Monthly Archives: October 2015

God and the sinner

Of God and the Sinner

The question is: does sin destroy our relationship with God?

That is what we were taught.

I want to examine another way of looking at this. I go to the first book of the Bible, Genesis, to the story of Cain and Abel. Who or what is this God who speaks inside Cain?

In the background of this story are these two brothers, Cain and Abel, who were living close to each other, but they had different ways of making a living. Cain was a farmer and Abel was a shepherd. And that created competition and conflict. That is the age-old formula for misunderstanding, even violence: the cowboy rancher and the nomad Indian, the rancher who wants an open range and the farmer who wants to fence the land, the oilman and the environmentalist.

Both Cain and Abel made plans to thank God for their success. Their tradition was to select the best things they had, build an altar, and burn the gifts. The smell of the smoke wafting upward would be a sign that God was pleased with their gifts.

Smoke from Abel’s altar, fuelled by the fat of a yearling lamb, went straight up into the sky. Cain’s offering of vegetation was not so fortunate. The smoke stayed on the ground, burned Cain’s eyes and choked him.

Cain was more than disappointed. He was angry. His best was just not good enough. He resented Abel. Resentment turned to anger, then into bloody thoughts. God spoke inside Cain. “Cain, what is the problem? That smoke has nothing at all to do with how pleased I am with your offering. Don’t let it eat at you. Your thoughts against your brother are not right. Get over it.”

But Cain could not get rid of the wicked thoughts, and when opportunity offered, he killed his brother, thinking that getting rid of the sight of him would make him feel better. Not so. God did not let Cain off the hook.

“Hey, Cain, where is your brother?”

“How should I know? I am not his nurse.”

“Come on, Cain. Own up to it. I know perfectly well what you have done. Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the place in the field where you buried him.”

What does this tell us? Did God write Cain off the good book? Did God abandon Cain? Not at all. God still considered Cain worth loving. God is still there, talking to him. In fact, nowhere in the story is there any reference to God speaking inside Abel!

The story illustrates that sin, even a wicked thing like cold-blooded murder, does not break our relationship with God. God still loves and cares for the sinner. But it does change things. Cain has to face his sin, admit his wrongdoing, and he can no longer stay in his place of comfort. He has to change, to move.

The story goes on to say that Cain was the ancestor of many generations. The story does not tell us how many of his progeny learned Cain’s lesson, and how many did not.

So what can we take away from this way of reading the Cain and Abel account? First of all, it is a story, not necessarily a factual account of any incident that really happened. The story is universal in its truth, in its teaching about our relationship with God, however we think of God, whether as a personal being somewhere outside us, or whether God is anything like a superhuman being who rewards us for our good deeds and punishes us when we falter.

Whatever. The idea behind the story is that God loves us come what may, do what we might, is always present. The difficult thing is to recognize the voice of God from an unexpected direction. God speaks to us in many ways, most clearly and personally right inside each one of us. Some might want to call it conscience, but it is bigger than that. Conscience can be formed and trained and misguided through education. The voice of God inside is much, much deeper.

Cain heard it and acted against what he clearly heard. The voice of God did not disappear. We can choose to ignore the voice. We can try to silence it by cluttering our minds with other thoughts. But it can never be completely silenced.

What signs do we use to tell us that we are good people? Money? Like “God gave me my money.” Whether we have money or some other external sign of success has nothing to do with our relationship with God. It is how we feel deeply inside about our personal worth before God. There, and only there, is personal salvation.

 

church reform

Reforming the Institution

Institutions grow out of a common goal or belief shared by enough people to establish a recognizable group. Before long they write or agree on a constitution, or a document, or a story to which they pledge allegiance, normally celebrated through a ritual that is re-enacted on a regular basis. As time goes on, the bonds become firmer when the group grows and attains its goals. More stories arise, some of which conform to reality, some are pure fantasy. The group eventually establishes the rules of orthodoxy.

Once it reaches that stage the institution takes on its own character or personality. It exists in its own right. At that juncture its preservation can supersede even the original intent of those who started it. In no time, the institution is taken over by people who use it to further their own personal ends, and the institution then attracts ambitious, acquisitive, greedy, powerful individuals. Fear of the loss of power becomes a dominant theme. They surround themselves with sycophantic bureaucrats who do what they are told without question. These individuals soon find a way to feed the top people the information that serves their own interests.

Within a short time these individuals exploit even their own adherents. They marginalize all outsiders and spread fear of rejection and excommunication within the institution. The leaders and the institutional bureaucracy become oppressive, arrogant, and intolerant.

The bigger the institution grows, the more powerful it becomes, the more sacred its claim, the harder it is to reform it. Sooner or later corruption becomes so widespread that it produces a groundswell of discontent. Opposition begins to appear, organizes its forces, and a revolution occurs. The institutions that survive are the ones which go back to their original objectives, discard the most obvious accretions and change just enough to satisfy the discontented.

Historically nothing is so conservative as a sudden successful revolution, particularly if led by firebrands who are not afraid to use violence to achieve the quick dissolution of what they identify as an unjust tyranny. The French put it this way: the more things change, the more they stay the same. The only real change is the names of those in power.

When religion is institutionalized it can become vicious, intolerant, abusive, unjust, oppressive. It attracts to its leadership a large number of people who use it to further their own personal ambitions, their own proclivities, both honourable and dishonourable. It creates a system that makes internal dissent into treachery, heresy, unfaithfulness. It enslaves the common person who is in need of comfort, who needs reassurance against irrational fears, who looks to leaders for guidance in thought and morality. Under the guise of enlightenment the institution blinds its leaders and followers alike.

