November 30, 2005

christian news out and about the ether

It has been quite a day in the news for Christians. Below you will find a couple of links to some articles related to two stories I am following. The cartoon was sent to me by a friend with a sharp wit. I came into the office all heated up after reading this morning's paper. The cartoon cooled me off enough to post what was in the news. I hope it gives you a chuckle.

Bishop Says Edict Allows Some Gay Priests

"I would say yes, absolutely, it does bar anyone whose sexual orientation is towards one's own sex and it's permanent," D'Arcy said of the document. "I don't think there's any doubt about it. . . . I don't think we can fuss around with this."

Although each bishop can apply the document as he sees fit in his diocese, the fallout could reach thousands of Catholic schools and parishes as gay men who are considering the priesthood -- and some who have been ordained -- reevaluate their place in the church.

"I think every gay seminarian faces a question of conscience now," said a 33-year-old gay seminarian from New England who requested anonymity because he has not yet decided whether to leave his seminary. "There's no question of leaving the church. I'll die a Catholic. The question is whether I can with integrity be a priest."

This is what Get Religion posted. It is a helpful post with links to the specific documents. But to continue with the national papers...

Vatican bars all gays as priests

The Vatican's long-awaited new guidelines on homosexual seminarians were released yesterday, barring even celibate homosexuals from seminary.
"Those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture" should be barred, the nine-page document said, chiefly because the priest represents Jesus Christ as "head, shepherd and spouse" of the church.

It was termed "a purge" by some Catholics and given faint praise by others who called on bishops to enforce it.

"Some bishops will use this document to do the right thing, and some others will ignore it," said Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.

Christian hostages called 'spies'
Al Jazeera television yesterday aired a video of four aid workers kidnapped over the weekend, apparently being held by a previously unknown terrorist group called the "Swords of Righteousness."

The four -- two Canadians, an American and a Briton, members of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) -- sat with their backs against a wall, and looked calm.

A taped statement by the terrorists accused the four of being "spies of the occupying forces." Previous hostages charged with being spies have been beheaded or shot.

Here is an exerpt from an October letter from one of the hostages.
I am to stand firm against the kidnapper as I am to stand firm
against the soldier. Does that mean I walk into a raging battle to confront
the soldiers? Does that mean I walk the streets of Baghdad with a sign
saying "American for the Taking?" No to both counts. But if Jesus and Gandhi
are right, then I am asked to risk my life, and if I lose it to be as
forgiving as they were when murdered by the forces of Satan.

Standing firm is a struggle, but I'm willing to keep working at it.

You can read the entire missive in the extended link.

CPTnet 30 November 2005

IRAQ: Tom Fox's reflection, "Fight or flight?"


[Note: CPTer Tom Fox, currently being held captive in Iraq, wrote the
following reflection in October 2004.]

"If an attacker inspires anger or fear in my heart, it means that I have not
purged myself of violence. To realize nonviolence means to feel within you
its strength--soul force--to know God. A person who has known God will be
incapable of harboring anger or fear within him, no matter how overpowering
the cause for that anger or fear may be." (Gandhi speaking to Badshah Kahn's
Khudai Khidmatgar officers; _A Man to Match His Mountains_ by Eknath
Easwaran, 1985.)

When I allow myself to become angry, I disconnect from God and connect with
the evil force that empowers fighting. When I allow myself to become
fearful, I disconnect from God and connect with the evil force that
encourages flight.

The French theologian Rene Girard has a very powerful vision of Satan that
speaks to me: "Satan sustains himself as a parasite on what God creates by
imitating God in a manner that is jealous, grotesque, perverse and as
contrary as possible to the loving and obedient imitation of Jesus" (_I See
Satan Falling like Lightning_, 2001)

If I am not to fight or flee in the face of armed aggression, be it the
overt aggression of the army or the subversive aggression of the terrorist,
then what am I to do? "Stand firm against evil" (Matthew 5:39, translated by
Walter Wink) seems to be the guidance of Jesus and Gandhi in order to
stay connected with God. Here in Iraq I struggle with that second form of
aggression. I have visual references and written models of CPTers standing
firm against the overt aggression of an army, be it regular or paramilitary.
But how do you stand firm against a car-bomber or a kidnapper? Clearly the
soldier disconnected from God needs to have me fight. Just as clearly the
terrorist disconnected from God needs to have me flee. Both are willing to
kill me using different means to achieve he same end--that end being to
increase the parasitic power of Satan within God's good creation.

It seems easier somehow to confront anger within my heart than it is to
confront fear. But if Jesus and Gandhi are right then I am not to give in to
either. I am to stand firm against the kidnapper as I am to stand firm
against the soldier. Does that mean I walk into a raging battle to confront
the soldiers? Does that mean I walk the streets of Baghdad with a sign
saying "American for the Taking?" No to both counts. But if Jesus and Gandhi
are right, then I am asked to risk my life, and if I lose it to be as
forgiving as they were when murdered by the forces of Satan.

Standing firm is a struggle, but I'm willing to keep working at it.

Posted by tripp at November 30, 2005 09:29 AM
Comments

The RCC stuff is hardly *news*. It's been policy all along.

Posted by: Megan at November 30, 2005 11:43 AM

Hey, Megan. How are you?

Well, yes and no. The stance with this Instruction is more severe. That is at least one interpretation. I have known several openly gay Catholic celergy. They simply lived chaste celibate lives. Now it appears that is not an option at all. Only those with "transitory" homosexual leanings may be allowed into the pristhood. Celibate or no, homosexuals have no place in the RCC priesthood.

That is new.

Posted by: Tripp at November 30, 2005 12:28 PM

Angels dancing on heads of pins. The RCC's policy has always been, "No gay priests." The energy with which they've enforced that policy has waxed and waned over the centuries.

I'm annoyed by everything today. How are you?

Posted by: Megan at November 30, 2005 01:48 PM

Me? Oh, feeling bitter and annoyed that I am not able to muster the energy to get myself out of my temping malaise. I so hate being the Rev Copy Boy. Today I moved juice from one side of the office to the other and back again. For this I am paid more than I should be but not as much as Trish and I need.

And I feel unused.
Lord, how I despise that.

Posted by: Tripp at November 30, 2005 02:08 PM

Hrm. Maybe your grumpiness and my grumpiness can meet in midair and explode both.

Posted by: Megan at November 30, 2005 02:20 PM