EXCERPT:
Isn’t it time we outgrew the Boogieman?
Since 9/11 I’ve reflected a lot on how America responds to crisis, and it seems to me that too often Americans are treated like children who can only be made to do the right thing when they are afraid – and too often our leaders make us afraid by creating a great Boogieman for our time. Rallying Americans during the great depression, FDR told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself – yet fear has become a staple tool of our national leaders for more than 50 years.
By the end of World War II Americans were already scared of the “Red Menace” that obliged us to engage in a Cold War against the Soviet Union and its satellites. By the early 1950s, that scare led to the national scandal of McCarthyism, fueled by images of Communists as “Masters of Deceit” and “the Enemy Within.” I still remember our teachers scaring us with photo images of Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the table while proclaiming “We will bury you.” The Cold War brought spies and spy planes and the space race and the Cuban Missile Crisis and, by the 1960s, it gave us the “Domino Theory” which made millions of Americans afraid that a Communist Vietnam threatened our national security.
That fear got us into a hot war for more than ten years, but by the time that ended we had found new Boogiemen to fear: Salvador Allende in Chile, killed by a US-supported coup because we feared him; the Ayatollah Khomeini, demonized not so much for holding American hostages as for holding the American way of life hostage by restoring his version of traditional Islamic society; the tiny island of Grenada, invaded because its new airstrip might be used to attack us; the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, whose perfectly legal election provoked the U.S. to declare the original “War on Terror” and a state of national emergency.
Meanwhile of course the Cold War itself continued. By 1980 we had dubbed our adversary “the Evil Empire,” and we built ever more monstrous weapons of mass destruction for fear that Empire would strike back at us. When it collapsed in 1989, there was brief talk of a “peace dividend,” but 1990’s Persian Gulf conflict made Saddam Hussein our newest Boogieman, and soon our troops again saw combat. Through the 1990s, we dealt with civil unrest in the Balkans and in Africa, creating new Boogiemen whose names we could not even pronounce.
Then came 9/11, and Osama Bin Laden became our Millennium Boogieman. For a while, this kept our troops occupied, but Osama’s elusiveness grew tiresome, so we shifted our focus back to a better-known Boogieman: Saddam Hussein. But now we still are not safe, and we’re still driven by fear, and so we face a new phase on our long parade of paranoia. The solution for many Americans: their fear is targeting Islam itself.
Is it possible that, in our desperate need for a motivating Boogieman, we’re about to shift from a crusade on terrorism to a crusade on Islam itself? Fear and frustration are understandable outcomes from 911 and its aftermath, but even though real threats exist, we may still be falling prey to paranoia.
As a Catholic American, several things strike me about this situation:
First, we have become a people constantly motivated by fear, even though Christians call hope a virtue. We seem hooked on Boogiemen, as if we were “chain smoking” our way through one villain after another. Sure, some of these men were monstrously evil, but many were harmless petty tyrants who never threatened us. Yet we treat them all as dire threats, which begs the question: are we letting fear run our country?
Second, this fear robs us of peace. We Americans are perpetually at war, even though we Christians claim to believe in peace. Since entering World War II in 1941 – more than 60 years ago! – we’ve seen only a brief year of peace following Communism’s collapse; for three generations, we have been almost constantly at war.
In fact, we Americans seem to link “freedom” with “fighting.” This is natural enough in a country born in revolution, a country whose union was forged only by civil war. But is it really part of the American dream that having freedom means we can never be at peace?
My own opinion is: this is not how people of faith should live. We should not behave like children who can only do the right thing if they are scared of the Boogieman. American Catholics should be able to find in their faith a more mature, confident, realistic and hopeful vision of the world with which to face the challenges of life in these difficult times.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
#305: Faith, Fear, and Facts
EXCERPT:
The "mosque battle" has gone on long enough to become instructive for those of us who care about both the Christian faith and the United States. Observing the salvos firing back and forth, I am now convinced that most of the controversy is a diversion, a smokescreen to camouflage what is really at stake: the compatibility of American patriotism with the Gospels.
This camouflage includes several layers, some easier to penetrate than others.
