Christmas 2017

CHRISTMAS 2017

The meaning of Christmas has surely changed for me during my 80 years. Rather than the very concrete images generated by biblical stories, I now focus on a more expansive view that involves my existence in a universe that is such a gift to each of us. As such, each day, each moment, is an opportunity to treasure this experience.

 It has been difficult lately for me to deal with national and international situations that I once thought we could improve. I was tragically deluded. There are few signs that we are advancing the condition of mankind in spite of our “advanced” knowledge. The brutal ways that mankind treats others who are different seem to have found multiple opportunities to make matters worse. As I look around Mother Earth, there are few signs of peace.  The desire to keep this small, but beautiful, planet habitable seems to wither.

And so, this Christmas finds me rejoicing that I exist! Not only do I have the privilege of life in a universe that becomes more spectacular as scientists find ever-new planets. The gift of life is precious.

That I can share this life with such a beautiful woman for nearly 50 years is a breathtaking gift. No one deserves such a gift. I have never stopped being amazed by my good fortune. My life is so much better by sharing it with Joan Louise.

And now, as we await the our family for our Christmas celebration, I am awed to think that I am loved by such beautiful people who I could not, in turn, love more.

I continue to focus on “the moment” when I am aware of my existence in this beautiful universe. In the moment, I am aware that the universe is a gift that keeps on giving. It does appear that collectively, we are not doing well as care keepers. But, in this moment, I am loved and, in turn, love everyone!

I will conclude this blog with a meditation by Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest, who shares such meditations daily. He started a retreat center in New Mexico many years ago, called the Center for Action and Contemplation. I share his vision that is articulated so well in the daily email meditations. If interested, you can request the meditations by emailing meditations@cac.org. Donations are accepted, but not required.

The attached photos do justice to my perception of the gift of my (and by extension, everyone's) existence.

The Goal, Sunday, December 17, 2017

The purifying goal of mysticism and contemplative prayer is nothing less than divine union—union with what is, with the moment, with yourself, with the divine, which means with everything. Healing, growth, and happiness are admittedly wonderful byproducts of prayer, but they must not be our primary concern. The goal must be kept simple and clear—love of God and neighbor, union with God and neighbor. Our common word for this state of union is heaven. Wherever there is union, there is a little bit of heaven.

Much of common religion is well-disguised self-interest—high premium fire insurance for the afterlife—instead of self-emptying love. Most of the official Catholic liturgical prayers ask in some form, “That I or we might go to heaven.” (This is not a guess. I have counted!) Is there no other priority than my personal salvation? If it is true that lex orandi est lex credendi, “the way you pray is the way you believe,” then it is no wonder Christians have such a poor record of caring for the suffering of the world and for the planet itself, and the Church has fully participated in so many wars and injustices. We have been allowed to pray in a rather self-centered way, and that fouled the Christian agenda, in my opinion.

Jesus talked much more about how to live on earth now than about how to get to heaven later. Show me where Jesus healed people for the next world. He healed their present entrapment and suffering in their bodies, not just their souls. But many Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, pushed the goal into the future, making religion into a petty reward/punishment system inside a frame of retributive justice. (The major prophets—and Jesus himself­—teach restorative justice instead.) Once Christianity became a simplistic win/lose morality contest, we lost most of the practical, transformative power of the Gospel for the individual and for society. I cannot state this strongly enough.

Objectively, we cannot be separate from God; we all walk in the Garden whether we know it or not. The branch that imagines itself to be separate from the Vine (John 15:1-8), acts as if it is separate from God. We call the result sin, but the real sin is the imagined state of separation. It is our own delusion and decision!

We came from God and we will return to God. Everything in-between is a school toward conscious loving. As theologian Charles Williams (1886-1945) said, the “master idea” of Christianity is co-inherence. “You already know the Spirit of Truth; the Spirit is with you and in you!” (John 14:17). God is your deepest desiring. But it takes a long time to allow, believe, trust, and enjoy such a wonderful possibility. We move toward union by desiring union. We move into heaven by desiring heaven now. So just pray for the desire to desire union. Then the actions will take care of themselves.