When I apply this theory of institutional development to the Roman Catholic Church I come to the great reforming attempt of Vatican II convened by John XXIII in the 1960’s.   The council came as no surprise to those who had for almost a century been advocating an about-face from the ultra-conservative stands of the nineteenth century. The bishops assembled in Rome agreed almost to a man that changes were needed.

At the heart of the reform was a profound change in the liturgy, at the centre of which was a shift to vernacular languages and later a complete overhaul of the lectionary. Sunday mass is for Catholics the most intimate connection to their faith. When they see changes there, changes which they do not understand, they become unsettled. The most serious failure of the reform was the ignorance of ill-prepared parish priests. Silly, idiosyncratic innovations flourished. Sloppy habits replaced stately rituals. The majority of priests failed to appreciate the value and meaning of the messages in the readings in their homilies. Inappropriate music replaced the traditional Gregorian chants. Although many welcomed the changes, many other Catholics no longer recognized the church of their youth. Countless members drifted away.

The Vatican lost no time in reasserting the old ways. Paul VI’s vacillating pusillanimity gave way to ultra conservatives John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who filled all the vacancies in the episcopate with conservatives and came down hard on any liberal expressions. Beginning in the late 1960’s well over 100,000 priests all over the world, many of them the brightest and best, left their posts. No one knows how many nuns left their convents. The dreams of Vatican II evaporated.

What happened? Vatican II, despite some remarkable changes, was just another brief and futile attempt to reform the Catholic Church from the top. That never works. Particularly in an institution as huge and diverse as the Catholic Church, it is impossible to organize the laity and parish priests to understand and demand reform.

 

Unlike most other institutions and empires, the Catholic Church has an incredible ability to rid itself of the worst of the accretions and change just enough to satisfy those who have stayed in. Reform attempts have often enough strengthened the hold of Roman authority.

I have come to believe that it all boils down to one word: woman. The Roman church has survived because it has kept its women praying and paying. Face it, most men would not go to church on Sunday or put a dime in the collection plate if their wives quit going and paying. Every attempt on the part of women to gain entry into the power structure of the Catholic Church has failed quickly and miserably.

And so the exclusively male clerical hierarchy, claiming infallibility, can continue to pray, “O God, grant that we may always be right for thou knowest that we will never change our minds.”

the vigil

[This is a story, somewhat enhanced, based on my own experience in the church of St. Anthony in Lake Lenore when I was around 13 years old.]

THE VIGIL

Freddie worried. He worried a lot. Especially about things over which he had no control. All during the war he had nightmares of German soldiers jumping off the railway’s grain cars with bayonets drawn, and enemy airplanes dropping bombs on the village.

Most of all, he worried about God. God was everywhere, saw everything, knew everything. The major preoccupation in his life was worrying whether God would notice what he did, or didn’t do. The stained glass window at the back of church said it all — an enormous open eye. No moral crevice was tiny enough in which to hide. God kept a perfect record. The only way to have the stains of sin removed from his soul was to confess his sins fully to Father Martin. Freddie thought of the priest as the great eraser. He imagined his record smudged with many erasures. He worried about whether he had perhaps carelessly left out anything, and always included “for these sins and any others I may have forgotten I am truly sorry” at the end of each confession. He was not completely convinced that this really worked.

It was almost a year ago that Father Martin had finally pronounced Freddie’s mastery of the Latin prayers and the rituals of the acolyte as adequate for him to become an altar boy. Even the holy nuns were not permitted beyond the communion railings except to clean the floors, dust the furnishings, and arrange the flowers. Now he would be one of those nearest when the holy mysteries happened. He could not understand why some of the other altar boys played around or made rude jokes about holy things

In spite of the pride Freddie felt at being an altar boy, Father Martin often scolded him for daydreaming while at the altar. He would forget to ring the bell or change the book or bring up the water and wine at the right time. Often he dreamed of being a hero in some holy cause like Saint Stephen who was stoned to death for being a follower of Jesus, or like the crusaders who fought to restore the Holy Land to the church. Perhaps some day he would suffer or even die for the faith and he would be a hero, a saint. He hoped it would not be like St. Lawrence who was grilled to death over a slow fire, or St. Sebastian who was shot to death with a hundred arrows.

Not long after Germany surrendered to end the war in Europe, Father Martin announced a thanksgiving service of “Forty Hours.” Forty Hours was one of the most important devotional exercises in St. Gertrude’s parish. The Sanctuary Society women fussed all week preparing their most colourful bouquets, dusting every inch of the white shelves of the side altar, polishing the brass candle holders till they shone, all under Sister Agnes’s critical stare. She would move a candle an inch this way, then back again, lift a wayward flower from one vase to another where the colours matched better.

After High Mass, accompanied by clouds of incense and ringing of bells, Father Martin, dressed in special vestments, carried the Blessed Sacrament in procession up and down the centre aisle until he arrived at the side altar where he enthroned the Host high up in a special niche designed for that purpose. There it gleamed pure white amid the golden rays of the dazzling monstrance. For forty continuous hours members of the parish would take turns in adoration, never leaving the church unattended.

The altar boys had places of honor on kneelers right in front of the altar. Even though other people would come and spend time in the church, the altar boys assumed responsibility for making sure the church was never empty. They would dress in their long black cassocks and lace-trimmed white surplices, hair combed, hands and faces washed, so that the Lord would be pleased. Father Martin was always around to check. The younger servers took the day shifts and the older boys took the nights. Freddie looked forward to the time when he would be old enough to take a night watch. He dreamed of how brave he would be to rise past midnight and make his way to the church through unlit streets. He would have to walk over the wooden trestle bridge and past the cemetery. The church would be dark except for the banks of candles on the altar casting quivering shadows on the walls.