Calls for public officials to "stop" construction of the Islamic Community Center in Manhattan have fallen largely on deaf ears, simply because officials (from the President down to New York's Mayor) recognize one simple fact: the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the property owners a perfect right to include a house of worship in their building plans. Their legal rights are identical to those of any Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish group -- and the site of the 9/11 attacks has no relevance whatsoever.
The smoke gets somewhat thicker when debate shifts from "rights" to "feelings": shouldn't the builders' show respect for the feelings of the 9/11 families--victims, relatives, first responder is, traumatize new Yorkers? It is an attractive argument, appealing to American heart strings. But the facts don't support it: many of those affected have already gone public in support of the project, saying their loved ones were sacrificed in the name of the very liberties being exercised by the Islamic Center planners. Others feel differently, of course -- but that just means there is no unanimity of "feelings" among those affected. And that means that demanding to accommodate everyone’s “feelings” is an impossible, even silly, requirement.
Next comes the argument about violating "sacred space." This has great emotional appeal, given how the 9/11 attacks galvanized patriotic feelings (in this, comparisons to Pearl Harbor were not amiss). But emotions are easily to manipulate, as they certainly have been here. The debate itself has been labeled (on all sides and by the media) as the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. No doubt this pushes the buttons of many people of people's patriotic feelings -- but it does not fit the facts. The proposed building includes a house of worship but will not have a dome, a minaret, or other features of a full-service mosque. And it will not be located on Ground Zero. It is close, yes -- two blocks away -- but so are many other houses of worship. Any attempt to arbitrarily extend "Ground Zero" by exactly two blocks (no more, no less) is pure emotional manipulation of the facts. It is both emotionally and intellectually dishonest.
Finally, some question the prudence of the planners building (or of others tolerating) a project symbolic of Islam's rise in America, as if it acknowledges 9/11 as an Islamic triumph. Here the smoke finally lifts to reveal the real point in dispute: Islam in America.
For the fact is that the "Ground Zero Mosque" is not alone as the target of protests. There has already been public opposition to a mosque in Tennessee, for example, and before that to a mosque in Boston, and now there are protests about U.S. government funding for restoring historic mosques in Arab countries. The rhetoric in all these cases is so similar (the project offend others, it flout Islam's rise, it relies on suspect funding, the builders are themselves of suspect character) that any reasonable person must conclude that in these cases, real estate is not about "location, location, location.” It is about something else—something that has nothing to do with any particular address in Manhattan.
What is that something else?
The obvious (but misleading) answer is that the dispute is rooted in Islamophobia. I say obvious because the public commentary is chock full of prejudice against Islam. I say misleading because I believe this dispute’s roots lie deeper. I believe some people choose to ignore the facts because their patriotism is rooted in fear rather than faith. As such, the protests are mounted to defend a fraudulent patriotism which disserves both America and Christianity…
The "mosque battle" has gone on long enough to become instructive for those of us who care about both the Christian faith and the United States. Observing the salvos firing back and forth, I am now convinced that most of the controversy is a diversion, a smokescreen to camouflage what is really at stake: the compatibility of American patriotism with the Gospels.
This camouflage includes several layers, some easier to penetrate than others.
Calls for public officials to "stop" construction of the Islamic Community Center in Manhattan have fallen largely on deaf ears, simply because officials (from the President down to New York's Mayor) recognize one simple fact: the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the property owners a perfect right to include a house of worship in their building plans. Their legal rights are identical to those of any Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish group -- and the site of the 9/11 attacks has no relevance whatsoever.
The smoke gets somewhat thicker when debate shifts from "rights" to "feelings": shouldn't the builders' show respect for the feelings of the 9/11 families--victims, relatives, first responder is, traumatize new Yorkers? It is an attractive argument, appealing to American heart strings. But the facts don't support it: many of those affected have already gone public in support of the project, saying their loved ones were sacrificed in the name of the very liberties being exercised by the Islamic Center planners. Others feel differently, of course -- but that just means there is no unanimity of "feelings" among those affected. And that means that demanding to accommodate everyone’s “feelings” is an impossible, even silly, requirement.
