Hospice Volunteer

Serving as a South Shore Hospice Volunteer has been a rewarding experience. I have been impressed by the strength of many men who have dealt with the pain associated with serious illness. They have faced the inevitable with great equanimity.  The sadness of the inherent struggle with life’s ending has been compensated by the experience of serving such wonderful people and their families.

In light of this general experience, I am awed by my experience with my latest patient. NS was special by virtue of the constellation of wife, family, and a set of values that bespeak a unusual level of personhood. 

It was always touching that he always greeted me with his appreciation of my being there, as though there was not a good reason for such a visit. During my visits, he was often attentive to be sure that my “needs” were met. “Can I get you something to eat or drink”. I never was able to sense that he was uncomfortable, even when he more or less apologized for needing to sleep. He was often wondering when his wife would return from a few errands, conveying the deep sense of love that existed for 61 years and gave the world eight incredibly great children.

The church liturgy captured well how special NS was. The priest initiated his homily by recalling the reading of the Martyrology in the seminary when references to various Saint Nicholas’ would have been made. If he had the ability, the priest would now declare that we were celebrating the life of another Saint Nicholas! Given his dedication to his family and church, coupled with the values demonstrated at work and in the community, it surely seemed just right to reference him as a saint.

One can wonder whether I, as a hospice volunteer, did anything other than experience the gift of being involved with him, ever so briefly. He will be remembered with affection and, hopefully, serve as an inspiration for me to live better and die well. It would be hard to find a better example of a beautiful human being.

Mother's Day 2014

As Mother’s Day approaches, I began thinking of how great our three adult children are. They have been a real pleasure is so many ways. I would have wished to be their best friends in another world.

The principal reason for their being the persons they are is Joan Louise. Her motherhood was a gift to these children (and me) as were the children gifts to us. Her inherent instincts of nurturing them were so many acts of wonder to me. So effortlessly and gracefully, she gave to them the love and understanding that were beyond words.

I clearly was a benefactor of her skills. Clearly inferior to her, I sort of tagged along and filled in the cracks in an otherwise perfect mosaic.

This love and care seemingly was limitless. She never met a child in her nursing practice that she did not love. Caring for them, even the sickest of them, was never so much work as a treasured experience.

And now this story is being told again with grandchildren as the beneficiaries. She never seems to make it seem tiring, even when it is.

I sit in awe, as I thank her for sharing her life with me. She has made me more than I could ever have imagined as a person and, surely, as a parent.

Mother’s Day is special. Mothers deserve a day of recognition. And we will be sharing such a day with Joan who returns late tonight from another visit to Haiti where she gave some children a fleeting moment in which they too experienced her love.

Letter to the President, 8 May 2014

45 Glades Road

Scituate, MA 02066

8 May 2014

The White House


1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW


Washington, DC 20500

Mr. President,

Your letter of 25 April was appreciated. I agree that there is progress in addressing the economic inequities that impact the Middle Class. I have no problem with your strategies that include (1) increasing manufacturing jobs, (2) improving education, (3) increasing home ownership, (4) providing secure retirement, and (5) improving access to quality health care.

I appreciate that your strategies are hampered by political gridlock. That there has been any progress is virtually a miracle, given the political constraints. Surely, I could never have been a politician.

For your sanity, it is good that you realize the political problems represent only a series of obstacles that will eventually be resolved, even if not during your tenure as president.

Since I am not a politician, it disturbs me that your vision has been compromised. I would rather that you zeroed in each issue of domestic and foreign policy with the weight of total honesty.

You accepted congressional action as the vehicle for constructing the Affordable Health Care Act. It was most likely the best that could be accomplished. But, it never met the expectations of the left, e.g., myself, or the right. ACA continues to be food for those hungry partisan gains.

There are signs of educational gains. Yet, the states’ adoption of the Common Core has generated much heat based on perceived problems with its role in the educational process. One of my family members, a daughter-in-law who teaches in New Orleans, is convinced that Common Core and Charter Schools are undermining public education. This opinion is voiced also by Diane Ravitch who has enjoyed a prominent role in the history of public education. I am unclear how you see the issue, but I may assume that you share Secretary Duncan’s views. If so, I would like to hear you articulate the reasons for supporting these initiatives. I realize that urban public education is a conundrum, but we would do well capturing the best programs even if they require more resources than are politically feasible at the moment. Money for public urban education would be well spent instead of dealing with the costs and personal failures associated with the history of failure, e.g., rates of incarceration, broken family structures, poverty.

The rise in manufacturing jobs in the United States has been impressive, except for noticing that the wage structure of these jobs will never address the agony resulting from income inequality. The loss of union strength has been a major factor. However, it seems that our government has to recognize that unions will never be powerful again. We have to come up with appropriate structures that will provide the Middle Class workers both dignity and value. Again, our economic strength is only enhanced by the increase in consumption generated by higher wealth by more people.

