Small Minds

Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great. --Mark Twain

I had occasion to reflect on that favorite quotation by one of my favorite authors this past weekend, as I listened to a speaker who mistakenly assumed himself to be in a roomful of Lutherans, make what I have come to think of as The Obligatory Slam against the Catholic Church. Readers of these chronicles will know that I work for a Lutheran organization, which this past weekend had its big annual hootenanny. My co-workers are all great people, and reasonably tolerant of the token Catholic in their midst. But of course it would be too much to expect that progressive attitude to infect all members of their denomination.

Here's the set-up: The keynote speaker intimated to the audience that he was grateful that his parents, in their youth, had decided to leave the Catholic Church and become Lutherans. The implication being that had they not done so, he might today be -- gasp! -- a horrible, benighted Catholic and not an enlightened and superior Lutheran.

Well, golly. It so happens that my parents were Catholic, too, and did not move to another religion, and they were not especially horrible people. And it so happens that I have decided -- consciously -- to remain affiliated with the Catholic Church, and I don't consider myself especially horrible, either. I'm at least sensitive enough not to elevate myself by running down others. Much.

The keynote speaker being a minister, I imagine he must have read the Gospel of Luke. But perhaps he missed the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

In case you missed it too, it's in Luke 18, beginning at verse 9:

He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.

"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, 'O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity--greedy, dishonest, adulterous--or even like this tax collector.

I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'

But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, 'O God, be merciful to me a sinner.'

I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Ironic, no?

Ironic, too, that after making his Obligatory Slam against the Catholic Church, the speaker then went on to tell us how difficult it was for him to be in the minority in his largely Catholic community. Do tell! I know I felt pretty lonely and oppressed at that moment, too, as probably a minority of one!

As my anger at his insensitive and stupid comments faded -- a little -- I began to reflect on other occasions when I have endured The Obligatory Slam against the Catholic Church at Lutheran gatherings, and I began to wonder about the phenomenon. Of course, to elevate oneself by tearing down someone else is human nature; I suspect that's why Jesus felt obliged to warn his followers about it. And I have no doubt that there are plenty of Catholic gatherings in which Protestantism is denigrated. (In my earshot, it's always "Protestantism," not a specific denomination or body.) But I am curious as to why a denomination that prides itself on having moved "beyond" Catholicism (for instance, they like to term theirs a "mature" theology, by which of course they mean that Catholic theology is immature, that is, not as sophisticated -- good -- as theirs), a denomination that believes its nominal founder re-formed a defective church, seems to find it necessary to keep reaching backward across 500 years and take a swipe at its ancestor.

A feeling of inadequacy, perhaps? A feeling of guilt, perhaps? Even after half a millennium?

I am reminded of the feeling I get upon reading certain atheist authors' essays. Now, I have nothing against atheists. In fact, I consider atheism a pretty reasonable point of view. (I need not share a point of view to consider it reasonable. It is both blessing and curse.) Someone's inability to believe in that which cannot be proven hardly seems something to revile. Indeed, I have often said that I doubt that God has anything against atheists either.

But a good many atheist authors whom I've read are in fact anti-theist...and I don't cotton much to that. If you can't make yourself believe in a Deity, fine. But let it go. This business of deriding people who do believe, and making it a personal mission to tear down their beliefs, is inappropriate. (Interesting to note that some atheist authors decry religion on the ground that it stifles thought and expression...which is not necessarily untrue, but I find it ironic that so many atheists seek to do exactly the same thing by belittling those who believe: it is an obvious attempt to stifle the expression of those who hold a different point of view.)

Well, I feel much the same about these slams against my church. There is a whiff of insecurity about them, a certain scent of fear. and often a fair amount of ax-grinding as well. For they're invariably directed not again "other" religions, but quite specifically against the Catholic faith. I've yet to hear anyone of them express gratitude that his parents left the Episcopal Church, or the Congregational Church, or the Greek Orthodox Church; I've yet to hear one of them grouse about problems she had with unsympathetic Jewish leaders, causing her to leave the Jewish faith. I've yet to hear any of them bemoan the fact that other Lutheran bodies don't ordain women. It is always the Catholic Church they feel obliged to lash out against, and usually superfluously. The keynote speaker this past weekend made no point other than that he was glad to be a Lutheran. Well, good. He should be. That's all he really needed to say, no? The rest of it was unnecessary, insensitive, stupid, and immature. "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity."