Next comes the argument about violating "sacred space." This has great emotional appeal, given how the 9/11 attacks galvanized patriotic feelings (in this, comparisons to Pearl Harbor were not amiss). But emotions are easily to manipulate, as they certainly have been here. The debate itself has been labeled (on all sides and by the media) as the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. No doubt this pushes the buttons of many people of people's patriotic feelings -- but it does not fit the facts. The proposed building includes a house of worship but will not have a dome, a minaret, or other features of a full-service mosque. And it will not be located on Ground Zero. It is close, yes -- two blocks away -- but so are many other houses of worship. Any attempt to arbitrarily extend "Ground Zero" by exactly two blocks (no more, no less) is pure emotional manipulation of the facts. It is both emotionally and intellectually dishonest.
Finally, some question the prudence of the planners building (or of others tolerating) a project symbolic of Islam's rise in America, as if it acknowledges 9/11 as an Islamic triumph. Here the smoke finally lifts to reveal the real point in dispute: Islam in America.
For the fact is that the "Ground Zero Mosque" is not alone as the target of protests. There has already been public opposition to a mosque in Tennessee, for example, and before that to a mosque in Boston, and now there are protests about U.S. government funding for restoring historic mosques in Arab countries. The rhetoric in all these cases is so similar (the project offend others, it flout Islam's rise, it relies on suspect funding, the builders are themselves of suspect character) that any reasonable person must conclude that in these cases, real estate is not about "location, location, location.” It is about something else—something that has nothing to do with any particular address in Manhattan.
What is that something else?
The obvious (but misleading) answer is that the dispute is rooted in Islamophobia. I say obvious because the public commentary is chock full of prejudice against Islam. I say misleading because I believe this dispute’s roots lie deeper. I believe some people choose to ignore the facts because their patriotism is rooted in fear rather than faith. As such, the protests are mounted to defend a fraudulent patriotism which disserves both America and Christianity…
Friday, August 20, 2010
#304: Outside the Boxes
EXCERPT:
Is it possible that Tom Brady is Vatican II's gift to the NFL?
Outrageous as this sounds, it is both (1) a serious and plausible claim and (2) an idea with serious implications for Catholic Baby Boomers and their grown children.
We Boomers fear our kids could come to represent a "lost generation" in Catholic history. That would not be tragic for Catholicism (which has seen lost generations before, and survived), but it would be tragic for us (the generations lost before were not our kids!).
Second, we fear that the legacy of Vatican II may be squandered -- and that would be a tragedy both for us (a major source of hope in our lifetimes would lose its future) and for the institutional Church (the historic opportunity Vatican II represented might never come again ).
Faced with these discouraging prospects, we Boomers long for signs of hope, or at least consolation.
Enter sports journalist Charles P. Pierce, with his 2006 book Moving the Chains: Tom Brady and the Pursuit of Everything. Pierce makes a compelling case that Tom Brady's greatness lies in qualities inherited from Vatican II.
That case goes like this.
Pierce describes the skinny kid who struggled for recognition first in Catholic high school, then as backup at the University of Michigan, and finally as the #4 QB with the New England Patriots. His stardom in three Super Bowl victories culminated a journey that, according to Pierce, "began in a Vatican II family."
It seems that Tom’s father, Tom Sr. joined the Maryknoll Missionary Society in September, 1962, just as Vatican II was getting underway. Had he remained a Maryknoller, Tom Brady QB would not exist. But he eventually decided to abandon "propagating the faith" in favor of "propagating the faithful," and left the seminary in 1965, just months before Vatican II finished.
That experience left him a true believer in Vatican II’s doctrine of the Church as the “People of God.” This implied the notion that authentic authority comes not for rank, but from the respect of others -- be they colleagues, family members, or teammates.
This, says Pierce, is the key to understanding young Tom Brady. From the start, what impressed those sharp enough to notice was not his size, strength, speed, or skills, but something intangible (because it was something within him): the ability to rise above others and lead them without losing his bond with them. Pierce calls it standing out without being "culled from the herd.” This gift enabled Brady to become the game’s biggest star while remaining a loyal and popular teammate.
In 2000, the New England Patriots waited six rounds to draft him, but finally chose him in part because Bill Belichick, himself a coach’s son, had long since learned the value of such intangibles--"all those things that don't fit into the boxes on the clipboard."
