “nature’s God.” The theological roots of progress are also profound. Jefferson saw them written into human nature. He knew that each generation would seek to build upon the achievements of the past. He wrote in 1816:


I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.


As we approach November 2, I hope that I can let my mind rise above the din and appreciate the debate and mud-slinging as the fruit of freedom and progress. Democracy is a messy business because it flows from human freedom. Some people, even some Americans, prefer to let others think for them rather than think for themselves. Some are afraid of freedom. Some look at the behavior of Congress and lose faith and hope. They want a cleaner situation, one without human frailty. They want answers now, when in many cases, truth, goodness and justice are discovered throughout a rather messy process. Some just dream of a golden age and golden tradition that have never existed, but have been concocted by them to justify their groups clinging to power. I am grateful that the human mind is restless and that its restlessness requires living by our fundamental freedoms. In living by these freedoms, we triumph over authoritarians—Marxist, terrorist, and other wise. In living by these freedoms, we will slow and end global warming. Only in living by our freedoms will we progress.

Please Do Not Underfund Or Repeal The Obama Health Reform

Americans are angry. Unemployment hovers around 10% and it seems like the people in Washington are not doing anything about it. I also am unemployed, but I do not want to let anger dictate how I will vote. It is true that I am a Democrat and will probably die a Democrat, but any Republican that I have taught or had a conversation with will tell you that I listen to any good idea—liberal or conservative. For example, I think that there is a compelling post-modern argument for school vouchers: since we have become aware of the reality that we all know from within particular traditions, it makes sense to educate children in traditions. The rest of the school vouchers issue I will leave up to the conservatives to figure out.

There is something else conservatives need to figure out: why does the United States have a higher infant mortality rate than South Korea, which sixty years ago was involved in a devastating war and which up until 40 years ago was a poor country with a significant military budget? Why does the United States have an infant mortality rate that is double that of France, a country so many Americans have derided in the past decade? Why does the US have a higher infant mortality rate than Canada (ours is 6.22 per 1000 live births to Canada’s 5.04 per 1000 live births)? To put it bluntly, why do American babies die in infancy more frequently than babies in 44 other countries, including Cuba? The answer is that in most, if not all, of those countries health insurance is universal. Many of the countries have single payer socialist (gasp) health systems. This is one of the imbalances that the Obama reform sought to address.

Now, I am bipartisan and I hope that the Progressive Olympic Movement that I have been campaigning for attracts liberal and conservative support, but we really need to think here. Representative Boehner and other Republicans have publicly stated that they will repeal the Obama health reform if they can. Short of that, if they take control of the House, they will deny funding for the stipends that will enable the working (emphasize working) poor to finally buy health insurance. If that happens, the US will continue to have an abysmal infant mortality rate. If you doubt my statistics, take a look at the CIA World Fact Book (not an instrument of the liberal press).

The answer is simple: do not drive angry, do not make decisions in anger, and do not vote in anger. Middle class rage is about to condemn the working poor to more suffering. We are Americans. We are better than that. Let’s use reason, not invective. As for the rationality of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, listen to Ronald Reagan’s own advisor David Stockman. He calls the idea half-baked. If you want a corresponding liberal critique, read Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.

I love this country. I value liberal and conservative thinkers. I respect our military. I revere our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence. I love what this country does for the world. We take risks for the suffering of Afghanistan and Iraq. Let’s think of the suffering here at home. Let’s do something sensible for the poor of this country: however we vote, let’s not repeal the Obama health plan. It’s the best news the working poor in this country have had in years.

Do Not Burn the Qu'ran

The world now knows that Terry Jones, a preacher in Florida, is planning on burning the Qu'ran on September 11. Many people have urged him not to do so. I will add my voice to the chorus of intelligent, charitable human beings who respect the religious experience of others. It is very simple. Reverend Jones just needs to apply the golden rule: do unto Muslims as you would have Muslims do unto you. How would you feel if a group of people organized an event to burn a Bible? As Christians revere the Christian Scriptures, Muslims revere the Qu'ran. My argument does not need to delve into highly abstract theology. I am simply stating that we just need to follow the teachings and example of Jesus. Please respect others.

Moreover, respect for others is part of the moral fabric of America. Burning the sacred scriptures of another person's faith runs contrary to the spirit of our diverse society, a society whose very constitution requires that we do not interfere with the religion of others.

Finally, General Petraeus has commented that burning the Qu'ran will put our military in danger.

For all of the above mentioned reasons, please do not burn the Qu'ran.

Ground Zero and the Sacred: A response to Charles Krauthammer

As a Catholic and as an American, I firmly believe that the Cordoba House Islamic Center should be built at the site that the Islamic community has chosen—two blocks from Ground Zero. Many people have opposed the building of this house of prayer and culture on the grounds that it is sacrilegious to build an Islamic Center near the site of the 9/11 attacks. To understand their argument we must examine their definition of the word sacred. According to Charles Krauthammer, “a place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).”