Interlude

During the last few months, I have been experiencing internal changes. There is nothing significant, but it is source of wonder.  Thinking about what may be different prompts this rumination.

It has been some time since I have distanced myself from commenting on political and policy matters. Clearly, it is difficult or impossible to focus on policy that is without political implications. The politics of our nation is so divisive that I cannot participate.  I trust that my nightmare will end short of disaster. I surely hope so.

What I find interesting is that the many serious issues that surface in daily news have little emotional impact.  What I think is happening is that I am now old enough that there is insufficient time left for me to experience the outcome of our national dystopia. Surely, I am convinced that my vision will never happen in my life time. The current course will require a long time to undo the damage before setting a new course. I surely am concerned about the world my grandchildren will inherit.

It is strange to be a witness of contemporary national dynamics as though I were living on a different planet. I compare this experience with my relationship with Christianity and the Catholic Church. I continue to read writings relevant to religion, albeit, without the personal itch experienced in my past. I read daily the thoughtful meditations of Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest, whose understanding of God and our human existence is most relevant.  Needless to say, his understanding of God is quite different than the institutional message.

As I can be an active searcher of religious truth without being involved in institutional dynamics of the church, so it seems that I can be aware of current affairs without anxiety. The perilous plight of our planet that seems stressed by our global warming trajectory will not be revealed in my life time.  The implications of economic distortions that accelerate international strife will undoubtedly worsen, but again, I will not experience the outcome.

So I am attributing my lack of angst to my age. I am no less concerned, but my concern is more intellectual without the customary emotion.

It has been interesting to realize that my understanding that I am each moment in touch with the entire universe. This is consistent with the insights of Richard Rohr, but amazingly enough, they essentially reverberate the insights of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit paleontologist who died in 1955, the year I entered the seminary. Teilhard’s insights were so moving that I often saw myself celebrating the Eucharist with the realization that I was in touch with all reality.    Now, I see myself in the same way, knowing that anyone and everyone could have this vision and understanding, independent of the constraints of the particular circumstances of life. Whoever you are or wherever you are have no constraints on the reality of this understanding of our existence. Life is a gift and the gift enables us to be aware that our contingency is no constraint on our existence. I am, in this (and every) moment in touch with the entire universe.

Words and their Meaning

The Atlantic Monthly published a long and complicated article that focused on the perception of “truth”. If asked, I think that I would be categorized as one who considered “truth” to be theoretically absolute, i.e., just as 2+2=4, so could “racism” be defined in very concrete terms. As such, my definition of “racism” references behaviors that relate to different races. In my definition of racism, I would include any behavior that drifts from the acceptance to rejection of someone based on one’s race.  From my point of view, I want everyone to be treated the same, independent of one’s race. Given my view, I consider “racism” to be negative. The article was not discussing racism, but rather the question of the absoluteness of the meaning of words. We can agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the differences of the perception do not usually result in violence.  Clearly, racism was a source of violence in Charlottesville last weekend. The Alt-right saw multiple races in one’s society as negative; the Alt-left perceive different races as a positive contribution to society.

Given this introduction, the Atlantic Monthly article details how reality is perceived differently by segments of society. If I were discussing the topic of “truth” prior to reading the article, I think that I would state that “truth” is objective, i.e., black=black.  If someone would disagree, I could argue over their perception or, maybe, discount the person’s ability to identify reality and smile.

The author recalls a period of history very relevant to me, i.e., the 60’s. Recalling that I was ordained a priest in 1963, I had become used to the fact that those ordained but a few years before me thought differently than me. I had painfully been sucked into a very conservative and isolationist view of (religious) reality during the first four years of my seminary life. Once I started on the road of reading more liberal European authors, I became zealous in the pursuit of another perception of God, e.g., one that did not identify Catholicism as unique, the only true way to God. Many other changes occurred. My perception of power resulted in my viewing the Vietnam War as an unjust incursion with devastating consequences.  How could I not protest? Similarly, becoming sensitive to the “realities” of black leaders and their compatriots resulted in my joining others in Civil Rights causes.