The rest is history. Brady stands out not for his size or arm or speed, but for his ability to inspire the kind of team confidence that produces peak performance under pressure. Pierce labels this gift "an instinct for communion," and offers this closing argument:
The moral of the story? Pierce gave me the insight that the next generation may represent a new kind of Catholic. If Vatican II suceeded in “removing the chains” (chains of guilt, fear, obligation, and duty), this new, unchained generation may indeed embody a Catholic identity that is not conspicuous, but rather innate—an authenticity that demands and offers respect for the dignity of all people, values authority only when it genuinely serves the common good, and acknowledges the intangibles within us all that will always remain outside the boxes.
Pierce says Vatican II produced a laity intent "to live the Council and not argue about it." For me, that is hope enough: that our kids, while not "conspicuous Catholics," might still live the Council. If so, then they are its heirs, and the Council is alive in them.
Is it possible that Tom Brady is Vatican II's gift to the NFL?
Outrageous as this sounds, it is both (1) a serious and plausible claim and (2) an idea with serious implications for Catholic Baby Boomers and their grown children.
We Boomers fear our kids could come to represent a "lost generation" in Catholic history. That would not be tragic for Catholicism (which has seen lost generations before, and survived), but it would be tragic for us (the generations lost before were not our kids!).
Second, we fear that the legacy of Vatican II may be squandered -- and that would be a tragedy both for us (a major source of hope in our lifetimes would lose its future) and for the institutional Church (the historic opportunity Vatican II represented might never come again ).
Faced with these discouraging prospects, we Boomers long for signs of hope, or at least consolation.
Enter sports journalist Charles P. Pierce, with his 2006 book Moving the Chains: Tom Brady and the Pursuit of Everything. Pierce makes a compelling case that Tom Brady's greatness lies in qualities inherited from Vatican II.
That case goes like this.
Pierce describes the skinny kid who struggled for recognition first in Catholic high school, then as backup at the University of Michigan, and finally as the #4 QB with the New England Patriots. His stardom in three Super Bowl victories culminated a journey that, according to Pierce, "began in a Vatican II family."
It seems that Tom’s father, Tom Sr. joined the Maryknoll Missionary Society in September, 1962, just as Vatican II was getting underway. Had he remained a Maryknoller, Tom Brady QB would not exist. But he eventually decided to abandon "propagating the faith" in favor of "propagating the faithful," and left the seminary in 1965, just months before Vatican II finished.
That experience left him a true believer in Vatican II’s doctrine of the Church as the “People of God.” This implied the notion that authentic authority comes not for rank, but from the respect of others -- be they colleagues, family members, or teammates.
This, says Pierce, is the key to understanding young Tom Brady. From the start, what impressed those sharp enough to notice was not his size, strength, speed, or skills, but something intangible (because it was something within him): the ability to rise above others and lead them without losing his bond with them. Pierce calls it standing out without being "culled from the herd.” This gift enabled Brady to become the game’s biggest star while remaining a loyal and popular teammate.
In 2000, the New England Patriots waited six rounds to draft him, but finally chose him in part because Bill Belichick, himself a coach’s son, had long since learned the value of such intangibles--"all those things that don't fit into the boxes on the clipboard."
The rest is history. Brady stands out not for his size or arm or speed, but for his ability to inspire the kind of team confidence that produces peak performance under pressure. Pierce labels this gift "an instinct for communion," and offers this closing argument:
Tom Brady is not the conspicuous Catholic that his father is, but there is in him an instinct for communion. It was stronger than the capricious authority under which he played at Michigan. Something innate sensed that the real authority was what was loaned to him by his teammates through their respect and, especially, through the way they played when he was on the field. Vatican II created change, controversy, and perhaps a couple of saints along the way. Within one of the most profane contexts imaginable, its spirit also may have helped create a quarterback.
The moral of the story? Pierce gave me the insight that the next generation may represent a new kind of Catholic. If Vatican II suceeded in “removing the chains” (chains of guilt, fear, obligation, and duty), this new, unchained generation may indeed embody a Catholic identity that is not conspicuous, but rather innate—an authenticity that demands and offers respect for the dignity of all people, values authority only when it genuinely serves the common good, and acknowledges the intangibles within us all that will always remain outside the boxes.
