How to Live and Why

O.E. Parker wrote: "Is is important for everyone to live according to a consistent ethic? For anyone? How do you build, find, or choose such an ethic? How do you evaluate its worth?"

Sweet, an easy topic for my first night of vacation! Seriously, though, that's the question, isn't it? Seems like most of lived religion, and quite a bit of lived stuff that isn't religion, is meant to answer the question of how people should live and why. (Except for that part of religion which deals with the question of how people should worship and why, which inspires fights equally if not more bitter.)

We learned a model in our Art of Theology class called theological reflection, kind of a misleading name--it sounds like it helps you create theology, like books in libraries, but it's meant to lead to practice. The general steps are attending to experience, engaging in dialogue between tradition and experience and allowing the fruits of this dialogue to lead you to change your practice. Of course, this presumes a million things about someone's willingness to attend to her own experience, to learn about tradition and to change.

Another weakness of this model is that it begs the question of whether you need to experience something in order to come to a theological decision about it. This model would work fine for developing an ethical response to something that happened to you (assuming you had the time--which is actually a critique of this model we came up with in class) but it's hard to see how it would apply in all cases for making decisions about the future. Some decisions, like whether to join the priesthood, you can approximate by coming close to them, living in formation or something like that. Other decisions, like whether or not to sign a DNR order for a relative, there's really no way to come close to until you've been there. And then, of course, if you listen to your experience in dialogue with tradition and come to change your position on a moral issue you've lived through, people will accuse you of being relativist and wishing to change rules only when they suit you.

I don't think you can "choose" an ethic, and I also notice that people do it all the time. Deciding what you want, and then adhering to it consistently, might work for a New Year's resolution, but it doesn't require the self-transformation of a Build Your Own Ethic (tm) reflection. This would be true whether you were creating yourself a hedonist or a puritan; self-enforced rigidity of behavior isn't transformation, although it's not impossible for the former to cause the latter.

How do you evaluate its worth? I think you answered your own question with your use of the word "consistent." Does the behavior your ethic demands express the person you want to be? Are the general principles behind that ethic expressed in everything you think it leads you to do? Consistency should include a committment to re-evaluating the ethic itself. This might mean that your ethic will change, but it doesn't have to--it could be that the ethic will stay the same but as your life and experience change, you'll find that a completely different understanding of the same ethic is more helpful for you.

Is it important to live according to a consistent ethic? Depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want a meaningful point of reference to look to in making decisions, then sure. (That's why some champions of rigid so-called orthodoxy are so pleased with themselves about it: immobile lodestar, constant certitude.) If you think you'll give a better account of your beliefs by living consistent with them . . . well, it would be nice if it worked that way. Some people will write off all your beliefs because one of them doesn't jibe with theirs, others will be confounded because your ethics don't conform to what they think your ethics should be, given your beliefs, and others will be affronted by the fact that you attempt to live by a constant ethic at all. All love to St. Paul, and I do think it's important not to make a stumbling block where you can, but in an age where everyone (even Theologienne) feels entitled to her own ethical platform I think it's best just to worry about style when it comes to stumbling block removal. One can't go around massaging one's ethics to consist with the local climate. If you think you'll be happier living with a consistent ethic, it's very possible. Many derivations from God's plan for them make people profoundly unhappy. On the other hand, there are definitely those who aren't capable of using an ethic as anything but a whip on their own backs. Is it useful to know what you think so you can figure out how you think in relation to others, and know whether you're learning from someone who agrees or disagrees? One thousand percent. Should you worry that God will love you less if you don't live consistently?

Isn't it obvious?

More relevant commentary on those hilarious Catholics

The Nation covering Limbo: just the latest evidence that the Church can't sneeze without the media (even if "mainstream" doesn't apply here) catching a snobbily superior sort of pneumonia. It'd be nice if Catholic Relief Services' work in Pakistan or the U.S. Bishops' advocacy for immigrant rights got that kind of ink, but that would never do. In a Bush-battered world, to whom can media consumers feel superior if not those ignorant, superstitious and oh yeah, homophobic Catholics?