Freddie and his friend Donald drew the first watch after the late morning Mass. It was just past eleven o’clock. They knew this could be a long hour. They were hungry from their previous night’s fasting.

They soon tired of praying Hail Mary’s on their rosary beads and paging through devotional books. Their knees, though toughened by being altar boys, were not up to the demands now made on them. Father Martin had told them they could sit for short periods, but that it was better to kneel. Suffering would join them to the suffering of Jesus on the cross. They would be part of the mystery of salvation.

When the clock in the sacristy struck eleven-thirty, Donald had enough. He left without a word. It took Freddie a while to realize that he wasn’t coming back. How could he just walk out? Didn’t he care? Freddie was now alone, the sole protector of the Blessed Sacrament. He knelt a little straighter.

The clock in the sacristy chimed quarter to twelve. Its pleasant melody cheered Freddie. Soon a new shift would arrive. He decided to kneel for the last fifteen minutes. At exactly noon he heard old Mr. Langkammer at the back of the church. He listened to him climb the stairs leading to the tower beside the choir loft and ring out the Angelus. The old man left as suddenly as he had come, without so much as looking into the church.

Freddie hummed a hymn of thanksgiving and praise, believing that his time of waiting would soon be over. He could see himself coming home to his very own piece of chicken, for today, being special. Mamma would roast a whole chicken for her fatherless brood, and Freddie’s piece was a drumstick. Not a wing this time. Oh no, he would have a drumstick. It was his turn.

Quarter past rang out, and still no one came. He was not really surprised when his stomach began to ache, just a little at first, then working its way from discomfort to misery.   Half past twelve came and quarter to one. There was no sign of any movement anywhere around the church, as if the whole world had come to a dead stop. Freddie looked up at the statue of St. Therese of the Child Jesus high up on a pillar to the left of the altar. He recited an Our Father for each of the roses in her arms, then a Hail Mary and even a Glory Be.

Before he realized what was happening, Freddie began to fantasize. She was so lovely, with that enticing pink mouth, the unblemished skin, the immaculate little hands absentmindedly holding a great bundle of roses. Her eyes fixed on heaven, she was so much prettier than the village girls. What would it be like to be near one so perfect in every way? Would he talk with her, maybe even hold her hand? For the moment, he forgot his hunger and dreamed of meeting her. Was he falling in love? Now he could smell her sweetness, hear her beautiful voice. Before he could stop himself, he fancied himself kissing that perfect little mouth.

He burst into tears. What a horrible sin it was. How could he ever put this into words of confession? Surely it would be judged a sacrilege. A double sacrilege even to have such desires right in church. Maybe Father Martin would say it was too big a sin to forgive. Freddie would roast in hell for sure.

Freddie battled his conscience to convince himself that he had not really harbored any bad thoughts, that they had come unbidden, and were therefore unwelcome. He forced his mind to concentrate on his guardianship.

At one o’clock Freddie closed his eyes and saw himself lying in front of the Blessed Sacrament, dead of sheer exhaustion. People were gathering around his emaciated body.

“Couldn’t someone have come to help this poor young man?”

“What a hero.   He is now in heaven. A saint.”

They picked up his shrunken body and carried it away in triumph. Even Mamma didn’t cry. She was so proud to have a son who gave his life to protect Jesus in the Sacrament.

A seraphic smile glowed on his face for all eternity. Boys of every age flocked to become altar boys and emulate his heroic example. A shrine was erected in the village and became a place of pilgrimage for all of Canada. His statue would be placed in St. Gertrude’s Church, and when people prayed to him miracles would happen.

Then he saw himself leaving the church, going across the road to the parish house and telling Father Martin that he really needed to have something to eat, or at least a drink of water.

“And who is in church to protect the Blessed Sacrament?”

“Nobody.”

“You have left the church with no one to watch with the Lord?”

“Yes, but…”

“There can be no ‘buts’ with the Lord. You will no longer serve at the altar. You cannot be trusted with the Blessed Sacrament under your care. And if you ever thought of being a priest, you can forget that dream right now. You are not worthy. God would never call you, since you could not watch a little while longer at the tabernacle. Go home. Your mother will be very sad when she hears what you have to tell her. You have broken her heart. And mine. Now get out.”

Freddie dared not risk that. He thought of throwing himself down and lying there until the next shift arrived. Then they would feel sorry for him. But God would see the pretence and write still another black mark behind his name. In the final judgment the whole world would be told of his deceit right in front of the exposed Blessed Sacrament.

It was almost two o’clock when a new pair of altar boys breezed in, warm and sweaty from a ball game. With indifferent genuflections at the high altar, they took their places in front of the altar of adoration.

On the way home Freddie had to run the gauntlet of a swarm of cousins playing ball along the grassy roadway. He walked directly through the infield. He could feel the holiness encasing him like the aura around the pictures of saints. They would surely stop the ball game to stand in reverence as he passed, shading their eyes from the glory surrounding him. The older ones would cross themselves. With hands still folded in prayer from the long vigil, he would glide along, scarcely touching the ground. One of the girls would reach out to touch him, then pull her hand back in awe.

In reality, they did notice Freddie’s passage. “Get off the diamond, you stupid little bugger!”

But at home he surely would be greeted by a solicitous Mamma. She was sitting on the chesterfield in the corner, paging through the Spring and Summer Eaton’s catalog. She didn’t take her eyes off the page. The table was empty. Freddie looked for his piece of chicken. The kitchen was all cleaned up, the dishes put away, no sign of any chicken.

“I thought maybe you had something with Father Martin, or the Sisters.”

“No, Mamma.”