The point of all this is that my perception of “truth” became different from many others. While I do not think that I would become violent, I surely was prepared to die or be imprisoned for actions comparable to my heroes, the Berrigan brothers who were also priests.

The Atlantic Monthly article proceeds to identify instances since the 60’s when the perception of X is identified or categorized differently.  In recent times, I have given up sharing my views relative to political realities. What I see differs, sometimes, radically, from what others see. Without denigrating the value of the persons identifying with a different “reality” from mine, I am left speechless.

Surely, hearing those supporting the views of those in their lawful demonstration in Charlottesville was repugnant to me. At the same time, I am sure that my views are repugnant to them.

And so, back to the article where it is clear that “truth” is far more complicated than 2+2=4!

Political Polarization

Given the state of polarization coloring our political landscape, I have not been sharing my political views of current events. I am moved at this moment to focus on the polarization of views that has become a lively topic for many commentators. Until I can come up with a perspective that will help bridge the division, I will limit my comments.

It is generally accepted that our electorate’s polarization resulted in the outcome of our recent national election. Brexit, France’s pending election, and the Eurozone, in general, are impacted by polarization. Fake News appears to be a product of polarization. Creating news that fits the perspective of a segment of the population does seem to strengthen the cohort that identifies with the selective perspective of reality.

Societies historically adhere to beliefs and convictions that are shared by moderates. Extreme liberals or conservatives are

generally not represented in political majorities. When the moderates are essentially discarded, leaving only two rather distinctive and opposing perspectives of the political world, there is reason to be concerned.

Just as my general views are shared by liberals and discarded by conservatives, so do I generally disregard what are generally labeled as conservative viewpoints. This is a problem and a reason for not commenting about specific political decisions. Society needs a strong middle ground that can support differences for the sake of the whole.

Since I am considered old, I recognize that the outcome of this stand-off may not appear in my life time. But, I am very concerned for future generations.

The stimulus for this blog is the last segment of “Homeland” which I watched last night.  The world of fiction seemed to strike close to reality in the vicious standoff between the world of government and a set of laws/beliefs that are supported by the majority and government operatives that often have more control of events than generally known.

When our leaders give more credence to outlets designed to reach and fortify a segment of the population rather than our traditional sources of information, e.g., NY Times, Washington Post, we are witnessing the polarization depicted in “Homeland”.

In “Homeland”, the story does not end well. At the moment, I hope that there will be a  movement towards the middle, but I fear that we have not found a pathway to bridge the extremes.

Hidden Figures

As so many others, we saw “Hidden Figures” yesterday. We easily found the bases for the acclaims it has received. I need not repeat them, but I share my personal reaction.

I was struck by how my emotions were moved so often. For a story based on fact, albeit altered for the movie, I was moved to tears repeatedly. Given that the story of discrimination is far from new, I often found myself wiping tears from my eyes.

I cannot say that I have a definitive reason for my emotional responses, but what comes to mind is the effect of our recent news stories associated with immigration.

It has always been a personal mystery to me why people are prejudiced. It is not that I am unaware of studies that have analyzed prejudice, but from a personal perspective, it has always been just plain stupid. I recall my father’s prejudices that I could never understand. Blanket indictments of other nationalities seemed ridiculous and surely were not to be discussed with him.

We went through the civil rights era and I thought that we had progressed, only to witness events in the black communities in recent times. The horrors of our past continue to erode our nation’s well being.

And now, we are witnessing prejudice against immigrants, as though their origins make them less than being the same as other humans. Our shared humanity continues to be shattered by prejudice, as though we have learned nothing from the past.

Watching the prejudice shown in the film against women, in general, and black women, in particular, was most sorrowful. Tears seem so little compared to the reality.

19 Feb 17

Given the political situation, I have been chosen not to participate in the ongoing drama resulting from unusual national happenings. I respect the election outcome, even if I remain more than concerned about its evolution. I am more than aware that I have been on one side of a national divide where positions of people like myself have no common ground with those who support the other side. The divide is real and there is virtually no point of communicating one’s views if the only ones considering them are people who already endorse the views.