And for pete's sake, this isn't even timely. When was the last time somebody told you to your face Limbo existed, or mentioned the concept at all without looking slightly nervous and embarassed? No, those babies have been out on the streets for lo these many years. I say this because, you know, I'm Catholic, and so I think of Limbo as an actual physical PLACE. With STREETS.

Believe by adding, not detracting

Sorry, dude.

I'm reading pell-mell through Method in Theology (because I have to, not because of the gripping plotline, no offense to Lonergan). It isn't all about dry Method, thank God; he lays out stuff like Good and Meaning, which are, you know, useful for a Theologienne to have a grip on. In this paragraph on dealing with mistaken beliefs, I saw the representation of the two kinds of people who challenge the Church today. Lonergan writes:

It is not enough to remove mistaken beliefs and to reform the mistaken believer. One has to replace as well as remove, to build up as well as tear down. Mere hunting for errors can leave one a personal and cultural wreck without convictions or commitments. By far the healthier procedure is primarily positive and constructive, so that what is true more and more fills out one's mind, and what is false falls away without leaving a gap or scar.

I'm reminded of a progressive Catholic I met who announced that he "hated" the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. I was surprised, because Cardinal Bernardin is practically a saint at my progressive Catholic school; without having read much by the Cardinal himself, I know him as a crusader (oh dear) for healthy Christian-Jewish-Muslim relations and as a leading exponent of the "seamless garment" doctrine of life, which is to say that we should cherish life from conception through death. Radical Catholics often point to this perspective in support of death penalty reform, prisoner's rights and generally as a balanced life ethic instead of just "outlaw abortion. BLAH!" But this man, a "mere hunter for errors," in my view, said, "I'm pro-choice," and so he shredded the seamless garment and the rest of Cardinal Bernardin's worthy teachings along with it. With such a scorched-earth approach to knowledge, don't you wonder why he still chooses to remain Catholic? I suppose there must be some reconstructive knowledge-gathering going on, but this person doesn't seem to have admitted it to himself. Too bad. The first step in Lonergan's transcendental method of theologizing is "Attend."

Gay priests doc falls into open chasm

The new gay priests document is causing pain and argument, but will its schismatic effect mirror that of dissent on birth control? "We are seeing deja vu of the `Humanae Vitae' crisis," said the Rev. Anthony Figueiredo, referring to the 1968 papal encyclical that defined the church's opposition to artificial birth control and opened deep ideological fissures among Catholics." (Vatican's Gay Policy Gets Liberal Reading - Yahoo! News.) Um, sure--because the number of Catholic couples raising families is totally equivalent to the number of young men becoming priests. Yes, this document affects all Catholics--it will contribute to the shortage of ordained sacramental ministers, and it adds an unpleasant wrinkle to our Church's position on gays and lesbians. But it will most affect men becoming priests, and there's no way these couldn't have already known that the institutional Church position on homosexuality (as separate form the lived experiences and ministries of many Catholics) is not welcoming. Humanae Vitae had such a rumbling effect because it affirmed status quo where a change was seen as possible. Catholics who consider gays and lesbians as equal children of God knew, before this document, that the Church taught differently. Catholics who think gays and lesbians somehow deserve less out of life than others have had their intolerance affirmed. The "schism" Fr. Figueriredo refers to was already there.

Grace, grief, and green ribbons for gay priests

I apologize for my long absence. Here's that blog on the gay priests document I've been promising.

Readers Jocelyn and Tatiana sent me this poignant reflection by a gay priest on Beliefnet.com. Thanks, ladies. The doc calls Father Gerard Thomas (a pseudonym) a "celibate gay priest," which sounds pejorative to me--you don't normally say a "celibate priest." Let's give the man credit for keeping the vows he took. Anyway, Fr. Thomas calls the document "to use some official church terminology, a cause for "scandal," something that will cause people to lose heart in the church." Scandal comes from "stumbling block"; when St. Paul told the early Christians that to do this or that would cause scandal to the Gentiles, he didn't want any aspect of the Christians' behavior to keep those without faith from knowing God. For how many lapsed Catholics or curious others will this document strike the final blow against Catholicism?