Clearly, he is making the case that Ground Zero is sacred for the last two reasons—the nobility of the rescuers, the blood of the martyrs and the suffering of the innocent. I grant him his definition and will demonstrate that such an understanding of sacred should not exclude Muslims but should include Muslims.

It is common place for cultures to remember places of suffering and death as holy ground. In the case of Auschwitz, it has been remembered for the horrific, inhuman torture and murder that took place there as well as for the basic history lesson that such crimes did indeed take place and need to be remembered because anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism are disordered habits that world cultures continue to feed. We remember Auschwitz so we do not forget it. The activities of Holocaust deniers, including the President of Iran, remind us that we need to remember. The Imam who hopes to build Cordoba House is not a 9/11 denier. A vocal critic of the attacks, he hopes that the activities of Cordoba House will undo the logic of 9/11.

If liberals were as eloquent as Charles Krauthammer, there would be far more of them to support causes like Cordoba House. Nevertheless, eloquent language cannot mask flaws in analysis. An argument by means of analogy has its limitations. In his argument Krauthammer cites the actions of Pope John Paul II in closing a Carmelite convent next to Auschwitz and then argues that the Islamic community should follow suit with regard to Cordoba House. As a liberal Catholic, I grant the moral authority of John Paul II (and will note that I have a few questions about some of his theological writings—as a Catholic, I still am allowed that). I will then state what I consider to be obvious: that John Paul II, knowing Muslims well, would encourage New Yorkers to embrace the building of Cordoba House near Ground Zero as a transcendent action for peace. John Paul wrote eloquently about how religious freedom was a foundational right and about how reconciliation requires us to transcend our comfort zone to embrace those we consider to be enemies. If Americans cannot do this, who can?

Once again, it is helpful to read Rene Girard (another man who respected John Paul II). We need to understand that using the suffering of the innocent to justify the exclusion of a marginal group perpetuates religious violence and undermines peace and justice. It is also helpful to more closely examine the Auschwitz analogy. In the case of Auschwitz, a tiny Jewish community which had for 1700 or more years been murdered by a gigantic Catholic community (who’s very religious texts had fed pogroms and the Holocaust) politely asked the head of the Catholic community to allow them a little room to grieve. This is not the case with Cordoba House. Muslim Americans are a tiny minority and America is the world’s superpower. Finally, even if there are some parallels between Auschwitz and 9/11, I will understand them in relation to my earlier essay: if we live from a wound, we do not transcend and enter into the real sacred--God’s reality of justice and peace.

Now let us return to our wider definition of the word sacred: a place is considered sacred if it is visited by the miraculous or transcendent or by the presence of nobility. After all of the horrible suffering connected to 9/11, it would truly be miraculous and noble for Americans to embrace this Muslim house of prayer. We would then transcend the primitive sacred which has held us in its grasp. We would reach out and be grasped by God in our efforts to labor for peace and reconciliation. In short, Ground Zero is not sacred in the sense that we need to keep a group of infidels away from it. Ground Zero is being made more sacred because a group of God’s children want to pray near it.

Spiritual Freedom at Ground Zero

If we all reflect on our experience, we will admit that when we live from a sense that we have been wounded, we become trapped in resentment. From this resentment, we then injure others. We are always faced with a basic choice: to forgive or to maintain the resentment. If we choose to maintain and feed the resentment, our own mental and spiritual well-being suffer.

We are currently faced with a related choice: to support or to oppose the construction of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. Those who have opposed the construction of the mosque have pointed out that Ground Zero is sacred ground because people were martyred there. We would do well to very closely read the writings of Rene Girard who has analyzed the dynamic of such an understanding of sacred. Girard points out that religious and other cultural movements occasionally dip into the dynamic of what he calls the primitive sacred which has its roots in the dynamic of scapegoating and violence. In other words, we have a very deep unconscious tendency when we are wounded to look for other wounded, ally with them in accusing another, and bond in our efforts to exclude that other. We find this very dynamic in those who oppose the mosque. Charles Krauthammer has called the mosque "sacrilege," pointing to other situations where hallowed ground was encroached upon by the other. Newt Gingrich has likened it to allowing Nazis to set up camp next to the Holocaust museum.

What Krauthammer and Gingrich both forget is that the Imam who is building the mosque very strongly condemned the 9-11 attacks and that the mosque is to support efforts aimed at healing and reconciliation. They also forget that there were muslims killed in the 9-11 attacks.