“There’s bread and butter in the pantry. You can put a little jam on it too.”

congestive heart failure

Living with Congestive Heart Failure

 

Several years ago I was diagnosed with Congestive Heart Failure. My first reaction was that this was a death notice. As I aged, I often told myself that I was not afraid of dying, but facing the reality of mortality is rather sobering.

 

My GP, Dr. Mark Sherman, assured me that this was not a death sentence, that my general health was good. On the other hand, I was increasingly concerned that I could not walk more than a block or so before having to stop, gasping for breath. A walk which normally would take less than five minutes turned into twelve and fifteen minutes. My pacemaker, inserted in 2007, was working well. So what was happening?

 

I was getting regular checkups by my cardiologist. An echocardiogram revealed that my heart muscle had thickened, and therefore had lost elasticity. He found several partially blocked blood vessels, and inserted three stents. It did not help. My heart was just not up to the job of delivering enough blood to all parts of my body.

 

I returned to MedEx, and discussed my situation with Richard Gafter, a personal trainer with extensive experience and knowledge. Could he help? Yes. He contacted my GP and my cardiologist to learn everything he could about my health. With great patience and observation he developed a program which has saved my life. Underpinning the program was to teach me to pay very close attention to what level of exertion my heart could tolerate and never to exceed it. I was, by pushing myself to greater tolerance, damaging my heart in the process.

 

Within a few months I began to experience a change. I am still unable to walk any farther without needing to stop, but now I knew better to stop earlier. This is a process of lowering my expectations of what I can do. My cardiologist noted the change, and informed me that 15% of cardiology patients do not respond well to their treatments, primarily because they are zeroing in on a limited dimension of health. It takes a team working together to ensure the best results.

 

In mid summer of 2014 I suffered a bout of pneumonia. I know I survived because of the program at MedEx. The recovery period was long. Richard modified my program to take into account the new reality.

 

However, having the right combination of health professionals working for me is only one facet of living with CHF.

 

Diet is extremely important. I am not a fanatic about what foods are healthy and what are not. But weight management is absolutely essential. I cut down on treats, gave up second helpings, am eating less red meats and more vegetables (ugh). Part of weight management is to watch the build-up of body fluids and adjusting my diuretics to deal with sudden gains.

 

I am pretty scrupulous about taking all the vitamins and food supplements that appear to be necessary. I rely on regular checkups at the pacemaker clinic, my doctor, and my cardiologist. I use a handicap sticker to park the car so that I do not need to walk so far. I informed Air Canada that I needed assistance at the airport when I traveled recently, and thus avoided long lines and long walks in airports. Admitting I needed help was difficult at first, but I have learned to pay attention to what my poor old body is telling me and understand how critical it all is if I want to live.

 

Most of all, I have a supportive spouse. Sharon has had to take over household tasks which I had been taking care of. She does the heavy lifting. She watches even more than I do that I take care of myself. She likes to walk fast, and has slowed down to my pace when we walk anywhere. Without her constant presence and patience, I would not be here anymore.

 

When it is all said and done, a person can live a long life with CHF. On the other hand, the writing is on the wall. Slowly but surely, the path is downhill. I seem to be walking slower and slower. I wake up at night struggling to breathe. What I have learned is that I can slow the pace. With that knowledge, I am content.

THE STOOKER

This story won First Runner Up in a Grain competition and was published in the February, 2011, issue of that magazine.

THE STOOKER

“Hey, Buddy, what d’you think you’re doing?”

The crisp voice startled him out of delicious sleep. Ben was on his way home. Because he was in no particular hurry, he had cut across country roads rather than stay on the busier, dustier gravel highway.

It had been one of those stiflingly hot days in late August. A typical Saskatchewan day when the prairie air refused to move. All day long the dry, gray powder between the rows of stubble had baked into Ben’s well-worn boots, crept up the inside of his overall pantlegs, gritted in his teeth, mingled with the salty sweat of his forehead to sting his eyes into a permanent squint.

Nothing in the day warned him that this day would end in any other way than such days usually did. The work was done, and you simply went home and got to bed.

The sun had just slipped below the horizon, leaving long, lingering fingers of delicate pinks and yellows and soft greens all the way around to the eastern sky. With the sun gone, the hot earth seemed to breathe a sigh of relief. Birds busily harvested the rich array of insects that always greeted the end of day.

But Ben was still hot, hot from the memory of the scorching day of stooking. He had had hardly more than two good swigs from the water jug all day. It seemed that every time the binder came around with it, he was far down a windrow, and he didn’t like to lose the rhythm of his stooking.

Ben was a good stooker. He even thought of himself as a great stooker. And he loved work. Even when the prairie air practically choked him, he loved work.

Ben gave the appearance of being a big man. Not really tall at 5-foot-10, he seemed taller with his massive round shoulders, and his big chunky chest, and his big belly.

Ben was one of those stookers who grabbed a bunch of straw just below the twine, picking up one bundle in each hand. With almost effortless grace he swung the bundles together and stood them up leaning against each other. Eight bundles made a single stook. He looked with pride at his sturdy stooks. No wind would knock them over. No fall rain would hurt them. And if they stayed out all winter, they would be ready for the thresh-machine in the spring.

And he saw to it that his stooks were well-rowed. Given good weather, the threshing crew would be around in a few weeks with the bundle teams and hay racks, and Ben did not want them to have to traipse all over the field for scattered stooks.

Yes, Ben could look back at his work with satisfaction, not because he had made a few bucks — that was nice — but because it felt so good to work, to work in a field that was going to make a farmer glad he had planted wheat in the spring.

And because it happened to be Saturday.