Finally, while I agree that your moderation in dealing with foreign policy is realistic, I wish that you provided the public with more detailed insight into your approach. When observers, such as David Ignatius, agree with you essentially, but want you to voice your positions differently so that they convey more strength than is currently stated, there is an opportunity for improvement.

Your time is running out for your tenure as president. As in the past, I have urged stronger and clearer statements of your core vision, even though the reality of politics limits the execution. At least the public will be clear about the reasons for the variance between your vision and its execution.

Again, thank you for your letter and I remain a supporter.

Edward J. Toomey

"How Jesus Became God"

Bart Ehrman is not the first person to address the issue of the divinity of Jesus.  He follows the footsteps of many who have pierced the naïve understanding of the biblical Jesus by rooting the scriptures within the context of history.

My interest in the fundamental issues of Christianity is attributed to my personal history. If it were not for my past allegiance to a religion in which I was raised, believing that I was a lucky person to have struck it rich by being a Catholic, I most likely would never have been interested in becoming a priest. Disillusionment can be painful but fruitful.

My understanding of Jesus never changed much from the time I first was indoctrinated with the Baltimore Catechism until my first year studying theology (I would have been 22 years old). All of sudden, like a bolt of lightening, one of our faculty teaching Scripture made clear that the Scriptures could not be read as history; essentially, it represented faith statements and beliefs, some sayings of which may have been literally spoken, but most often not.

I had to relearn my basic beliefs with a new and still undeveloped understanding of Christianity. The process was slow. For many years, even decades, I was able to translate what I heard and saw into a viable détente. At some point, the calibration no longer was possible. I could not continue being a Christian. (A prior posting [http://edwardjoseph.blogspot.com/2008/03/different-type-of-easter.html] gives a more detailed history as a believer/non-believer).

In “How Jesus Became God”, Ehrman traces the early history of Christianity with the benefit of the work of many scholars. No one book does better at addressing the transition between an itinerant preacher seeking a more just society in preparation for the imminent return of the “Son of God” (not him in his view) and later beliefs in his divinity.

The world was nearing its end. He was critical of all types of injustice, both by the Roman authorities and Jewish leaders. That he was identified as a rabble-rouser needing to be crucified is consistent with the practice of government.

Ehrman’s approach to working through the early history of Christianity is similar to many others. The one person who first interested me in the approach of understanding Jesus and early Christianity in the context of the existing society was Dominic Crossan. It became clear that Jesus did not see himself as God in any fashion. He was a product of the times when there were many advocating for repentance before the end of the world, e.g., John the Baptist, the Essene Community.

Jesus’ words raised the hopes of a few followers who hoped that he would share his power with them when the end came. His message was at the same time disturbing to the power structure of the time and that structure did him in.

Since the earliest documents of the New Testament, viz., the early letters of Paul, were written 20-25 years after the death of Jesus, it is at least understandable that a lot of stories were passed around the communities of people who endorsed Jesus, then as the person who was to return in the near future to establish the Kingdom of God, as promised in Jewish Scriptures. Initially, all the followers of Jesus were Jews. The believers came to share the “Good News” with pagans, initiating a debate whether these people had to first become Jews before being initiated in the community of Jesus. The Gospels were written 30-60 years after Jesus’ death. One can imagine how stories were told, retold and embellished or modified to accommodate a later belief.

Ehrman details the slow development of how the community of followers transitioned from a group of followers who were blown away by the tragedy of the crucifixion to an understanding that Jesus was God. 

If we understand the Jews were a distinct minority in the world, prior to and during Jesus’ life, who were believers in monotheism, it is fairly easy to understand the difficulty of assigning divinity to someone else. Reading many sections of the Jewish Scriptures, one can see how they too had ideas of “lesser gods”, e.g., angels. It took time to transition from the Jewish preacher to his being divine of any type. One can examine Mark, Matthew and Luke (again writing 30+ years after the crucifixion) and note how Jesus “became” God because he was exalted by God to be at “his right hand”. Just as Jesus never understood himself as God, the early Christians tried all sorts of ways to attribute a divine status to Jesus without altering their belief in One God. Ehrman labels this early type of Christology as “exaltation”, as opposed to John’s “incarnation” perspective, written a good 60 years after the crucifixion. Jesus was raised to become “Son of God, i.e., exalted, as opposed to John’s interpretation that the One God became man, i.e., incarnation of the pre-existing God into human form (with no real understanding of the problems of reconciling such an interpretation with the Jewish belief in One God).

And then, we have all sorts of differences identified during the next 200 years until there was a general agreement at the Nicene Council of how to interpret God. It is clear that Constantine need for aligning himself with Christianity was based primarily on strengthening his governmental rule. And with Christianity being established as the norm for the Empire, Christianity became a powerful force in its own right.

The ultimate conclusion of these various scholars is that it is impossible to base any divinity claims for Jesus on historical data. For those who choose to belief that Jesus is God, it is a decision that cannot be disputed with information. Belief structures are an entirely different process that seeking truth based on facts. Various theological scholars are believers, many others, such as Ehrman, are not. Regardless, it is always interesting to know more about our world, including religion.