I respect both Mr. Krauthammer (whose piece was written very well) and Mr. Gingrich. I also respect the feelings of the families of those who were killed in the attacks. Nevertheless, respect for the feelings of those who have been wounded calls us all to examine how those feelings are moving us to structure our open society. We need to allow people to feel what they feel, but we also need to understand what those feeings are doing to us. At this time, we need to examine these feelings within the context of all of our spiritual traditions and we need to pay close attention to what our spiritual traditions say about forgiveness, anger and resentment. Because I am a Christian, I will now write from that tradition and I will read the insights of those who write from other traditions: As a Christian, I find the Gospel narratives of the empty tomb and resurrection, in which Jesus overcomes woundedness and breathes his Spirit upon his followers enabling them to forgive sins, to be liberating. If I am to imitate the risen Christ and thus join in his resurrection, I cannot live from my pain but from his grace. Once again, the writings of Rene Girard are helpful here. I also think that Gil Bailie and James Alison are helpful.

After studying our spiritual traditions, let's study our constitutional tradition (as our President has done). We know we are a nation founded upon freedom, freedom of religion being the first principle enumerated in our Bill of Rights. In our freedom, we are faced with a choice: on one hand we can live in primitive woundedness and resentment and not rise to the glory that God would have us dwell in. On the other hand, we can forgive, make basic distinctions between the 9-11 fanatics and the whole of Islam, and demonstrate to the world just how life-giving the first amendment is. For our own freedom, I hope we as a country chose to support the construction of Cordoba House two blocks from Ground Zero.

The Nature Of The Questions That Call To Us

Human beings are the beings that ask questions. It is our nature. Why couldn’t BP have foresawn what would happen if their blowout preventer failed? What will happen to the Pax Americana if the Afghan government fails and we cannot contain the Taliban? Why does Haiti continue to suffer? What is the correct mix of public and private measures to right the economy?

We all have questions, and at times the questions can seem overwhelming. Obviously the weightier questions demand more attention, but what is important is the method that we use in answering these questions, keeping in mind that we are always systematizing but that we never quite have that system that will answer all questions. When we are convinced that we have the system that explains all, the total system, we fall into the errors of the Soviet socialists who spoke about total administration, of finally being able to categorically solve all of the problems of humanity. We are the beings who ask questions because we are the beings who come face to face with uncertainty. We have to humbly admit that we do not have all of the answers to all of these thorny questions and that gives us pause. It should give us pause during this election season, as some of us prepare to scalp those politicians who just don’t seem to fit into the systems we have set up to settle once and for all all of the thorny issues that are plaguing us at this time.

Because we all face uncertainty, we are called through all of our spiritual traditions, to ask questions of each other in a spirit of charity. We are not here to demolish our opponents. Let’s all face the question: are we absolutely certain that we know all the answers—that BP’s mistake was “an act of God,” that the President “doesn’t emote enough,” that we know 100% what we’re doing with deep sea drilling, that someone has the silver bullet for Afghanistan, that illegal immigrants pose a terrible threat to our nation, and finally, that gays and lesbians pose a terrible threat to the moral fiber of our country. Do we really want to be like the Soviet socialists and silence the questions, to claim the possibility of attaining “total administration” (a terrifying thought, a terrifying phrase).

Ask the question: are we sure we know for sure? And in our uncertainty,won’t that give us a little more room to live with each other in our noble, but uncertain humanity.

On the Gulf Oil Spill

I have waited until now to develop a fuller response to the Gulf Oil Spill. At this point, it is critical that every global citizen develop a conscientious response. Even BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward has stated publicly that the Gulf Oil Spill never should have happened.

What are we to make of this? I am an Ohioan. I do not live near the Gulf, but, like the vast majority of conscientious Ohioans, I am very concerned about the working people of the Gulf region. I realize that just as Ohioans advocate for the economic well-being of the people of Gulf region, the people of the Gulf region advocate for the economic well-being of Ohioans. I am also very concerned about the ecology. What can I do? Many thoughtful journals, including the Jesuit weekly America, have outlined helpful proposals. They are worth considering. One of the proposals concerns conservation. The only practical problem with conservation in Summit County, Ohio is that we have to drive to many places. There is a bus system, but it does not reach every place I need to travel to. I also have a child with special needs and driving at times is literally a necessity. There are a few things I can do and I try to do these:

1. I refuse to be a slave to lawn care. I use my gas powered mower less often than the average bear. I also refuse to use petroleum based lawn products or to hire a lawn care company that will use petroleum based fertilizers and herbicides. I do not worry about trimming around the trees or edging the lawn.

2. I continue to advocate for a carbon neutral, Progressive Olympic Games for the Lake Erie region which will provide an opportunity to build a commuter train from Columbus to Canton to Akron to Cleveland, with a real focus on the Canton—Akron—Cleveland route. If we pay attention to the South African World Cup, we will notice that there were train lines developed for the event. We can do the same here. For our Progressive Olympics, which will be founded on solidarity with the poor, it is essential that we demonstrate solidarity with the people of the Gulf region, especially the people of New Orleans. If we cannot demonstrate solidarity with our fellow Americans, who is going to believe that we can demonstrate solidarity with the people of Haiti and Nicaragua? If we cannot advocate for the well-being of the people of the Gulf, then who will advocate for our Olympic effort?