He had pulled his rusting half-ton a few feet off the narrow road onto a rutted and almost hidden driveway, where grass and weeds had grown unchecked. He licked his unwashed, stubbled mouth in eager anticipation as he cracked open a Black Label.

He pushed back comfortably in his seat, then decided to open both doors to let the evening air blow through. He took a long, long pull at the bottle and settled back again. He closed his eyes. Row on row of beautifully capped wheat stooks climbed over gently rolling fields.

A tractor roared a long way away. He could hear the busy clacking of the binder as it formed the bundles, tied them, and kicked them out onto the carrier. Someone was working late.

A bird fluttered uncertainly over the hood of the truck and then went on. A kingbird, Ben decided, without checking. Then again, it could have been a red-winged blackbird.

Ah, it was a soul-happy time, harvest time. He wrapped his horny knuckles securely around his bottle, propped it up on his overall bib, and slid down lower in his seat.

He was only dimly aware of the car passing slowly and stopping. He jerked awake at the voice.

He was staring up into the cold, efficient eyes of a very young R.C.M.P. constable. Some of his beer, in fact, most of it, had spilled down over his bib and down into his lap.

“My name is Ben, and I’m having a beer.”

“Step out of your vehicle. I want your driver’s license, your registration, and proof of insurance.”

Slowly, ever so slowly, Ben dragged himself out of the truck, suddenly bone-weary and desperately angry. Like a bear, he staggered forward when his left leg refused to carry his weight. It had fallen asleep. He fell against the constable and landed on top of him, their faces almost touching.   Revolted by the smell of beer and sweat, afraid that he was under attack, the constable rolled away and reached for his service pistol as he scrambled to his feet.

“Hey! Hold on there. I fell.”

“You know you’re breaking the law, don’t you?”

Having made a quick inspection of the cab, the constable began to copy pertinent information from Ben’s documents. But he kept a wary eye on the big man’s bloodshot eyes just slightly below the level of his own. Even though only one bottle had been opened, he could not be sure just how much this sturdy farmer had consumed. He could not clearly distinguish between the smell of spilled beer and the breath from the mouth twisting in anger and frustration.

“You can get back in.” But Ben didn’t move. He would stand and talk face to face, man to man.

“Sure I know what the law says. But look. I wasn’t hurting anybody. I was minding my own business, and this is my own truck. See, I’ve only had less than half a bottle of beer. Just what’s so dang wrong with having a beer beside the road?”

“Sorry, Buster, but the law says . . .”

“My name is Ben.”

“The law says you can’t drink in a vehicle. And you’re on road allowance. That’s public property. I’ll have to charge you.”

“Why in God’s name do you have to charge me? I’m not drunk. I haven’t bothered anybody. I’m not making any trouble. I have no intention of getting drunk and I’ll not be driving home drunk. You surely don’t have to charge me.”

“Look. You try to be a good farmer, and I try to be a good cop. You’re breaking the law and will receive a summons.”

“Why?”

“The law says . . .”

“Do you mean to tell me I am doing worse than those buggers back there in the beer parlor? Half of those guys are going to drink more than they should, and they’ll be on the road.”

“They’re not breaking the law. You are.”

“Shit on the Goddam law, and little farts like you!”

He pushed his way past the constable, plunked himself squarely into his seat and lurched back onto the road.

At first, much of the joy was gone from the rest of the harvest.   Ben smoldered with deep resentment at the stupidity of a law that couldn’t make allowances for a decent man to have a quiet beer by the side of the road on a hot Saturday evening after a glorious day of stooking in a thirty-bushel-to-the-acre wheat field, at the arrogance of a clean-scrubbed young constable who acted as if this was the first ticket he had ever written, who needed to please his boss, show him what a good little cop he was going to be.

Then cooler emotions began to push the anger aside. Ben made up his mind that he would not pay a fine, not under any circumstances. They could jail him first. Nor would he get a lawyer. No one was going to get one red cent of the money he earned out there stooking.

He knew he would have to plead guilty. That was obvious. But he would simply tell the truth, the unvarnished truth, the whole of it, and rely on the magistrate’s sense of simple justice. Yes, he thought that would be best. In the sweet sweat of physical toil his zest for life returned and stayed with him till the end of harvest.

He rehearsed what he would say in court a million times. Over and over, he saw himself, the simple farm laborer, in the crowded courtroom. With commonplace logic and simple eloquence he would point out the difference between the law and justice. He could see the judge nodding solemnly as he made his points. He heard the gavel. “Case dismissed!”

His trial date came late in November when no more farm jobs needed doing. He felt content and confident.

The courtroom was nothing at all like his imagination had painted it. The language, the efficiency, confused him. He was caught off guard by the reference to offensive behavior to an officer of the crown. They used numbers for sections of the law. The judge offered him no chance to speak in his own defense. At least, he did not hear anything like that. He did hear the judge say he could seek counsel, but Ben only shook his head.

“I then sentence you to two weeks at hard labor in the Prince Albert Penitentiary.”

Ben served his time the same way he stooked. What the heck, he figured, he had worked harder, eaten worse meals, slept in a poorer bed. And in the end it hadn’t cost him a penny.

 

 

Harper’s promise

A Promise Kept

 

When Stephen Harper became Prime Minister he promised that when he was finished with it we would no longer recognize this country. He has delivered this promise in spades. I no longer recognize my country. The latest proof is in the disgraceful unCanadian disregard for any degree of humanity in the Syrian refugee crisis.

