Not Fit to Receive Communion

Cardinal Francis Arinze declared from the Vatican today that "pro-abortion politicians" should be denied communion because they are "not fit" to receive it. What does this kind of statement have to do with what Jesus taught? Almost nothing. Jesus was one who embraced the outcasts of society and welcomed them at his table. It leads me to believe that he would have included even pro-abortion politicians. For his day to say that there was a "good Samaritan" would be like an American today saying there is a "good pedophile." Jesus accepted everyone as a child of God, and that meant no one excluded. It seems he was a Universalist. The Gospels are full of stories where he went out of his way to welcome those that were deemed impure. So, how is it that an organization purporting to carry his mission forward decides that some are not fit to be at the table? The Eucharist is a reenactment of that outcast community accepted at Jesus' table, so it seems genuinely blasphemous to distort it the way Cardinal Arinze has. Considering the scandals that have plagued the Catholic church involving pedophiles and their protection, one might think that the church would embrace the "good pedophile" but reject the Samaritan. What kind of organization can justify such contradictory positions? I can only conclude that it must be a corrupt one.
- posted by Marcos @ 8:47 PM (0) comments

 
Beware The Religious

It's come to my mind lately that those who openly proclaim their Christianity seem to be asking for some kind of exemption. For example, when confronted with her lying in order to get more in unemployment benefits, one woman said that she wouldn't have done that because she's a Christian. Then, there's the President who is only too glad to let you know that he is deeply religious and admires Jesus Christ. Yet, he lies, hides his official documents, seemed to enjoy knowing he was promoting capital punishment when he was Governor of Texas, and starts an unprovoked war. It's sort of like a book I read once called The Opposite of Everything Is True. You can just about bank on the fact that anyone who broadcasts their Christianity is anything but Christian. Jesus called on his followers to pray and do their religious acts in private, so as not to be like the Pharisee who prayed loudly in the temple. There was something behind his instruction to be quiet about religion. I think it was to avoid the temptation of elevating oneself above others, or striving to make a good impression when just simply accepting and respecting everyone would be enough. There seems to be a self-promotion aspect to this kind of open proclaiming of being Christian. The very thing that Jesus calls us not to do.
- posted by Marcos @ 1:43 PM (0) comments

 
Life After Death, Does It Matter?

There's been a lot of discussion on the UUCF list about life after death and resurrection. Some take it figuratively, some spiritually, etc. Those of us alive in the 21st century find it most difficult to believe in either life after death or resurrection. I'm pretty agnostic about it myself, because I agree with the Buddha that it doesn't really matter. What matters is now, and that's all we can really know for now (pun intended). But, there are kinds of phenomena current in the world that claim resurrection, and it's not Christian per se. This was pointed out in an Easter sermon at the First UU Church in Austin, Texas. The minister there reported on the famous Elvis sightings as the kind of thing that might have been going on back in first century Palestine with Jesus' disciples. Of course, many of us laugh at those who've seen Elvis, but it doesn't make them any less sincere. Another kind is the kind that persons in Alcoholics Anonymous have. Believe me, that's no small thing! They literally feel re-born or better said - resurrected. Their families would agree for the most part. But, does that constitute life after death? Well, no not literally, but what's the great value of literal understandings anyway? Literal understanding is what my dogs have, very straightforward "that's how it is" sort of thinking. However, we humans are capable of much more and deeper understanding than just literalism. I think I'll go with the deeper understanding...so, okay, there is life after death, it's just not literal.
- posted by Marcos @ 5:03 PM (0) comments

 
The Life of Pi

Just finished reading The Life of Pi. I highly recommend it. It's about an boy from India who is a survivor of a shipwreck in the Pacific Ocean. His father owned and operated a zoo in India, and was immigrating to Canada, because he didn't agree with the politics of Indira Gandhi when she was in power. He has arranged to sell most all of the zoo animals to zoos in Canada and the US, so the animals are on the ship along with Pi's family. After the shipwreck Pi is on a lifeboat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and an adult Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. Yes, the book is weird, but it's a great story. The author tells how he came to hear about Pi, and how Pi's story will make you believe in God. A tall order, but he accomplishes it.
- posted by Marcos @ 1:07 PM (0) comments

 
The Need for a Scapegoat

I have been reading on the web several articles by and about Rene Girard. He's the founder (if that's the word) of the theory of mimetic rivalry. He says all myths involve a mob ganging up on one standout and killing him because their own violence and rivalry have become a threat to the peaceful functioning of society. The release in the mob murder of a victim is a catharsis, and the society can go back to peaceful existence. After the murder people begin to reflect on the victim and realise that he had embodied great power, because he "saved" them from one another. That's how gods get started. This notion is truly fascinating, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. Athough it is true that mobs are very mercurial and dangerous. It's started me to thinking about how we do the same (albeit on a more peaceful basis) in our lives and jobs. It provides an entirely new lens to view the everyday world. Not a particularly pleasant lens mind you.
- posted by Marcos @ 10:21 AM (0) comments

 
Spiritual But Not Religious

It's pretty common nowadays to hear people describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious." I would argue that it is inconsistent with human nature to be unreligious. When a person acts in any realm of his life, he is being religious. How's that again? Yes, when a person acts, he is being religious. Any action implies intention, and intention is based on some thought (maybe not much of one). Thinking means deciding among an infinity of options to take, and doing one of them. The one chosen has some value over the others, no matter how insignificant that value is. Therefore, religion is doing what we perceive to be the act of highest value among the options. So, if I'm a National Security Advisor testifying before Congress, and I shade the truth, how is that religious? It's religious because I believe that having power or having a good image or some other such thing is the higest value at that moment. Hey, I didn't say that being religious was always the right thing, just that it's always the human thing.
- posted by Marcos @ 8:25 PM (0) comments

 
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

No it sure won't. The revolution never is. It wouldn't be a revolution if it was. The very nature of television mitigates against any revolution. In fact, once television touches anything, it changes the character of that which it touches. Much like the story of Midas, sadly everything he touched turned to gold, even his daughter. TV touches any subject, and sadly it becomes trivialized, even war. If you want your revolution to be for real, make sure it doesn't get on TV!

The revolution I have in mind is an internal one. Conversion, transformation, change of heart. How do you go about doing that? If I knew, I wouldn't blog it, because the revolution won't be blogged either.
- posted by Marcos @ 8:12 PM (0) comments