Pierce says Vatican II produced a laity intent "to live the Council and not argue about it." For me, that is hope enough: that our kids, while not "conspicuous Catholics," might still live the Council. If so, then they are its heirs, and the Council is alive in them.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
#303: Creating Wisdom Communities
EXCERPT:
To me, Vatican II’s vision is a perfect remedy for what ails parish life today. If parish life has lost much of its previous appeal as a community center, a worship center, and even as a family chapel, perhaps the time is ripe for parishes to become “wisdom communities.”…If the time is ripe for a wisdom community, it will require resetting our priorities.
…At this point I'm just beginning to reflect on this question myself; I have no full answer. But as I think how contemporary power threatens people and calls out for wisdom’s help, some ideas begin to surface about parish life becoming a wisdom center in people's lives.
…
I can imagine parish as A Place Of Wisdom About Discernment. I think of my children's generation, in their 20s and 30s, finishing school with high anxiety about job, livelihood, and career-path. Our society’s typical approach to career counseling targets only external factors “out there”: the hottest jobs, the best incomes, the most marketable skills, the winning strategies. By contrast Catholicism has always assumed that God calls each of us to a certain life path -- a path that must be discovered within each of us, by discerning our unique gifts and talents. Sadly, while Catholicism developed several effective life-discernment strategies, their use was mostly restricted to members of religious communities.
But imagine parish becoming a place of discernment, where young people (15 to 30) are guided on that inner discovery to find their real, God-given purpose in life. Choosing the right school, training, and career options would become the fruit of wisdom, not just market analysis. There are millions of kids who need this kind of help.
I can also imagine parish becoming A Place Of Wisdom About Aging. I see my peers’ elder parents, in their 80s and 90s, struggling not only with health and diminished capacities but with a loss of social purpose. We know they need our help, but what do we need from them? Our society no longer expects elders to be productive -- my own father has been retired for 30 years! -- but does that mean the very old are no longer useful to the rest of us?
Now imagine a parish ministry that engages these people in telling oral histories that are transcribed for distribution to their families--stories and lessons from a time the next generations would otherwise never know. Imagine too that ministry raising such people up as a wisdom resource for the whole community, treating their diminished capacities not as signs of helplessness but as signs of them having completed life's long cycle ahead of us.
Next, I can imagine parish as A Place Of Wisdom About Parenting. I look at my peers, who struggled with parenting in a time of rapidly changing family and societal values. Parish was rarely a resource for them. But imagine a parish where first-time parents bring babies for baptism and find a community of support -- for child care, babysitting, ready-cooked meals, guidance…I know many organizations offer parent support resources, but it mystifies me that parishes do not think they have their own contribution to make.
…
I can imagine parish, for example as A Place Of Wisdom About Citizenship. Catholics are no longer block Democratic voters, but are now among the most important swing voters in America. Moreover traditional Catholic Social Teaching (CST) offers a wealth of social, economic, and political wisdom that has evolved over twenty centuries and was dramatically renewed in the last 100 years. But my sad experience is that the average Catholic (whether active parishioner or not) knows next to nothing about CST; even if they received a catholic education, CST was often a major oversight in the curriculum. The result: American Catholics often fail to bring Catholic wisdom to the voting booth, the public forum, or even to public office. Yet how often do parishes feature programs or preaching to impart this wisdom?
Finally, I can imagine parish as A Place Of Wisdom About Lifestyle. Many Americans return from Europe noting the difference in our cultures: whereas Americans tend to focus on standard of living, Europeans focus more on quality of life. We live in a mass consumption society where earning and spending dominate. Catholicism has always proclaimed that “the good life” is more about who you are then about what you have -- yet too often even parishes have become just another provider of services for consumers: the ATM of their spiritual lives.
Ironically, the very institution of parish which used to be one of the "obligation institutions" in people's lives now competes for their leisure time. In an age when sports, the Internet, and electronic entertainment dominate people's leisure, couldn’t parishes offer meaningful alternatives? In an era when reducing our environmental footprint is a major part of the stewardship of creation, couldn't parishes play a role in helping people to live more simply, to become less consumed with consumption?