Harper can say all he wants about the economy under his administration. When things went bad he blamed outside causes, when things improved he patted himself on the back. Smoke and mirrors. Let us not forget the Duffy trial, which has demonstrated not so much about Duffy as about the obfuscations of the PMO over which Harper has complete control. Let us not forget the shameful treatment of veterans or the victims of thalidomide. Let us not forget that he sent Canadian troops into a battle zone without the support of any other party. Let us not forget his gross unwillingness to take action for Syrian refugees until shamed by public opinion. Let us not forget his government’s unwillingness to open the archives for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and then basically ignoring their recommendations. Let us not forget that he had to bring in a foreign gunslinger to bolster his flagging campaign. Let us not forget his gutting of research funds, his disregard for global warming, his removal of the long census, and his cynical Fair Elections Act which makes voting more difficult for those most likely to vote anything but conservative. Let us not forget that Conservative candidates are systematically removed from meeting the Canadian public lest they speak their minds. The list goes on and on. Vote for Harper and you are voting against the wishes of over 60% of Canadian, and for four more years of disaster for this country.

Church apologies

Apologies and the Catholic Church

By James Gerwing, MA, MEd.

 

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. At 19, I entered the novitiate of a Benedictine monastery in Saskatchewan, made vows as a monk and was ordained to the Catholic priesthood. After seventeen years of monastic life, I left the order and the priesthood to pursue a career in the secular world. The Catholic Church has remained an essential element of my thoughts and feelings.

Like others, I became aware of the apologies expressed to the First Nations peoples for what happened in the residential schools run by religious bodies. These apologies found a welcome audience in religious communities. Not always so among the First Nations and the general public. This reaction mystified church-goers. We apologized, they thought, what more do they want? The reason becomes clear after a careful analysis of the language of the apologies revealed their limitations.

Between 1986 and 1998 the United Church of Canada (1986 and 1998), the Presbyterian Church in Canada (1994), the Anglican Church of Canada (1993), the Catholic Church (National Meeting 1991), and the Oblate Order (Catholic) (1991) made six statements of apology regarding the residential schools. Dr. Janet Bavelas, Professor of Psychology at the University of   Victoria, in “An Analysis of Formal Apologies by Churches in Canada to First Nations” (2004) (unpublished) studied the language of these apologies. Her analysis indicated that “most of the churches’ references to their offenses avoided describing themselves as agents of wrongful actions.” Among other expressions of avoiding direct responsibility, Bavelas referred to their use of the passive voice to distance the agent or not even naming the agent at all, the use of infinitives to distance the action from the agent, and other methods of evasion.   With almost no exception they never took direct responsibility by naming themselves as the agents of offences. A common formula, taken from the Presbyterian apology, illustrates this: “There was opportunity for sexual abuse, and some were so abused.”

A complete apology is addressed to the victim, names itself as the agent who is now sorry, identifies the offence committed against the victim, and then takes realistic steps toward reconciliation. Without that, apologies are not complete.

The publication of the abuses perpetrated in the Residential Schools made it necessary for the churches to make these apologetic statements. Their choice of language demonstrates how reluctant they are to take full and clear responsibility for their actions. Why did churches resort to evasive language when voicing their apologies? Did the churches in Canada agree with the government’s policy of assimilation by using the children to destroy the language and culture of Aboriginals? If so, did they also agree on the way it was to be accomplished? Would any family of these church communities agree to the forcible removal of their children from the bosom of the family into a completely foreign environment where they could not speak their own language, engage in any of their familiar patterns of behavior, or participate in their traditional rituals?

If there is any reasonable explanation for the churches’ imperfect apologies, part of the answer lies in the belief within these institutions that they possess a divine character. Admission of guilt would cast doubt on the legitimacy of their claim of being founded by God or Jesus Christ, or on the validity of their claim to teach, to preach, to baptize, to convert the rest of the world to their beliefs.

I do not wish to argue the legitimacy or the logic of any Christian Church’s claim to divine origin. Since I am most familiar with my own church, I will confine the following remarks to the Roman Catholic tradition.

The gathering of First Nations with Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 provided an opportunity for the Catholic Church to make a more complete statement of apology. Not so. Benedict allowed no disclosure of his actual words to them. Judging from comments made by First Nations leaders, the language remained the same as before.

Pope Benedict’s letter to the Irish Catholic Church in March 2010 for clerical abuses to their children uses exactly the same language. “It must be admitted that grave errors of judgment were made and failures of leadership occurred.” Beyond asking the laity to pray for the welfare of the church, he offered no concrete plans to right the situation.

The language used by the Catholic Church to describe itself reveals the fundamental attitude toward the church as institution: “The City of God,” “Perfect Society,” “Holy Mother Church,” “Mystical Body of Christ,” and “Spotless Bride of Christ.” These expressions reveal a culture of both respect and impregnability. Church leaders by divine right of ordination identify themselves as that church. Despite the collegial teachings of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s, the Catholic hierarchy does not in practice accept that lay people are an essential part of the Catholic Church. When they use the word “church” in such sentences as “the church teaches,” they see only the hierarchical component.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches, particularly after the Protestant Reformation, that it is the only true church founded by Jesus Christ on the twelve apostles. Therefore, it is the only road to salvation. The Roman Magisterium (teaching authority) reiterated that tenet in July 2007, stating that others should not even be using the word “church” in speaking of themselves. They ought to use the term “ecclesial communities” because they are imperfect, having lost the apostolic succession and therefore lack a valid priesthood.

The language used to describe the priest as an alter Christus (another Christ) is also instructive. The priests acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ) when doing the sacraments. No matter how poorly he does things, the sacraments are effective, ex opere operato (by the very act of doing). This creeps into everything he does. All he needs to do is say the right words and perform the correct actions to make the sacrament effective.

