"...And there was no needy person among them"

I thought about going to Mass today because I’ve recently completed my COVID vaccination series but decided against it due to living in the worst outbreak hotspot currently in my country…something about not wanting to inadvertently act as a plague vector though not being able to attend Mass in over a year.  Side note: Unlike many folks, I actually enjoy attending Mass and before COVID was among the Catholic minority attending weekly Mass and the even smaller minority attending daily Mass.  I opted to write a blog article instead.  Hopefully I chose wisely.

 

This Sunday, the first after Easter, always features the “doubting Thomas” gospel.  I’ve written twice before in 2011 and  in 2013 about how countless clergy over the centuries spin this narrative towards painting  the fearful herd sitting in a locked room, avoiding the dreaded “other” (in this case the Jews) as being more virtuous than Thomas, who was out actually imitating Christ without fear of his fellow humans.  My experience is today’s clergy’s behavior increasingly parallels that of the petrified pious pack featured in today’s gospel reading.  So perhaps clergy’s message spinning is their self-exoneration reflex for the power they wield, largely due to fanning flames of fear - of God’s created world and humans.

 

However, rather than exclusively comment on the gospel reading, let's also look at the second reading, Acts 4:32-35 which reads thusly:

 

The community of believers was of one heart and mind,

and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own,

but they had everything in common.

With great power the apostles bore witness

to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,

and great favor was accorded them all.

There was no needy person among them,

for those who owned property or houses would sell them,

bring the proceeds of the sale,

and put them at the feet of the apostles,

and they were distributed to each according to need.

 

This passage counts among those that most influence my daily lived faith.  I sometimes quote from it without offering the citation.  Specifically, I’ll say something like, “…they had everything in common…there was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them…and the proceeds were distributed to each according to need.”  The more pious the Catholic and/or the more Republican the hearer, the more likely the other person incorrectly guesses Karl Marx rather than St. Luke as the quote’s source.

 

Let's look at the gospel and Acts passages together now.  By painting the nervous, judgmental and withdrawn crowd as the most virtuous, and having the present-day apostles subsequently imitate that isolation and apprehension, it makes for an en masse perversion of living that passage from Acts.  Church leaders’ power is derived from fearmongering rather than from fearlessly bearing witness to the resurrected Christ via care for the needs of all people.  They mostly fear for their self-preservation.

 

 

Lots of folks donate to their church as their way of living this passage from Acts, believing the clergy will funnel their donations to help other humans.  A group called Charity Navigator rates the health and transparency of charitable organizations.  They do not rate churches, but we can look at their assessment criteria to help us evaluate churches as effective charities, as perhaps, effectively living Acts chapter 4. 

 

Based upon Acts 4, the gospels, and also by reputation, we should be able to categorize churches as human services charities.  According to Charity Navigator’s rating table on finances, human services charities getting the highest rating direct 92% or more towards human services programs and spend only 0-3% of income on administrative overhead.  

 

But what do church leaders, fearful about self-preservation, actually do with that donated money?  In many parishes, most if not all of that donated money goes to the church institution itself – self-preservation: salaries, buildings, schools, etc…  Though the parish may have something like a St. Vincent de Paul society offering food, clothing or financial support, those organizations are not funded by the parish.   For example, a few years ago, I was an officer of a local St. Vincent de Paul chapter and people approaching the local parish seeking financial assistance were invariably sent to us.  However, exactly $0 in funding was sent to us from the parish coffers. 

 

My current parish does actually give to charity, towards “distributing to each according to need.”  Based on my experience being a Catholic for more than half a century, this parish is in the minority.  But, since it is an example, let’s examine their annual report.  It spends 2.2% not on overhead but on human services.  It spends the vast majority on itself, its administration, its buildings, etc… Were churches rated by Charity Navigator as human services organizations, they might find themselves as the topic of an advisory bulletin issued by the organization, warning people that their money does not get used as assumed.

 

This is not unique to Catholic parishes.  Look at the skew of monies your congregation spends on the organization itself versus on caring for other humans, regardless of your faith tradition or denomination.  If monies are primarily spent perpetuating the organization itself, then people’s donations are funding a spiritual country club, designed for members to feel better about themselves rather than to see that “there was no needy person among them.”