I realize that the Mark Twain quotation above isn't quite dead-on -- he refers specifically to small people who belittle others' ambitions -- but the sentiment applies, I think. Small people will attempt to make themselves great by belittling others.

The words attributed to Jesus, on the other hand, are spot on.

Love-Hate?

It's not often I find myself agreeing with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. In fact, I think this is the first time he and I have been anywhere near the same wavelength. But life is strange, and outrageous events may create outrageous alliances. Here, via Catholic Online, is what Donohue has to say about John McCain's thrilled acceptance of the endorsement of notorious anti-Catholic bigot John Hagee:



Catholic League: McCain's Next Move
3/7/2008

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic."
NEW YORK, N.Y. (Catholic League) - Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today regarding Sen. John McCain’s ties to Pastor John Hagee:

“Now that he has secured the Republican nomination for president, and has received the endorsement of President Bush, McCain will now embark on a series of fundraising events.

When he meets with Catholics, he is going to be asked about his ties to Hagee. He should also be asked whether he approves of comments like this: ‘A Godless theology of hate that no one dared try to stop for a thousand years produced a harvest of hate.’

“That quote is proudly cited by David Brog in his recent book, Standing with Israel. Both Brog and Hagee clearly identify the Roman Catholic Church as spawning a ‘theology of hate.’

“This is nothing if not hate speech. There are so many good evangelical leaders in this country—Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Richard Land, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Dr. Al Mohler, Chuck Colson—and none has ever insulted Catholicism. To be sure, they have expressed theological differences, and that is to be expected; that is all fine and good. But they have never sought to denigrate Catholicism.

That’s what makes this situation so outrageous. Of all the great evangelical leaders, the one McCain cites as ‘the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement’ just happens to be a Catholic basher.

“In 2005, when I was fighting with those senators who were making it all but impossible for pro-life Catholics to get on the federal bench, I said the following: ‘So as not to be misunderstood, let me repeat what I’ve said before: the Catholic League believes there are no anti-Catholic senators.’ That remains true.

“So no one should take from my criticism of McCain on this issue that I in any way think he is anti-Catholic. If anything, John McCain has been a good friend to Catholics. But he and his staff have thus far grossly mishandled this issue. We await their next move.”


In case you're unaware, here's the deal: Televangelist Hagee, who has charmingly referred to the Roman Catholic Church as “the Great Whore,” an “apostate church,” the “anti-Christ,” and “a false cult system” (indeed, he cites the Catholic Church as Hitler's inspiration for the Holocaust), last week endorsed McCain, who said he was "very proud" to receive the hatemonger's blessing.

At the time I had this thought: More than once, I have been informed by someone whose opinion I did not solicit that I could not "call myself a Catholic" and a member of the Democratic Party. The flip side of this would be that "good" Catholics can only be Republicans. Well, now they have a Republican presidential candidate--all but nominated--who has enthusiastically accepted, after prolonged wooing, the endorsement of a Catholic-hating bigot.

Leaving me to wonder what "good" Catholics will now do. Do they vote for a godless baby-killing Democratic candidate (whoever that may be) who does not cleave to the church's party line? Or do they vote for the GOP candidate who embraces a Catholic-hating TV preacher but who spouts the right kind of rhetoric?

I'm only kidding--I knew all along that they'd come up with some way of lamely justifying McCain's buddy-buddyness with Hagee, and now the McCain camp

Now the McCain camp has thrown them just the sort of bone they'll need to pretend they're not doing what they're doing, viz., backing a candidate who in turn is backed by someone who would just as soon see them dead. Here's what's come out of the Not-So-Straight-Talk-Express in light of the Hagee scandal, per the Associated Press:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month "if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics."

If. If? Has there ever been a better non-repudiation? Can it really be that Senator McCain, who is quick to point out that he sent a couple of kids to Catholic school, really not see that Hagee and his comments are offensive, are incendiary, are hate-filled? Note too that he doesn't repudiate Hagee--and he certainly doesn't reject Hagee's endorsement--but rather falls limply back on stating that he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him.