3. As a loyal GM customer, I will continue to advocate for more fuel efficient cars from my favorite car company. I will also continue to advocate for better fuel efficiency from all car companies as well as stronger federal fuel efficiency regulations.

4. I will strongly consider a carbon tax, fully aware of the fact that it does put a burden on truckers and others who rely on automotive transport for a living.

Most importantly, I pray for the people of the Gulf region, some of whom are personal friends of mine. I pray that all Americans might act out of sense of solidarity toward the people of the Gulf and that we might better learn to steward God’s creation. God loves us, but God will judge us for how well we take care of the world he has given us. Witnessing this unprecedented catastrophe and the human suffering it has caused, how do we judge our own actions now?

Trusting My Son, Trusting Myself

He sits on the swing, lost in thought, oblivious to everyone around him.

I call his name. No response. I call his name again. Still no response. I can feel the anxiety creep into my chest. “Rob, are you OK?” Finally, an answer. “Yes.” That’s it. He goes back to staring into space. I feel a lump in my throat. I have seen him like this one hundred times before, but every time, I feel the disconnect. My son is just not there, not aware of me, withdrawn into an Asperger’s world. I want to know what he is thinking. I want some kind of communication—even just a look, a smile, something, but it doesn’t happen.

I keep trying. Finally, it occurs to me to just ask him “Rob, what are you thinking about?” Another 30 second pause. I ask him again.

“Phinias and Ferb. Dr. Doofemshmirtz is funny.”

I feel the connect, my anxiety fades.

“Daddy, I’m bored.”

“Then ride your bike.”

He does so. Susie wants to follow him. She does. We all move toward a park bench about 100 yards away. When we arrive, Rob announces that he wants to go home. I have left the stroller back at the playground.

“We need to go get the stroller.”

“You go get the stroller and leave Susie here with me.”

“Rob, I can’t do that.”

“Don’t worry Daddy. I’ll watch Susie, Daddy. You can rely on me!”

Hearing this, a tear wells in my eye as Susie snuggles up with him.

“I’ll stay here with Rob, Daddy. You get the stroller.” She trusts him so much, looks up to him.

The tear in my eye. I can’t believe how beautiful my son is. Moments before, he was unable to communicate with me, now he is pledging to take care of his three year old sister. I cannot express the panoply of emotions that flow from my heart—gratitude, awe, disbelief, and fear, yes, still this fear that this moment will fade and Rob will drift back into an autistic world where I cannot reach him. But for now, utter joy. For this moment, the curtain drew back and my son was revealed to me as he really is—loving.

I can rely on Rob. A few weeks before he melted down so badly he threatened my wife and threw eggs at me. Now, I can rely on him. A roller coaster, but I can rely on Rob.

I have to admit that, at times, I wonder if I have the emotional resources that some parents have. I love my children, but I can become overwhelmed with how to handle Rob. Am I being too hard on myself? Probably. I don’t know many Dads who could calmly handle the meltdowns Rob has had. I struggle with shame. I grew up with a father who had a wicked Irish temper. He was and is a very generous man, but witnessing his explosions as a kid felt humiliating. Witnessing Rob’s explosions brings me back to those humiliating moments, when people would just stare at my father in disbelief.

For weeks I was frozen in that kind of humiliation again, wondering what my son would do next. It passed slowly and the thaw came completely with Rob’s proclamation that he was reliable enough to watch Susie. It had to be my sensing his self-confidence, that he had once again regained control of himself, that he trusted himself. And so my heart let up and the joy returned.

I hope that we can continue to foster self-confidence in Rob. To do so, I need to be in a situation where I know that people have confidence in me. My wife has an enormous amount of confidence in me. Her love and her trust sustain me. Unfortunately, right now, I am unemployed. I miss the camaraderie of being part of a team. I have a dream that I can work with a team of people who sincerely see my talents and who trust me. Having that confidence, which is socially infectious, will help me foster confidence in people at home.

Trust begets more trust. And the tricky thing about trust is that you cannot pretend that you have it. It has to well up freely from your heart as you share it without fear of loss. The Biblical term for trust that most of us are familiar with is faith. Faith cannot be coerced from a person, cannot be socially manipulated into a person. Faith is a gift. To live and work in a community of faith. I pray for that empowering gift.

Overcoming the Cycle of Violence in the Holy Land

Is it possible to live in peace with others without experiencing the insights that their worldview fosters?