 

Donating to a church offers a lazy outlet to pat oneself on the back while claiming imitation of Christ, when in fact, it pretty much moves money from a person’s left pocket to their right pocket.  It’s all about benefiting the donor through institutional self-preservation. 

 

Worshiping Jesus by attending church or praise services is much easier than imitating Jesus because Jesus wasn’t about self-preservation.  Imitation involves completely letting go of one’s money to feed, house, clothe and provide dignity to people regardless of how they came to be in their financial situation.  It requires examining and fixing systems that consistently produce disparate outcomes based upon skin color, religious affiliation or gender.  How are you imitating Jesus to ensure there is no needy person in your midst?

 

What do you think?  Should I have foregone writing today and made myself a possible plague vector or did I choose ok?

"Do you have eyes and not see?" (Mark 8:18)

I recently finished a three month Peace Corps Response assignment in Ghana.  Being in Peace Corps required refraining from political commentary and this blog danced along a line regarding that stipulation so I suspended writing during my assignment.  However, I’m back. 

I actually began writing this article on the plane flying home, having just watched the movie “Spotlight” again.  This is the movie about the Boston Globe’s investigative journalism that blew the lid off the systemic nature of the church’s sex abuse scandal. 

After spending three months in a culture that has extensive unreported sexual exploitation issues largely facilitated by cultural taboos against pursuing legal action…much like those the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team exposed in the Archdiocese of Boston…I find myself even sadder for the Church than the first time I watched the movie.

The movie ends by listing 203 dioceses around the world that have had major sex abuse scandals exposed.  A few more have been exposed since the film’s September, 2015 release.  I believe there are probably many, many, many more dioceses that continue enabling abusive priests, especially those in regions with cultural taboos acting as accomplices like in Africa. 

Spotlight portrayed the privileged status Boston’s Catholic hierarchy enjoyed which permitted priests to abuse and bishops to cover it up.  Beyond even Boston priests’ privilege, many African priests enjoy outright demagogue status.  They are untouchable.  They are not to be questioned.  They are in prime positions to abuse without accountability.  I pray that somehow the lid gets blown off of any sex abuses occurring in African Catholic Churches. 

Before I re-watched that movie, I intended to write about attending Mass at the Papal Nuncio’s residence.  He opens his residence every Sunday to anyone who wants to attend Mass – a nice diplomatic touch.  The Mass was lovely, the people were friendly, and I was even asked to join the choir.  The Papal Nuncio is a Francis appointee and works the crowd greeting people and he even engaged in a meaningful discussion with me…more on that in a bit. 

However, he celebrates Mass on his outdoor patio and Mass goers sit staring at the glass patio doors of his residence, the Vatican Embassy.  Clergy abuse issues in every country filter through the Papal Nuncio’s office.  So, although friendliness floated in the air, I kept getting a sick feeling in my stomach wondering how many sexually abusive priests this man knowingly leaves in service in Ghana. I would hope that number is zero but I am skeptical.

Re-watching Spotlight, I was sad for my church that chooses to not see what it does not want to see.  It prevents us as individuals and an organization from achieving our full potential.

By the way, my discussion with the Papal Nuncio was about three points associated with the “Doubting Thomas” gospel reading. 

1.        I am very tired of people preaching about Thomas’ character flaws.  He was the only one not in the locked room paralyzed in fear.  He was brave enough to be out and about. 

2.       People say Thomas doubted because he did not see.  And yet, the reason those in the room believed was because they saw. They saw and believed; Thomas saw and believed – but - most homilies portray Thomas as the only one who had to see to believe.  Whom Thomas doubted was his fellow humans, not God.

I mentioned these two concepts to the Papal Nuncio and he initially said, “Yes, yes…of course” in a dismissive way that feigned interest. 

That was not the case when I mentioned point 3.

3.       In his homily he repeatedly referred to “the apostles” and “the guys.”  I held the gospel reading in front of him and pointed to it saying, “It actually says disciples not apostles; there were women there too.” 

I wish I had a camera for the stunned look on his face.  He laughed and said, “OH MY GOD!  I NEVER SAW THAT BEFORE! THAT IS FANTASTIC!”