In addition to the tenet of divine institution, the Catholic Church claims infallibility in its pronouncements on faith and morals. This doctrine was defined in 1871 at the First Vatican Council. Infallibility establishes an atmosphere of intolerance. Every statement emanating from the pope, or any Roman office for that matter, seems to demand absolute adherence. Bishops the world over claim, or act as if they claim, a share in that infallibility. It filters down to priests and religious. From childhood, Catholic children have generally been taught never to doubt or question the priest under pain of sin, no matter how ignorant the man might be. If they hear it from the pulpit, it must be true.

As chief spokesmen of a divine and infallible church, the clergy acquire a tremendous sense of power coupled with a desperate fear of anything that might erode that power. Fear demands certitude. Fear allows no questions, no doubts. Fear demands absolute answers and an unchanging ideology.

When I was a monk, Abbot Severin Gertken called his status “the grace of office.” Once he became abbot, his word was the word of God. To disobey him was to disobey God. He claimed an indisputable right to determine the will of God for each of his monks.

A clear expression of that mentality occurred during a meeting of the lay Religious Educators (of which I was one) in the Archdiocese of Seattle in the mid 1990’s. After a period of liberal change in attitude and practice under Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen, a more conservative administration took charge and began to wear down the rights which lay employees of the archdiocese had won. At that meeting the lay educators of the parishes expressed concern that they were no longer being consulted on matters affecting them. One of the Archdiocesan officials blurted out, “Face it, people, you are not part of the official structure of the church.” These are not isolated examples.

This same attitude crops up in the countless cases of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy in North America and the world. Doyle, Sipe and Wall, in Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes; the Catholic Church’s 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse, 2006, outline the story in detail. American bishops consistently and systematically evade the truth about their knowledge of the sexual abuses done by their clergy. When confronted with their own letters proving their awareness, their typical response is, “I must have forgotten that.”

Bishop Rembert Weakland reported that the most common practice of bishops dealing with pedophile priests is to keep shifting them from parish to parish, dioceses to diocese, country to country, without warning anyone that this person is a threat to their children.

Brought to court, dioceses use every legal tactic available to defend the good name of the church (themselves). It is not at all uncommon that when all is ready for the courtroom the diocese will make a financial settlement on condition that the victim remain forever silent. Too often the victim is intimidated and stigmatized as an enemy of the priesthood and the church. That makes the victim feel guilty for what happened or for speaking out about it.

The recent revelation in Canada of Bishop Raymond Lacey’s involvement with child pornography and Archbishop Mancini’s comments reveal that nothing has changed in the mentality of the hierarchy. Lacey told his parishioners that he was taking some “much needed time for personal renewal.” Mancini called Lacey to offer prayers, and told a reporter (Globe and Mail, October 2, 2009) that the church is made up of many individuals beset with problems and “there but for the grace of God go any number of people.” He expressed compassion for Lacey, but precious little for his victims.

Even the most ardent and loyal Catholics are beginning to voice their abhorrence for the “sins of the Fathers” and the persistent sidestepping of responsibility. They feel betrayed by their leaders.

The abuses suffered by the First Nations in the Residential Schools of Canada are part of the larger and continuous history of abuse by Catholic clergymen. Now that the veil of secrecy has finally been removed, the hierarchy has not found an honest way to deal with it.

Strange as it may seem, the Catholic Church does have a perfect and radical and healthy solution: full confession. Very early in their instruction, Catholic children are taught the Act of Contrition. The following prayer is entrusted to memory:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended thee, and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.

If this Act of Contrition were couched in the same language as church apologies referred to above, it would sound like this:

O my God, I am so terribly sorry, more than I can say, that you were offended and I hate what happened. It was an unfortunate exception. I sincerely hope that nothing like this will ever happen again and that steps will be taken to prevent anything like it in the future. Amen.

The second version acknowledges no personal responsibility for the sins committed.

But another problem arises for Catholics in the sacrament of confession. Sin is taught as an offense against God. Penitents go away thinking that having confessed their sins and having them forgiven by God through the absolution of the priest that all is now forgiven; the slate has been washed clean. There is no need for them to do anything else.

Still another and more perplexing aspect of clerical abuse of children lies in the findings of psychological studies of the personality traits of Roman Catholic clergy. Study after study reveals that a huge percentage, some studies say over 90%, of priests have arrested emotional development. They are stuck at the teenage stage, having entered their clerical studies as teenagers and not developed to more developed stages. Their training does not include personal development. This comes out in their repeated assertions that “the kids are resilient. They’ll get over it.” This reveals an enormous emotional disconnect. The pedophile priest has no grasp of the trauma which is named as “soul murder.” He goes to confession and the slate is wiped clean. He may even think that he can “sin no more,” but there is almost no evidence of cures for pedophilia.

Explicit and clear admission of full responsibility to victims of abuse, whether for what happened in the residential schools or in cases of clerical abuse, would go a long way to restore some of the credibility lost in the earlier apology statements. Without full confession, sins are not forgiven, neither by God nor by the community.  The truth, and only the truth, the full and unvarnished truth, is the road to freedom from the mess.  Truth in words is useless if not followed up with the deeds that flow from that truth.  That is what is not happening in these apology statements:  the words are equivocal, the deeds are non-existent.

Churches proudly claims to be the guiding light for private and public morality to the extent of arguing that there is no basis for morality in secular philosophy. However, it is one thing to teach morality in word. It is quite another thing to teach morality in action. By their unwillingness or inability or refusal to take full responsibility for the sins of their members, church authorities have effectively chosen to abandon the high moral ground, have eroded confidence in the public forum, and have contributed to a high degree of cynicism in the world at large. I believe that the churches have seriously compromised their right to make moral pronouncements. They have acted exactly like the corporations they so often disparage. Protect the business, the institution, regardless of the rights of the individuals who suffer at their hands.

