"Quest for the Living God" by Elizabeth Johnson

The fact that this book warranted the Catholic bishops of this country to condemn it was enough for me to buy the book! I did not expect to "learn" anything "new" from the book since I was acquainted with the literature. But, I surely wanted to read it to further my disbelief in the hierarchy. They surely can only be summed it as stupid!

At any rate, the "Quest for the Living God" deals well with two notions: (1) God, by definition, is unknowable, and (2) as humans, we have to reference what we cannot know because that is the way our brain works. We reference in words what is in our mind and we have no choice but to reference even what we cannot know or name. In short, we are in a bind: we are forced to do something that leads to inherent contradictions.

Given that we are forced to use language even for what we cannot know, the author's approach to this issue is to discuss God by referencing different images or metaphors that capture "something" of what we reference we use the term, "God". She discusses these metaphors within the context of the Judaeo-Christian biblical literature. In contrast to the Medieval and Scholastic approach of attempting to reference God through philosophical categories, she understands "God" within the context of scriptures.

It is unbelievable that anyone would have a problem with her approach!

Clerical Sex Abuse

Richard Sipe is probably the most recognized academic who has studied clerical sex abuse. In the past, I wrote to him about my ideas why so many were involved in sex abuse around the time I was ordained a priest (1963). It was striking to me that there seemed to be a spike, a big increase, in the frequency of clerical sex abuse between 1960 and 1975.

As I shared with Dr. Sipe, I thought that there were several factors that I could personally identify from my background.

First, we were educated in total isolation and our education was itself skewed. We were literally in a prison-like system where we encountered no "real" people who would possible be critical of what we thought. And, our education was not broad-based, but narrowly tailored to ensure that we only focused on "approved" theory and practice.

Second, our education did not include any focus on sex or counseling regarding our personal approach towards sex. It was somewhat assumed that our presence in the seminary and our career choice were sufficient to ensure compliance with celibacy.

Third, for us who entered the seminary in the 50's or early 60's, our experience was within a very traditional society. The cultural mores were supportive of a more conservative approach to sex. In general, sex outside outside marriage was not routine. Would it be fair to say that it was unusual? At any rate, from my experience, the choice of celibacy within the Catholic society was generally supported and the mores within the Catholic community help support priests in their chosen vocation. When I was ordained in 1963, everything was consistent with the experience of new priests for decades, if not centuries (since the Trent Reformation in the 16th Century).

What happened in the 60's was revolutionary for so many reasons.

There was the Vatican Council that disabused Catholics, including clergy, of ideas long held. I know, from my experience, that priests ordained even a year ahead of me were totally opposed to the views many of us held, based on the Vatican Council. For priests ordained earlier, e.g., priests that I lived with in the two parishes were I worked, it was total warfare. They not only disagreed with me privately. Some used their turns in the pulpit to disagree with what I said. I was reassigned in order to be "straightened out", only to find that the hostility was more evident. Obviously, it was clear that I would not survive.

Another reason that it is important for understanding the increase in clerical sex abuse is the multi-focus revolution within society. There was a revolution flowing from the injustices associated with racial discrimination. There was an increased stress on the value of each person, based on their personhood. We were all equal. The focus on equality may have resulted from the discrimination of black people, but for many of us, it became evident that the Catholic Church practiced forms of discrimination, i.e., priests were essentially superior to lay people. One may think that this is a small element, but priests historically were psychologically supported by the "perks" associated with the perceived status lay people assigned them. When priests started to realize that they were really no different than others, in spite of being ordained, then it was less clear why they should have live so differently, e.g., celibacy.

Authority, in general, was questioned. Most strikingly were the Vietnam protests which were based on perceived erroneous uses of power by governmental authorities. But, it transferred quickly to the Church, when those who were relatively new to the priesthood, observed that those in power, e.g., older priests and hierarchy, were totally in world that was out of sync with modern theology and cultural values.

And finally, there was the sexual revolution. Every known moral code that sanctioned traditional sexual practice was being questioned, both in literature and films, as well as practice. Parishioners were living according to a different set of codes. Sexual practice was no longer "special" as much as "normal". Priests were not ready to accommodate these changes.

Since there was no "continuing education" requirements within the clergy, there was no method for updating clerical education, assuming that there was a perceived need to update the education. In fact, even to this day, the stated positions of the Catholic Church are totally at variance with standardized sexual practice among people, whether Catholics or not!

The report by John Jay College of Criminal Justice which was commissioned to study the situation seems to validate many of my ideas.

When thinking about this horrendous history, I can only rejoice that I escaped without too many scars. I know that I was damaged in some ways, but surely not enough to cry about. I was able to live a fulfilling life with a great family and enjoy the rewards of parenthood and work that are blessings that I will forever be thankful for.

Never Too Old to Learn and be Amazed!

We celebrated Emi's second birthday yesterday. Many friends and their children were tightly fitted into the house. There must have been 11 children with only one older than three (she was four). Given the constraints of space (it was pouring rain outside), I was amazed how easily everyone was able to feel at home. But, of more interest, was watching these little children go about enjoying available toys and each other, oblivious to strangers and adults, in general.