In our global society, people of every conceivable religion move to every conceivable corner of the globe. For us to be economically productive and ecologically prudent, we must work together in inter-religious and multi-cultural teams. For the most part, we work together peacefully. We respect our neighbors. Each great religion emphasizes the values of respect for human life and compassion for the other. Yet, there are sporadic outbreaks of violence. One of the causes is religious nationalism which understands a faith as a sacred canopy which defines a geographical territory. In the United States, we hear religious nationalism in the form of statements such as “America is a Christian nation.” Such statements misunderstand the real value of religion by equating God who is infinite with an orientation toward a finite geographical place.

If we had more reverence for the true nature of God, for God as infinite, ineffable, beyond the human attempt to name and confine, we might have more insight into the reality that God communicates with us through the religious traditions of others. I know this personally. I am a Catholic. My religion makes its ultimate claims, but I learn from more than just the Christian Scriptures and the Catholic tradition. I learn from others. When I allow them to be other, completely beyond my attempt to name or control, I am open to the wisdom that God is offering me through their own living traditions.

For example, I value forgiveness and I have had the experience of being forgiven and of forgiving others in the Catholic sacrament of reconciliation. I have also been studying Buddhist insights into reconciliation, chiefly stemming from the practice of mindfulness. I can see basic similarities between Buddhist insights and the insights of Thomas a Kempis in his Imitation of Christ, but I can also sense something radically other and revealing in the Buddhist authors, especially the gift of meditating on what they call the inherent emptiness of existence (what I as a Christian would call mystery). One also cannot help but be impressed by the examples of the Dalai Lama, Thich Naht Hanh and other Buddhist practitioners. They practice non-violence in ways that most Christians only speak about. Yet, I remain a Catholic Christian, deeply grateful for the sacramental vision of the Church.

I have learned from many traditions: I can recall a good story about Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. A friend was complaining that he—the friend--was not more like Moses. Heschel responded “God is not going to ask me ‘Why are you not Moses?’ but rather ‘Why are you not Heschel?’’—emphasizing the value of authenticity. I have also learned from Holocaust survivors who have forgiven Catholics who ignored them as they were shipped off to concentration camps (and in some cases helped ship Jews to the camps). They constantly remind us to always resist genocide. I learn from the staff and members of the Jewish Community Center of Akron as they teach my daughter and celebrate the diversity of their membership. I know the Hebrew Bible better thanks to the writing of Robert Alter and I know that Catholic Biblical scholarship would be lost without the vibrant study of Jewish scholars of both the Hebrew and the Christian Scriptures.

I will be honest and admit that I have not had the opportunity to study Islam as well as I would like to, but I vow to change that in the near future. I have had the privilege of studying with three brilliant Islamic scholars at the Catholic University of America—Sayed Reza Hejazi, Kemal Ataman, and Bahar Davary—as they were pursuing their Doctorates in Religious Studies. Reza, Kemal, and Bahar exemplified respect for the other, critical insight in the classroom, and an articulate explanation of their faith. From them and other Muslims I have developed an even deeper appreciation for prayer.

I have become more attuned to the energies of my own body—what Hindus call prana—through a Yoga class I am currently taking. Each pose activates a different line of energy and the class culminates in a very deeply peaceful relaxation of each part of my body into the present moment.

All of this makes me wonder about the current suffering in the Middle East. I know that there are geopolitical concerns and military strategies that go beyond my expertise, but I can’t help but wonder if there is some way to nurture compassion for the other and if such compassion is the key to overcoming the cycle of violence between Jews and Muslims (as well as the violent attitudes that some Christians have toward the warring parties and toward what they consider the proper partition of Palestine/Israel). Judaism, Islam and Christianity proclaim that God is compassionate and that God rewards human compassion. What if Jews, Christians and Muslims—the three religions with a history of violence toward each other concerning the Holy Land—were to pray with each others’ sacred texts and the commentaries each writes about these texts. What if we were to try to very sincerely imagine ourselves as the other and appreciate why the other truly values the sacred sites of the Holy Land? Would this give us some hesitation when we plan to harm each other over these very sites?

I am not advocating cafeteria spirituality or spirituality without healthy boundaries. We first need to develop a solid foundation in our own tradition and make sure that the younger members of our traditions receive solid foundations (what I as a Catholic would call catechesis). After that, to ensure we grow in our own faith, we need to allow others to reveal to us the depth and brilliance of God. We need to risk praying and meditating with texts from traditions different from our own and then return to our own tradition changed, more compassionate, valuing the other, even when that other threatens us. The alternative to valuing the other is terror, control and occupation which only lead to violence and entanglement. It is a vicious cycle from which we will never be free.

To become free of this cycle we need to ask God for the blessing of a sincere reverence for the religiosity of those who are different than we are and we need to pray with those who are different from us. A solid grounding in our own tradition and then acting to open ourselves to the on-going religious revelations of the other, as other, leads to peace and freedom.