His reaction pretty well sums up some issues in the church.  A passage that is used to justify marginalizing women from ordination clearly says disciples not apostles, but he did not read what it actually said.  He read what he wanted it to say.  Things that clearly exist in front of people are not seen because they do not want to see it – whether it is sexual abuse of children, reprehensible reshuffling of abusive clergy by bishops so they can abuse other children or unjust marginalization of women based on not seeing what is clearly written in scripture.  How do we fix willful blindness?

Side note: There were many women disciples.  Jesus breathed on the disciples present, told them to receive the Holy Spirit and if they loosed or held sins, they would be so loosed or held in heaven.  This is a pivotal scripture passage used to withhold ordination from women because hierarchy leaders read “apostle” of which they believe there were only 12 male ones.  This passage is considered instituting the sacrament of reconciliation, granting powers to absolve sins only to male apostles. 

Side note 2: Thomas, an apostle who was not present, did not get hit by this holy hot air yet is considered a full apostle and predecessor to priests and bishops.  However, the women disciples who were present?  The hierarchy evidently believes they had their Star Trek matter/anti-matter shields fully operational and deflected any such holy hot air from touching them. 

I was in Ghana working on girls’ education and empowerment.  As part of that I taught a session on “Finding Your Voice.”  It is a mini workshop I conduct to help people realize their ideas and opinions matter, and to help them cultivate their critical thinking and expression skills.  The Boston church found its voice.  I found my voice. How can we help others find their voices on children’s and women’s rights, especially in the church?

"Doubting Thomas" - a person of faith or a person of beliefs?

This weekend we will read about Thomas.  Likely someone will refer to him as “doubting Thomas” though he was brave enough to be out and about after Jesus’ crucifixion while many of the disciples were fearfully cowering in a locked room.  Because he was brave enough to be out and about, likely continuing work in imitation of Jesus, he missed when the resurrected Jesus appeared to the “chicken” disciples locked in the room. 

Now, none of these female and male disciples believed Jesus had risen until they saw Jesus.  Yet somehow over the course of history, Thomas’ character has been maligned as though his faith is of inferior ilk because he too didn’t believe until he saw the resurrected Jesus.  One might argue that since Thomas was brave enough to continue Jesus’ work, his faith surpassed that of the chicken disciples.  He operated in faith without the certitude of belief, and the opportunity for certitude presented itself a week later for him than for those paralyzed in fear.

Faith is acting based upon trust.  Belief is certitude that something is so.  We act in faith without knowing based upon what we accept in certitude as beliefs.  So, in some ways faith is the opposite of belief while at the same time stands upon the shoulders of belief.

What did the disciples believe?  What was their certitude? 

Scripture writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31).”

Ah, they believed Jesus was the “Messiah” and “Son of God” and such belief would give them life. 

Once upon a time, Christians had no creed.  They just came to simple acceptance that Jesus was Son of God and Messiah and somehow following his example would render life.  The various Christian communities approached this in slightly different ways but were united in their simple foundational beliefs.  They acted in faith upon those simple beliefs and their actions galvanized a caring community.  One might say they were long on faith-based actions and short on certitude coming from beliefs.

But, as time marched forward and human nature’s impact took its toll, things changed.  Within a few hundred years of Jesus’ death people had vehement arguments as they tried to complete the sketch of Jesus, filling in details not recorded.  People sought certitude where there was none and so they ascribed certitude to their suppositions.  Yet scripture tells us that Jesus did many things not recorded.  Scripture seems to tell us at the end of the last written gospel, that the details about Jesus aren’t as important as just remembering a few key things: Jesus is the Messiah and is Son of God.

But since humans are curious to know intimate details about celebrities, the interpolations and interpretations continued.  Also, the cerebral exercise of “believing” in certitude is a lot less work and involves a lot less risk than the physical effort of “acting” in faith.  It seems too that many humans fixate upon being right more so than on doing right. 

History tells us laypeople argued in the marketplace and on the streets about these unknown and unknowable details associated with Jesus.  Uncomfortable with the public debate and in an effort to force unity, the emperor Constantine, not Pope Sylvester, called the Council of Nicea. 

The debate tearing apart Constantine’s kingdom was one around the question, “What does it mean to be the Son of God?”  One camp insisted one relationship between God and Jesus and the other camp insisted upon another.  Church leaders leading the different camps sanctioned violence against those holding different views.   As emperor, Constantine could not defend his kingdom with intra-country division.  So, he called all the bishops together in hopes that they would end the internal argument.