…This can only happen if parish leaders believe that wisdom could make parish relevant again, and embrace the getting and sharing of wisdom as an urgent priority.
To me, Vatican II’s vision is a perfect remedy for what ails parish life today. If parish life has lost much of its previous appeal as a community center, a worship center, and even as a family chapel, perhaps the time is ripe for parishes to become “wisdom communities.”…If the time is ripe for a wisdom community, it will require resetting our priorities.
…At this point I'm just beginning to reflect on this question myself; I have no full answer. But as I think how contemporary power threatens people and calls out for wisdom’s help, some ideas begin to surface about parish life becoming a wisdom center in people's lives.
…
I can imagine parish as A Place Of Wisdom About Discernment. I think of my children's generation, in their 20s and 30s, finishing school with high anxiety about job, livelihood, and career-path. Our society’s typical approach to career counseling targets only external factors “out there”: the hottest jobs, the best incomes, the most marketable skills, the winning strategies. By contrast Catholicism has always assumed that God calls each of us to a certain life path -- a path that must be discovered within each of us, by discerning our unique gifts and talents. Sadly, while Catholicism developed several effective life-discernment strategies, their use was mostly restricted to members of religious communities.
But imagine parish becoming a place of discernment, where young people (15 to 30) are guided on that inner discovery to find their real, God-given purpose in life. Choosing the right school, training, and career options would become the fruit of wisdom, not just market analysis. There are millions of kids who need this kind of help.
I can also imagine parish becoming A Place Of Wisdom About Aging. I see my peers’ elder parents, in their 80s and 90s, struggling not only with health and diminished capacities but with a loss of social purpose. We know they need our help, but what do we need from them? Our society no longer expects elders to be productive -- my own father has been retired for 30 years! -- but does that mean the very old are no longer useful to the rest of us?
Now imagine a parish ministry that engages these people in telling oral histories that are transcribed for distribution to their families--stories and lessons from a time the next generations would otherwise never know. Imagine too that ministry raising such people up as a wisdom resource for the whole community, treating their diminished capacities not as signs of helplessness but as signs of them having completed life's long cycle ahead of us.
Next, I can imagine parish as A Place Of Wisdom About Parenting. I look at my peers, who struggled with parenting in a time of rapidly changing family and societal values. Parish was rarely a resource for them. But imagine a parish where first-time parents bring babies for baptism and find a community of support -- for child care, babysitting, ready-cooked meals, guidance…I know many organizations offer parent support resources, but it mystifies me that parishes do not think they have their own contribution to make.
…
I can imagine parish, for example as A Place Of Wisdom About Citizenship. Catholics are no longer block Democratic voters, but are now among the most important swing voters in America. Moreover traditional Catholic Social Teaching (CST) offers a wealth of social, economic, and political wisdom that has evolved over twenty centuries and was dramatically renewed in the last 100 years. But my sad experience is that the average Catholic (whether active parishioner or not) knows next to nothing about CST; even if they received a catholic education, CST was often a major oversight in the curriculum. The result: American Catholics often fail to bring Catholic wisdom to the voting booth, the public forum, or even to public office. Yet how often do parishes feature programs or preaching to impart this wisdom?
Finally, I can imagine parish as A Place Of Wisdom About Lifestyle. Many Americans return from Europe noting the difference in our cultures: whereas Americans tend to focus on standard of living, Europeans focus more on quality of life. We live in a mass consumption society where earning and spending dominate. Catholicism has always proclaimed that “the good life” is more about who you are then about what you have -- yet too often even parishes have become just another provider of services for consumers: the ATM of their spiritual lives.
Ironically, the very institution of parish which used to be one of the "obligation institutions" in people's lives now competes for their leisure time. In an age when sports, the Internet, and electronic entertainment dominate people's leisure, couldn’t parishes offer meaningful alternatives? In an era when reducing our environmental footprint is a major part of the stewardship of creation, couldn't parishes play a role in helping people to live more simply, to become less consumed with consumption?
…This can only happen if parish leaders believe that wisdom could make parish relevant again, and embrace the getting and sharing of wisdom as an urgent priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)