But he doesn't do very much to distance himself from Hagee...or, more to the point, the equally hate-filled voters who agree with Hagee's bigotry. Rather, he's trying to win votes from both Catholic and Catholic-bashers.

Once upon a time I had a fair amount of respect for the Arizona Senator, and was one of those who thought it would interesting if he ran as John Kerry's VP back in 2004.

Now he's emerged as just another politician who will do anything, say anything, roll in any mudhole with any pig, just as long as it translates into votes.

More Anti-Catholic Bigotry

And more proof, if more proof were needed, that anti-Catholicism remains the last great acceptable prejudice.

This letter, from a Catholic priest in a nearby community, appeared the day before yesterday in the local rag:

All authority on earth is derived from God
By Rev. Michael G. Wensing
Brookings

In his Aug. 30 letter in the Argus Leader, Robin Kip Speckels used very deliberate misunderstandings of Catholic theology and tradition concerning the priesthood and other matters.

First of all, the church treasures the Bible as the word of God. In fact, the Christian Bible's canon (list of books contained as sacred) and publication were developed inside the church in the first centuries of our era. Before the printing press, which arrived about the same time as the Reformation, the Bible was copied and passed down for families and faith communities mainly by monks and religious orders that had the erudition, time, copy skills and sponsorship to ensure future ages would have Bibles in hand.

When our theology says it recognizes priests as "other Christs," we rely on Scriptures as well. In fact, we believe in seeing the image of Jesus not just in priests but in many people. In Matthew 25, the uncharitable ones questioned the Lord about not seeing him needing shelter and food, implying that if they had seen him in need, they would have ministered to him. And the Lord responded that if they did not do it to one of these least, they did not do it to him .

In the letter to the Hebrews, as Catholics believe, Jesus Christ is the one true high priest. Jesus himself instituted the New Testament priesthood whereby those he called (beginning with the Apostles) would participate in his priesthood, not substitute for it. In this sense, priests often are called "alter Christus" in Latin, or they pray and celebrate the worship of the sacraments "in persona Christi" (Latin again for "in the person of Christ").

Finally, the literal words of Jesus in Matthew 23:9 did not affirm or deny calling a biological "dad" by the name of "father." In fact, St. Paul himself understood the nature of spiritual fatherhood and how he possessed it and appealed to it in his own writing such as in 1 Corinthians 4:15 "... you have only one father. It was I who begot you in Christ Jesus through my preaching of the Gospel."

Jesus said to call no one on earth "leader" or "rabbi," either. Thus, a true understanding of his meaning must be ascertained, or Speckels would have trouble with many others in society and in our education and political systems who are leaders or teachers.

Jesus was pointing to the one absolute authority over all: our Father in heaven. And as Paul reflected (Ephesians 3:14-19 and Romans 13:1-5), all other authority is derivative from God, who is the final authority, whether it be a teacher, a biological or spiritual father or a leader.

Published: September 04. 2007 1:55AM

Nicely put. Here's the bizarre letter that set off the Father Wensing:

Earthly priesthood came to end
Robin Kip Speckels
Sioux Falls

After reading Elizabeth Strabawa's Aug. 24 letter to the Argus Leader, I was compelled to respond.

In her letter Strabawa states that Catholics are taught that a priest is "another Christ" when offering Mass and hearing confessions. Another Christ? Paul warned the Corinthian church about those who would come teaching this very same doctrine (2 Corinthians 11:4).

Furthermore, the earthly priesthood was done away with at the cross when the veil of the temple was torn in half from top to bottom, symbolizing that all may enter in (Mark 15:38). Christians now have direct access to God through Jesus Christ, who is himself the high priest and makes intercession for them in heaven (Hebrews 7:25). They need no other intermediary. And nowhere is mandatory celibacy taught in the New Testament. In fact, the opposite is true (Hebrews 13:4). Timothy warned about those who would forbid marriage in the end times (1 Timothy 4:3).

Catholics address the Pope as "Holy Father" and their clergy as "Fathers." Yet Jesus commanded his followers not to call any man on earth "Father" because they have only one Father who is in heaven (Matthew 23:9). It's important to understand that he wasn't referring to biological fathers but rather spiritual authorities within the church. Catholic hierarchy, however, doesn't hold the Bible as the final authority, and consequently they develop their own extra-Biblical dogma, a practice forbidden by God (Proverbs 30:6).