The Council of Nicea produced the Nicene Creed, which expanded upon what one must believe to be called a Christian.  It primarily was trying to give a definitive answer about the somewhat unknown and unknowable relationship between Jesus and God.  But the debate did not subside with the imposition of the Creed.  The creed just divided people.  Some of that division went underground while some of it remained public.  The creed said nothing of love.  It said nothing about actions.  It said nothing about faith. 

We fast forward to today and see the continued shift from people who acted caring for each other due to a trusting faith based upon limited certitude of beliefs to being people who build an elaborate, complex and intricate set of certitudes (beliefs) and whose actions focus mainly on imposing or propagating their certitudes upon others. 

According to scripture, God is the full embodiment of love and truth.  One might assume from Jesus' actions, words and role as son of God that he's big on love and truth too.

However, somehow “love” has transformed from being patient, kind, not jealous, not pompous, not inflated, not rude, not seeking its own interests, not quick-tempered, not brooding over injury, not rejoicing over wrongdoing but rejoicing with the truth, bearing all things, believing all things, hoping all things, enduring all things (1 Cor 13:4-7).

Though scripture admits it does not provide a complete record, certitude is ascribed to interpolations of things not said.  Scripture says nothing of Jesus mandating clergy gender for all perpetuity.  But “love” has been perverted to ascribing certitude to Jesus’ intentions and using that certitude to marginalize and excommunicate people unless they affirm certitude drawn from conjecture. 

Oddly enough certitude is ascribed to things contrary to what is recorded in scripture too.  For example, scripture indicates Peter was married yet “love” has been perverted to ascribe certitude to Jesus’ desire for celibate clergy and using that certitude to marginalize and excommunicate people too.

Scripture says nothing about birth control yet “love” has been perverted to ascribe certitude to Jesus’ opinions on the topic and using that certitude to marginalize people, deny health benefits and sue civil governments that insist upon providing healthcare coverage.

Scripture indicates Jesus likely healed a homosexual centurion’s male sexual servant/lover.  (As background, Matthew 8 and Luke 7 contain the story in which a centurion asks Jesus to heal his pais who is his entimos doulos.  The Greek word pais can mean son, servant or a special servant who is a male lover.  Entimos doulos means “honored slave.”  Given the context, it is unlikely that the centurion speaks of his son and the added qualifier of entimos doulos seems to say this was no ordinary servant.  This leans towards the likeliest meaning is that the centurion told Jesus he was not worthy to have him come under his roof to heal his male sexual servant, but if he only said the word, his honored servant would be healed.)  Yet “love” has been perverted to certitude about dehumanizing marginalization of homosexuals instead of following Jesus’ example of extending tender inclusive care.

Scripture indicates Jesus used compassionate, merciful common sense but somehow “love” has been perverted into certitude that Jesus wants mothers to die unless the child she carries who is killing her can also be saved.  Somehow love has been perverted into certitude that Jesus would prefer two dead people than just one dead person.

Scripture doesn’t indicate Jesus excluded people from communion based upon their morality or political voting patterns.  Indeed “at that first Eucharist before he died”, Jesus gave communion to Judas, knowing that Judas had already betrayed him and had not confessed to it.  But, somehow “love” has been perverted into certitude that communion should be withheld from people who don’t share certitude of beliefs 100% in line with those of the hierarchy.

Many in the church scratch their heads that the masses flee organized religion.  Yet, many who have fled organized religion do so because they passionately desire to imitate Jesus’ caring actions acting in faith rather than certitude.  The certitude they carry is that they must care for the world and all its creation without judging it. 

Are you a person of deep faith trusting and acting to unite, include and care though you do not know or are you a person filled with certitude of beliefs that justify your inaction, rejection or divisiveness?   Do you believe scripture when it says it doesn't contain Jesus' complete history or do you require so much certitude that you ascribe certitude to your interpretation that scripture is the complete revelation of God?  Do you require more certitude than scripture offers so you insert certitude into interpolations, traditions and dogmatic utterances?  Are you like Thomas able to act in faith despite uncertainty or are you like the majority of disciples, locking yourself in somewhere, cowering in fear waiting for certitude?  Do you malign those who act in faith while you enshroud yourself in what certitude you have and hide in fear?  Are you a person of faith or a person of beliefs?