Non-violent dialogue to resolve Israeli-Palestinian Violence

In the wake of the heightened tensions in the Middle East, it is important to take constructive actions to sow the seeds of peace. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King thought that those who would work for peace must purify themselves of violence. At the current moment, very few Christians can claim that they have totally purified themselves of anti-Judaism to such an extent that they can, in complete freedom, criticize the nation of Israel. The reason for this is the violence that exists in our Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures are laden with an anti-Judaism that gave birth to two millennia of pogroms and that culminated in the Nazi Holocaust. Most churches still have not re-translated their Bibles to remove the texts that refer to Jews as Christ killers, those from whom the Jewish disciples hid in fear, and those who were too obtuse to accept the Gospel. Although these texts are not forms of physical violence, they have promoted physical violence in the past. They are also forms of spiritual and psychic violence. On November 11, 2009, I wrote about this issue, focusing on the Fourth Gospel. There are also plenty of passages in the Gospel of Matthew and in many other texts of the Christian Scriptures.

We should not postpone efforts to remove anti-Judaism from our Scriptures. The need is even more pressing now. I whole-heartedly believe that the people of Israel would be more willing to hear criticism of their foreign policy if we took the very simple steps to correct this problem. Shall we wait for another war in Israel/Palestine to break out?

In addition, I firmly believe that inter-faith prayer will help us resolve this issue. There are many who have advocated it. I hope that we might begin this process in Northeast Ohio, bringing together Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others in retreats and other formats that not only foster dialogue, but which allow us to show reverence for each other’s most sacred prayer and which facilitate prayer for and with each other. In particular, I and many others think that it is possible to adapt the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius to facilitate such encounters. There are other approaches.

Open dialogue, free of intimidation and insensitivity, in which we actively listen to each other, in which we pray with each other, and in which we forgive each other is the only manner to sow the seeds of lasting peace.

On The Current Israel-Turkey-Palestine Crisis

I think that both Israel and Palestine have a right to a homeland and that the two state solution is the only solution. I also know that cultures are constructed. Given these assumptions, I have a few questions:

1. How can we construct a culture of peace in the Middle East?
2. What will it take to move the nations of Israel and Palestine to cooperate with each other? Ultimately, would it not be fruitful for Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to host the summer Olympics together? Could this sow the seeds of lasting peace?
3. In the short term, we need to ask if religious nationalism is getting in the way of lasting peace. I think that this is the question that the prophet Isaiah would ask us today (confer Isaiah 2). I will define religious nationalism as the tendency to associate religious boundaries with geographical boundaries. In the United States and many other nations, we have demonstrated that it is possible to let go of religious nationalism and still maintain our religious identities. The Israeli peace movement seems to be willing and able to do this. What is the next step?

Excellent Editorial On Church Reform

See America Magazine.

Questions for the Tea Party

I write as a Democrat who enjoys reasoned debate with my Republican brothers and sisters. On this occasion, I am writing because I am a little concerned about some of the changes in the Republican party. Since the Tea party came onto the scene, many established Republicans have felt the need to reassure people that they are indeed the party of free markets, low taxes, and limited government. I do not know how far Tea party influence will reach. Nevertheless, whether the Tea party actually manages to take over certain Republican offices or fields third party candidates that will take voters away from Republican candidates, many, including Kathleen Parker,
think that they are giving the more established Republican candidates fits.

Since the Tea party would like to wield such influence in the American political system, I have a few respectful questions:

First, how could you deal with the BP Gulf oil crisis using only free market principles? The market alone cannot save the fishing and tourism industries that provide jobs up and down the gulf coast. Only combined market/government action can. Prodded by the Federal Government, BP is acting very slowly, but the Office of Homeland Security is overseeing all of the other action.

If the Minerals Management Service determines that oil leaks at a certain depth are very difficult to contain and then acts to stop all oil drilling beyond a particular depth, would you oppose that? If we had had this particular government regulation before April 2010, we would not have this catastrophe.

Moreover, do you oppose federal investigations into the cause of the explosion so as to develop regulations to prevent future rig explosions? Do you oppose the use of federal funds to help the Gulf Coast states in the wake of this crisis? If so, what will you do for the thousands who might lose their jobs?

Second, would you repeal the government requirement that drivers carry car insurance? If so, then how will you help individuals who are harmed in car accidents who cannot afford ten thousand dollar medical procedures (since in your system few would have health insurance)? How would you compensate these individuals for the harm done to them by a few irresponsible drivers or, in the case of many accidents, simple hazardous driving conditions? If not, then you admit that there are government interventions into the free market that are good for society. The question then becomes which interventions are good and which are not. The basic philosophical view of most Republicans and all Democrats is then valid.

Third, how would you change American foreign policy? Would you abolish all foreign aid programs and let millions go underfed and uneducated? Would you abolish the Peace Corps?