Christians today need to be more like the noble people of Berea, who searched the Scriptures daily to make sure Paul was preaching the truth to them (Acts 17:11).

You know, every so often I fall into the lazy habit of thinking that we as a people have progressed to a certain level, that we've figured some things out, that we've gained some understanding and maturity. And then someone like the above-quoted Speckels comes along to remind me that, no, people are just as stupid and ignorant and prejudiced and hate-filled as ever.

This business about Catholics being in opposition to Jesus because we call our clergy "father" has been bandied about for at least the past 50 years that I can attest to. And for much of that half-century, I have asked myself:

1. If no one is supposed to call anyone but God "father," what do people like Speckels call their biological parent of the Y-chromosome persuasion?

2. Why is it that the likes of Speckels, et al., single out the Roman Catholic Church for condemnation? I believe that members of the Episcopal Church refer to their ministers as "priests" and as "Father"; and I think that many if not most if not all of the Orthodox churches do so as well. So why is the Roman church always singled out?

Well, here's why: Prejudice. Anti-Catholic bigotry. Hatred. And general stupidity.

And here, tracing the thread all the way back, is the letter that seems to have started the hubbub in the first place:

Catholic church helps abused
By Elizabeth L. Strabawa
Chancellor
Published: August 24, 2007

It is courageous for any victim of abuse to come forward, whether the perpetrator of the abuse be a priest, minister, counselor, teacher, Scout leader or family member. All of the aforementioned hold power over those who are vulnerable and reach out to them.

Catholic priests (the more than 98 percent who are faithful to their vow of celibacy), however, have been victimized by poorly informed people such as Barbara Dorris of SNAP.

Catholics are not taught that "a priest represents God on earth and holds the keys to the kingdom of heaven." Catholics are taught that a priest is "another Christ" when he offers Mass and when he hears confessions.

Our Holy Father, the pope and successor of Peter, was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. When speaking in union with the bishops, offering Mass and hearing confessions are the only times that he is not speaking simply as a human being - albeit a holy human being.

The Catholic church has opened its arms to the abused and provided many ways for the victimized to begin the healing process. It is the hope of the church that all in that category will come forward to seek that help.

That's about as far as I'm willing to take things; I'm not about to ferret out whatever "poorly informed people such as Barbara Dorris of SNAP" might have had to say. I imagine it was something against priests who have demonstrated themselves to be sexual predators, and their fellow priests, bishops, cardinals who have helped them hide--all of whom belong behind bars, by the way--which seems to have prompted Strabawa to mount a more-or-less uncritical defense of all priests.

(Disclaimer: I have known a great many priests in my time. Several of them have been great men, true exemplars. Many have been jerks. None, to my knowledge, has been a sexual deviant. I hate to see all of them tarred with the same brush because I personally know priests who certainly don't deserve it...but I'm equally unwilling to give them all a free pass just because they claim to be "doing God's work." Indeed, I take great comfort in my belief that there is an extra-special little corner of hell reserved for people who, metaphorically and otherwise, fuck people over in God's name.)

Anyhow. Roman Catholic do view their clergy in a different way than most other Christian faiths seem to; likewise we see their call as something different than, say, a Protestant minister sees his or hers. But I don't believe I have ever heard this "another Christ" business that Strabawa refers to, and I doubt very much that it's doctrine. In my time, the teaching was that priests are emissaries of Christ, stand-ins, if you will--not "another Christ" in any way, the very notion of which seems heretical.

But of course that's not what Speckels objects to; instead he concocts that tired, pointless old biblical "reason" that Catholics are bad because they call their ministers "Father." That's it?? That's the worst you can come up with to say against us?? ZZZZZzzzz. See above re other churches who use the same terminology but never seem to get lambasted in letters to editors, and all one can conclude is that we're dealing with someone who hates Catholics and who seeks any opportunity to display that irrational hatred.

One does wonder, however: If Spreckels had written a similarly hateful and uninformed diatribe against, say, Jews, or Muslims, or even Presbyterians, would the local rag have published it? Or would the editors have recognized it for what it is--hate-mongering--and put it in the circular file where it belongs?

Impossible to know, obviously. But, as I say, one does wonder...