Full confession is the first step in the process of reconciliation. It is not too late to start over. It would be unbelievably liberating for all of us.

Jesus blasts leaders

JESUS BLASTS LEADERS

 

 

Jesus spent an enormous amount of energy trying to teach his disciples not to allow any form of authoritarianism into their circle. He harshly rebuked those who attempted to lord it over the others. He never tired of correcting them when they argued about which of them came first. In fact, when he did chose a leader, if he did that at all, he picked Peter, an impetuous man who invariably got things wrong and then had to admit it and seek another path, a man who was not too proud to change when he was wrong.

 

Jesus shocked the religious leaders of his day when he said that prostitutes and cheaters would find their way into God’s reign sooner than they. They deeply resented his charge that they were blind leaders of the blind.

 

Not all the Scribes and Pharisees deserved the condemnations Jesus directed at them. But too many of them did. And they are the ones who saw to it that Jesus was silenced.

 

I have come to believe that the Gospel accounts are not simply historical records of what Jesus did and said, but that the early Christian community kept reflecting on their own lives and remembered the lessons Jesus taught. When they saw their own leaders using their powers of leadership in lording it over others, they recalled what Jesus said about religious leaders who abuse authority.

 

Faced with reports of the abuse of power by our own leaders and by those in positions of power taking advantage of others, we need to revisit the tirades of Jesus once again, and reflect on their possible meaning today.

 

The following paraphrase of Matthew’s Chapter 23 is directly applicable to religious authorities, but parents, CEO’s, principals, teachers, judges, coaches, anyone in leadership, can also ponder these words, uncomfortable as they might be.

 

Those who would see Jesus only as the gentle healer need to consider the blazing rage that he also displayed.

 

 

Shame on you clerics and canonists for the way you succeed in hiding behind your precious policies and legalities to do grave injustice to the powerless.

 

Shame, shame on you for dressing yourselves in distinctive garb and expecting the adulation of your “faithful,” while inside, your hearts reek of fraud and abuse of power, and the real tragedy is that you are totally unaware that you have a problem.

 

Shame and double shame on you for expecting the best seats at table, at the theater, wherever you go.

 

Shame on you for trying to cover your greed for power with long prayers read out of books and not from the heart. You’ve got all the reward you are going to get. Don’t expect God to be pleased with your outward show of piety.

 

Let unbelievers lord it over each other with their superior wealth and power. But you should never have allowed this to happen among you. You want to be great? Then serve. Just as I served and serve you still.

 

Often enough you give good advice, and then fail to follow it yourselves. You preach equality and refuse it to the weak. You preach love and concern for others, and show not the slightest trace of it in your own dealings. You tell the world it must act justly, but then you refuse a living and just wage to those you employ, especially women. You take advantage of their goodness and generosity and shamelessly rob their children.

 

You do everything you can to look good in public, with your fine garb, your big homes, your classy cars, your elaborate parties. You love to accept special titles, like Your Eminence, and Your Excellency and Your Grace and Your Lordship and Your Holiness. You should not be using the title “Father” if that in any way gives the wrong impression to simple people.

 

You should not even accept the title of leader. You need to live a more radical equality of sisterhood and brotherhood with no distinctive honors at all, except the honor to serve each other.

 

Shame on you for your lack of sincerity, double shame. You are hypocrites and play-actors. Your laws slam the doors of heaven (to which you do NOT have the key) in the faces of people who are trying the best they can. I’m telling you, you make me sick.

 

You are frauds. You can pick out all the little flaws of everyone else, and swallow the grossest injustice and haven’t a thought about mercy and good faith.

 

You can look so good on the outside, while inside you harbor untold greed and self-indulgence. You pay enormous sums to cover your misdeeds, money you filched from the poor who can least afford it.

 

You remind me of beautifully kept cemeteries with their fine white stones and beautifully manicured lawns that cover decay and rotting flesh.

 

Shame on you for your fearfulness. You are so afraid of anything new, anything different, anything you have not seen before that you cannot bring yourselves to trust anyone but yourselves. Shame on you for not trusting that the Spirit breathes where she will.

 

What miserable frauds you are! Shame on you for building great cathedrals, monuments to yourselves, while people starve. You hide this behind a perverse justification that nothing is too good for God. God takes no joy in great churches as long as there is a single beggar on the street, as long as there is even one homeless child wandering hungry and alienated in an alley.

 

And when God sends you those who try to straighten you out, you condemn them, you excommunicate them, you call them faithless rebels, you shame them as disloyal dissenters. You heap abuse on them.

 

You are guilty of the vilest form of injustice, a form that hides behind righteousness and law.

 

I can say, you do carry on a long tradition you inherited from your ancestors, and that is also to your eternal shame. You’ve had too much practice, too many bad examples from those who have gone before you. You haven’t the courage, the heart, the faith to break away.

 

And yet I call on you to do so before it is too late.

 

I would love to gather all of you together with all the people of God into one wonderful family. But you have had and will have none of it. You think you know better. All the worse for you.

 

You seem unable to recognize the call to the family of God. I feel sorry for you.

 

You have amassed far too much wealth, far too much power, far too much control. You will not willingly let it go.

 

But the day is coming when you will lose it all, every monument you have raised will come crashing down to earth. You will not be able to understand why it all happened so quickly because you are too blind to see, too deaf to hear, too hard-hearted to search with loving care for the truth.

 

Your blindness is the more culpable because you are so sure that you alone can see and everyone else is blind.

 

 

 

Jim Gerwing is a freelance writer and lecturer whose life experience and education have given him a unique view of the world. He searches for meaningful modern spirituality in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as in the traditions of the early Christian community.