Fourth, are we to have no shared responsibility, no inter-dependence in our communities? It is possible that this ethic will foster real selfishness and alienation in our country.

Fifth, how do you respond to the simple fact that since the beginning of the American Republic, starting with George Washington's actions in response to the Whiskey Rebellion, there have been interventions by state governments and the federal government in the marketplace?

In closing, it is interesting that you call yourselves the Tea party, recalling the Boston Tea Party. That was a protest against taxation without representation, against what became a foreign government, not a protest against taxation by a democratically elected government with a view to protect the general welfare. I respect the members of the Tea party. I understand that they have a vision for our country and I welcome open, honest, rational debate.

Easter Joy

Remembering George Herbert's Poem Easter:



Easter.

RIse heart; thy Lord is risen. Sing his praise
Without delayes,
Who takes thee by the hand, that thou likewise
With him mayst rise:
That, as his death calcined1 thee to dust,
His life may make thee gold, and much more, just.

Awake, my lute, and struggle for thy part
With all thy art.
The crosse taught all wood to resound his name,
Who bore the same.
His stretched sinews taught all strings, what key
Is best to celebrate this most high day.

Consort both heart and lute, and twist a song
Pleasant and long:
Or, since all musick is but three parts2 vied
And multiplied,
O let thy blessed Spirit bear a part,
And make up our defects with his sweet art.


I got me flowers to straw thy way;
I got me boughs off many a tree:
But thou wast up by break of day,
And brought’st thy sweets along with thee.

The Sunne arising in the East,
Though he give light, & th’ East perfume;
If they should offer to contest
With thy arising, they presume.

Can there be any day but this,
Though many sunnes to shine endeavour?
We count three hundred, but we misse:
There is but one, and that one ever.

Sexuality, Gender and Priesthood

To be Catholic has always meant to be open to the whole truth, to find truth in all situations. The Church, as a human institution, has never completely actualized this. No human institution can or has. This is why the great theologian Karl Rahner used to write that we are always systematizing, but we never have a system.
A system is a closed reality, and as a close reality it will always shut out part of the whole of reality. For this reason, a system is a partial reality and as a partial reality, is always in need of updating. There are many who are threatened by this. There are some who are so threatened by it that they react with outrage.

Vatican II sought to update the Church. There were those priests and laity who resisted it then and there are those who resist it now. There are some who are waiting for the “Vatican II generation” to die off so that the Church can go back to the glory days of repressing religious liberty, repressing dissent, controlling society, hating Jews, and making the whole world Catholic. I hope they don’t want to reinstitute the crusades. There are some who accept Vatican II, but think that the Church is not doing enough to combat the “dictatorship of relativism” that they think is taking over Western society. I think for conservatives of both stripes any really negative news about the Church threatens them because it undermines the authority of the Church in the eyes of the world. Both groups, children of God, loved by Christ, are very nervous about further updating—ordaining married men, ordaining women, nuancing Church teaching about homosexuality, accepting the use of birth control by married couples.

It seems that they think that the Church can be a closed system, ignoring the flow of time and the new realities that time brings—more intelligent understandings of sexuality and the human body. It seems that they continue to resist the idea that humanity is progressing. Yes, it is true that as human beings progress there are moments of regress—some brought about by conservatives, some brought about by liberals, some just brought about by collective human sin—greed, hatred, fear of the other.

As an American Catholic, I cannot help but ponder the great progressive reality of our nation. We ushered in an era of religious liberty when the Vatican taught that religious liberty was an error. It took almost two hundred years for the Catholic Church to catch up with the American Declaration of Independence and the American Bill of Rights. In the end, it was the writings of John Courtney Murray, an American Jesuit influenced by the non-Catholics who had instituted and lived religious freedom for two hundred years, that convinced the Second Vatican Council to accept religious liberty as a fundamental human right. For years the Bishops had suppressed Murray’s writings. In the end, he won out. If he had not, the Church would still be trying to make Catholicism the official religion of every country of the world, including the USA.

The point is that at Vatican II, thanks to lessons learned from non-Catholics, the Church changed its teaching. The Church progressed. It is now time for the Church to learn again. Once again theologians who are learning from outside of the Catholic tradition are being suppressed or ignored. Theologians who argue that it is the humanity of Christ and the baptism of the person that allow for a person to be ordained rather than some attachment to the maleness of Jesus. Theologians, citing surveys that address the difficulties of celibate life, who hope the Church will go back to a thousand year old practice of allowing married men to be ordained. Theologians and psychologists who question the Church’s position that homosexuality is in some way disordered.