Like any tough time in the Church, this has brought with it its share of unexpected and strengthening grace. (This is easier to say if you're not a gay priest, but such I have never claimed to be.) Laypeople and priests are reacting with strength and fortitude. Priests across America are acting in a variety of brave ways as conscience dictates:

Rev. Leonard Walker of Mesa, AZ has resigned his parish role and is taking a leave of absence from his order, the Salvatorians. Without disclosing his sexual orientation, he said he could no longer in good conscience support the Church's "anti-gay positions."

Rev. Fred Daley of Rochester, NY has come out as a gay priest and retains his ministry and the trust of his parish. Same for Rev. Thomas J. O'Brien, a gay Jesuit ministering in Detroit. Fr. Karl Clemens of Toronto is a retired gay priest who ministers to Toronto's "gay village." It's brave and integritous, if that's a word, of these priests to come out, especially now, when they're walking into a storm. I don't agree with some (warning: language and sanctimony) who hold that for any gay priest to stay in the closet is hypocrisy. In Christ we are without difference, remember? Celibacy means choosing to live your sexuality as an engine of love for all the people you serve, not as a gift of love to one other person. A priest's sexuality, like his race or any other facet of personal identity, should only matter if he chooses to use it to say something about who God is and how the Church needs to be.

I was happily surprised to see many bishops saying they'll still ordain men who understand themselves as gay. Then you have homophobes like Bishop John M. D'Arcy, quoted in the Washington Post, who obviously wants to have no priests to his name in 20 years. Seriously, keep an eye on the diocese of Fort Wayne. In contrast, Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester, practical and pastoral, is still welcoming gay men's vocations.

Lay people are standing up for the Church Jesus wants and the priests they love. Voice of the Faithful is asking us to wear green ribbons to Mass throughout the season to show support for all priests who minister holily regardless of their sexual orientation.

Sure seems to be working for this girl.

Put one on. It'll look great with your yuletide attire.

(Liturgy nerds that we are, my roommate and I immediately wondered why green ribbons were being used. It hardly seems right to evoke Ordinary Time when good gay priests are being told they would not be ordained today. My complicated theory was this: purple in Catholic symbology stands for waiting, and as such it's the color of church reform and women's ordination and it's associated in the Church and the secular world with gay and lesbian rights. So purple would have been the obvious choice, but since in Advent we're surrounded by purple anyway, perhaps green was chosen to provide a contrast? I found with Google that VOTF has used green ribbons to show membership for a few years now, but no explanation of the color. Green ribbons also represent awareness for organ donation, which I found when I did my image search is the pet cause of, um, Ms. World Leather 2004. Anyone have better insights?

Jesus' Actions Exaggerated, Assert the Informed

The Jesus Seminars are a method of historical study in which biblical scholars vote on which of Jesus' sayings they think are authentic. About 20% of what the Bible attributes to Jesus passes muster. I know many believing thinkers who think this approach is reductive and even silly, and I tend to agree, although I think more could be done in this mega-collaborative vein. Anyway, I thought of the Jesus Seminars when I saw this clip from Family Guy.

New Age Reinvents Wheel of Continence

Long associated with the wheel used to torture Saint Catherine, the Wheel of Continence has since been discovered to function mainly to carry you home to see your kin. But seriously, a yoga instructor's written a book on how you should get to know someone before you sleep with them.

Safer-sex singer shot down

Even wearing rubber bracelets!

I owe my diminutive public a post on the seminary document, but for now, ponder this: The Jesuits--the Jesuits!--dropped a singer from a fundraising concert because she's promoted condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. (Vatican clips condom campaigner from Christmas concert lineup - CNN.) Daniela Mercury, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Justin Guarini, will cede stage space to Paul Anka, who as anyone can see is A-OK with abortion, but hey. My favorite quote in this article? The guy who said "It's the Pope's loss." Such certainty!

Dag, she totally jacked my perm.