This situation enables me to continue reading, which, unfortunately, makes me more than simply concerned. However, I admit to considerable amusement and wonder at some of actions and dialogue that are reported. I still assume that words in quotation marks reflect actual dialogue. Without the quotation marks, the words would be unbelievable. Thankfully, there is also humor initially resulting from the actual text. However, the text takes on added meaning when digested by humor, as exemplified by SNL.

It is hard to believe that this situation will last four years, even though some hope that it continues for eight years. Were I to live long enough for this scenario to play out, I would be compensated by the privilege of living until I was 88! It is incredible how resourceful humans are that they can think something positive which faced with horrors of reality!

We will be vacationing in Puerto Rico starting next week. The island will benefit from whatever we spend. Hopefully, the upcoming election will result in a positive decision to become a state of the United States. I could never understand their reluctance to lose their independence, given the benefits of sharing our national resources. I suppose that my lack of understanding past decisions of the Puerto Rico electorate only reflect my inability to comprehend our recent national election!                                                                                                             

End of Manly Labor

Ever since I read “End of Work” by Jeremy Rifkin (published in 1995), I have noticed increased evidence of his thesis that the need of workers will not sustain the supply. The world will have its material needs met with far less fewer workers, resulting from the increased use of robots.  He and many others since then have perused the possible ways in which those unable to find work will be able to sustain themselves. It is within this context that the notion of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) emerged as a mechanism to permit everyone to have sufficient money to sustain themselves.

Rifkin addressed the hidden aspect of a world where the need of work would not be needed by suggesting the need of people to develop other types of meaningful activities, e.g., volunteering their services. I can recall at the time wondering if the psychology of the displaced workers would enable them to transition from the routine of going to work, engaging in meaningful work, and returning home after a day of labor, to such discretionary types of activities.

Since my reading of Rifkin’s book, I have zeroed in the need to identify a mechanism for economic sustenance. I have found that Rifkin’s notion of UBI has only gained more traction among those considering the issue.

Rob Walker’s article resurrected the uncomfortable question about traditional workers being able to be satisfied personally with not working, even if their monetary needs were addressed through UBI. Work does more than being a mechanism to earn money. Work has personal meaning over and above the earned income. 

Walker’s point seems to be imponderable at this point. He references options identified by others, but I found none of them meaningful. From an evolutionary perspective, males may not have grown beyond the traditional role of being a sustainer of family needs. Males, in general, seldom find meaning in “stay at home Dads” roles.

So the question that I have to keep addressing is not only how can we survive economically in a world where the demand of work is not commensurate with the need, but also how will we survive a world of leisure. How will people spend their leisure time in a meaningful way?

Step Back from Face Book

Face Book (FB) has been a favorite medium for me, allowing me to have relationships with many people. My FB relationships vary along the axis of like-minded to those whose views are in total disagreement with mine. At the same time, I appreciate those who are willing to share their joys with family and friends as well as their reactions to various political happenings.

I have readily shared my reactions to current events. I realized that my reactions represent possibly a minority, but I found the venue as a positive source of expression.

I have decided that I am taking a sabbatical from reacting and commenting about our newly elected president and his administration.

Most importantly, I realize that the president was duly elected. His supporters won and I and those voting for his opponent lost.

Secondly, the new administration scares me. I do hope that their actions benefit our nation and the world, but I have serious fears about his initiatives. It does me no good to pursue endless comments that have no purpose other than venting my frustrations. The administration will do what it deems as positive. I wish him and his administration well.

There are possibly many incredibly negative outcomes to the actions of this administration.  I surely do not want them to occur. It will do neither me nor anyone else any good to continue to perseverate over inept, rash, misguided, or plain stupid initiatives. They will or will not occur. If they don’t, I will be relieved. If they do, I hope that repercussions will not represent disasters.

While nothing will surprise me, including impeachment or significant violent disasters, e.g., starting a major conflict, as a response to perceived threats from another nation, e.g., North Korea. At the same time, I hope that I will comment at the end of the next fours years that all my perceptions and fears were baseless. 

So for the next four years, my FB entries will be related to more mundane items as our planned vacation to Puerto Rico, visits with our adult children (may be going to New York to share the Super Bowl with Neal and family), the joys of living with each other and our friend, Patrick