These are touchy issues. Anything dealing with sexuality is, but look at what happens when the Church stamps a gigantic “we have already figured this out” onto a very complex, evolving issue, look at what happens to the priesthood.
I think most reasonable people who know priests know that most of them are very good people. Many of them struggle with celibacy. Is this struggle with celibacy part of what has brought about the various pedophilia scandals that have and will continue to shock the world? In some cases, perhaps. In most cases, the pedophilia scandal really concerns a very perverse understanding of authority and power and how disordered authority and power can disorder one’s understanding of sex. It also is connected to a very strange residual understanding of the Church as some kind of “perfect society,” the image of which must be maintained or the faithful will lapse into the “dictatorship of relativism.”

To effectively help people resist complete relativism and nihilism, I think that the Church has to come to terms with what is natural. I will reach back into our tradition and I will help it come to terms with reality. According to St. Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of the natural law, one ought to do what is good. The human goods are those toward which we are naturally inclined—life, family life, knowledge, reasonable conduct and society. When it came to understanding family life and reasonable conduct, Thomas studied what he knew—the science of the time. If he were alive today, he would avidly read the most recent studies of human sexuality. Thomas came to the conclusion that all human sexual acts must be open to procreation because it seemed to him that that was what happened in the natural world, which for him was found in the local barnyard. He did not know that monkeys, our closest natural relative, engage in sexual acts which are not procreative but which perform important social functions.

I also think that Aquinas, if he were alive today, would study as much of the social sciences and philosophy as he could. He would have learned much about history and historical consciousness. He would learn that an important aspect of the nature of human society is that it evolves. It changes. Finally, after learning of all of the suffering that we have witnessed over thousands of years, Aquinas would conclude, with Jesus, that what is good for human beings is love and sexuality is an important part of human love.

If we all take a moment and reflect on how our gay and lesbian neighbors love, how much they love their kids (family life for Aquinas), how much they give to society, if we all take a moment and reflect on the gifts of all of the women who have discerned an authentic call to the priesthood, if we all take a moment and listen to the married men who have discerned an authentic call to the priesthood, and if we reflect on the ways that very bizarre attitudes about authority and power have dominated the Catholic church even up to today, we would admit that it would help the Church to listen to many of the modern and post-modern psychological and cultural studies of human sexuality and gender. At a time when the Vatican denied the truth about the disgusting sexual exploitation of children, it is time to be Catholic—to be open to the whole truth. It is time to update Catholic understandings of sexuality, gender and priesthood.

Tradition, Priesthood and Progress

No human being can stop time. It flows. Change is inevitable. To live is to change, as Cardinal Newman wrote, and yet the very same Catholics who value Newman so much, seem to want to prevent change, in a way, to stop the flow of time. Such actions create such horrible tension. It would be as if I would spend psychic energy trying to prevent my own body and mind from changing in time. It would be as if I would try to spend my own psychic energy trying to prevent my mind from growing in wisdom. Such a condition is not a condition of joy—the condition Jesus wants to spread-- it is a condition of terrible inner and outer conflict.

“Tradition is important.” I have heard time and time again. True, it is important. My very thoughts were developed within the context of a tradition—my parents and teachers taught me language, but the language that they taught me forty years ago did not include terms like internet, globalization, inter-religious, or historical consciousness. I learned those terms as time went on. There was no Platonic dictionary that my teachers dispensed these terms from, some vault of knowledge that some intellectual class agreed to open from time to time. There is the evolving universe, that human beings are helping to construct, and aspects of the evolving universe, being partially constructed by human beings, are given names by human beings. And so the internet and the reality of the internet.

One of the names given and one of the human realities named is “tradition.” I have been taught within the Catholic tradition, a dynamic tradition. I inherited vocabulary from others older than I am and now that I am forty two there are younger teachers who teach me as well. What I have learned about the Catholic tradition is that it evolved. The institution and the sacrament of the priesthood developed in time. There were no ordinations made by the Apostles. The Catholic Church constructed ordination and priesthood. Does that mean that these constructions are inauthentic? No, most definitely, they are authentic, but we must examine the claim that the Spirit of Christ is not encouraging ordination and priesthood to evolve even further. Currently, the Church is in crisis because our current understanding of the priesthood is not giving life. Priests have been protected, images have been protected, and children have been harmed. We are now becoming aware that this is an international problem. What we learn from this situation and how we change because of it will determine much. It is difficult to change. It might seem scary to some, but we are a people who meet change with faith in Christ.

We must have faith in God and in the evolving universe, to paraphrase Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Does that mean that we shake off our traditions? No. It means that we let them evolve and help them evolve—authentically. Any tradition that does not evolve is not a living tradition and will then become a dying prison cell in which people live by rote.

We all live and to live is to change. We all change. To be wise is to learn from the evolving nature of our own minds and bodies. To be wise is to discern between authentic change, change motivated by love, by positive energy, and change motivated by selfish grasping or anxiety. The true traditions, the traditions that live and give life, that nurture, are the traditions that change in positive ways. Let’s pass that tradition of positive change on to the next generation of Catholics by living our living tradition. It is time for some changes in the way we understand priesthood.