Consistent with so much research, it seems to demonstrate the degradation of so much of our humanity by negative experiences over time. It all starts rather effortlessly until the adult world starts to impose so many expectations or their own world starts to be complicated by other children whose early tendencies have been thwarted by their negative experiences.

I realize that no one is immune from the negative impact of some of our experiences. Most of us seem to accommodate these into our worldview without distorting our vision too much. However, none 0f us keep the benign world view that is enjoyed by little ones.

I admit vicariously enjoying this world that I can never recall having.

Sickness makes One Different

I have had this miserable cold for eight days and counting. I clearly am not "myself", although I am better than I was. I am struck by how miserable I have felt even though I have nothing serious to report. I consider those we know who are battling diseases that are ultimately life-threatening and know that their misery index is so much worse than mind.

The only positive aspect of the situation is that I am preparing for the time when I will join others in a real big medical battle with the powers of death is the sway. Based on my behavior during this week, I have to practice more. I witness the few we know at the moment who appears such towers of strength compared to my complaining about how badly I feel. I think of the hospice patients I have been involved with who typically never complain about their existential plight!

I hope that I can develop the strength evidenced by others. The examples only make me tremble when I consider how poorly I have done with this cold!

Futility of Hatred and Ideologies

Given what happened on 9/11, it is hard not to be grateful that Osama is no longer a menace. Having said that, I am disheartened when considering the future. There is so much hatred evidenced everywhere. Ideologies continue to thwart the best of approaches to a better world.

Whatever I read, it seems that two realities strike me wrong. For all who make Al Qaeda or its multiple step-children the villain, it is hard for me to see that we, on the other side of the mirror, do not look the same to them! They hate us and we hate them! And somehow or other, our side takes words of congratulations for being strong in its ideals in the face of adversity, as though the other side are not also congratulating themselves for being faithful to Islam!

It is similar to the frustrations resulting from conflicting ideologies. The cultural divide between the West and Islam seems insurmountable, in spite of the historical alliances centuries ago in Spain and in other parts of Europe. Political ideologies seriously divide so many, including myself. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for me to identify with the right-wing, conservatives leaders of our nation. The agendas promoted by them are as foreign to me as it would be for me to convert to Islam.

I do endorse the rule of law as a sine qua non for our society, a nation, or a world to exist. One of the great developments in our evolution is the rule of law endorsed by most nations. We may not always agree on what laws are to be enforced, but there is a basic agreement that we cannot exist collectively without some order sanctioned by higher authority with the powers to enforce the laws.

However, the next step becomes very confusing to me. I admit that non-violence as the basic strategy in dealing with conflict makes the most sense. I see no long-term benefits from the use of violence, especially evidenced in warfare. Whatever gains achieved in the short-run are generally lost in the unexpected consequences of exercise of armed conflict.

I am disturbed whenever our nation extends themselves word of congratulations for doing something that is clearly destructive to others. It is hard for me not to think of what those peoples who feel the power of our destructive forces are thinking. Admittedly, it is all confusing when the problems are very specific, e.g., what to do in Libya when government forces intend to hurt their own citizens. But, in my way of thinking, our problems in the Middle East are caused by actions taken historically by distorted world leaders who determined that they "knew" what was right for their lands. The Middle East is a mess and the West essentially created the mess by artificially segmenting peoples into artificial grouping and never providing the support to build stable nations that would deal with tribal differences. We will only perpetuate similar disasters by using military power to address the problems.

At the moment, if asked, I would conclude the following:

1. Laws have to be obeyed. If broken, police action should be taken to enforce the laws and courts (world, national, state, etc.) should decide what consequences should be administered.

2. Military action should be taken only when a nation's existence is threatened. Diplomacy should be the general thrust of all nations interested in promoting positive values throughout the world. This becomes tricky when specifics are identified, e.g., Iran. Somehow, we have tended to stop our diplomacy when events are not consistent with our views. And, then, we introduce sanctions. In short, we give up hope for positive change unless the other nation capitulates. Again, imagine the opposite situation. Can you imagine the United States responding positively to a nation threatening to "isolate" us? Why would one think any nation would? We have given poor examples of how to use power. Not only do we develop an atomic bomb and use it, we then proceeded to develop more and more to the point of being ridiculous, while demanding other nations to avoid having such weapons. Again, if the shoe was on the other foot, would we agree to "limit" our options because another nation determined that this was the right action?

To keep the world from annihilation, it is important to take time to consider how to reinvent international and national agendas so that we can focus on our mutual survival. Overcoming economic inequalities, whether within a nation, or among nations should be a goal of all nations. Focusing on the humanity of each person should be in the foreground of all discussions. How can one gender discredit the other gender without distorting the humanity of the other? How can we promote policies that inherently designed to deprive some of basic needs? Why can't sharing become the norm?