Tag: Difference

Zeroing in on the Unknowable

In a way, this describes what, over the centuries, theologians often have been doing—and even scientists, too! But, remember, getting more and more insight and information doesn’t mean we fully understand what ultimately remains a mystery and unknowable.
   This is not a critique of faith. Believing and knowing are two different things. Knowledge is more a matter of exploring, learning, testing, and gaining understanding. On the other hand, belief is more a matter of confidence, trusting, and daring.
   You may be my friend and I love and trust you, but that doesn’t mean that I had thoroughly investigated everything you thought, said, and did over the whole course of your life to reach this conclusion.
   A classic example: the Bible. We often say that it is the revealed word of God. Does that mean, can that mean, that every single word of the Bible was said by, was communicated by God?
   The Bible is not one unified book, but a collection of various kinds of writings and reflections by many different people over a span of many centuries—and translated by a variety of different translators.
   You’re not meant to take every single sentence or statement in the Bible and trust that it is exactly what God said—but you can trust that what you read is somebody’s interpretation in good faith of what God inspired and how it is to be understood.
   Another example: the Sacraments. We often presume that if the right person says the right words in the right language and performs the right actions certain spiritual things necessarily will happen.
   But, that’s almost a definition of magic. These may be regulations for celebrating the particular sacrament, but the sacramental action remains mysterious and also requires prayer and acts of faith and trust in God and his revelations and his love.

   The Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas is an outstanding example of the successes and the limitations of an in-depth investigation into the nature of the mysteries of our faith.
   Using the intellectual concepts and tools of Aristotle, Thomas explored the meaning of the core expressions of our Christian beliefs, especially and notably the Eucharist.
   He increased our understanding of what is ultimately not completely knowable. With the distinctions of matter and form, substance and accident, and other Aristotelian concepts, Thomas profoundly advanced our understanding of our faith.
   But no matter how deeply he explored the mystery and how effectively he articulated his findings, he still did not have all the answers.
   His concept of transubstantiation is brilliant, but it’s not a complete answer or a solution, in spite of its well-honed and respected deep insights, to this mystery of the Eucharist.
   We know that Jesus broke and distributed bread and poured and shared wine at his last supper with his disciples, usually considered a Seder, a meal where the salvific acts of God were symbolically remembered.
   Was he adding to the traditional symbols of salvific acts of God to be ever remembered and celebrated by his followers? Or, even more, was he saying that the partakers were somehow mystically sharing his very life, body and blood?
   If you can’t quite fully understand, you’re in good company. Thomas didn’t either, although he did a great job of zeroing in on the unknowable. Ultimately it’s not a matter of knowledge, but of belief.


24 April 2022

Uniforms, Uniformity, and Uniqueness

This is all about you (and me, too).
   If it reminds you of something very familiar, it should. After all, we’ve always said that “clothes don’t make the man” (or woman)—although we usually never stop trying.
   Lots of people use special dress or uniforms; for instance: soldiers, sailors, kings, queens, priests, nuns, judges, doctors, nurses, etcetera.
   Just because someone looks good doesn’t mean that he or she is good. And, just because two people look the same—either because of their bodies or because of their clothing—it doesn’t mean they are the same.  Similar they may be, but exactly the same, no.
   Even “identical” twins are not 100% identical—and that applies to all living beings no matter how they’re related or dressed or talk or seem.
   If you’ve ever seen a military dress parade, you know that it’s very impressive. Everyone is dressed almost the same, everyone walks in step with everyone else—they seem to be one highly trained body—but, even so, nobody is 100% the same as anybody else.
   On the battlefield, in a crisis, we don’t want every soldier marching in tune and thinking exactly the same and following the same orders in exactly the same way. Besides obedience, we also want initiative, creativity, courage, and skill.
   Do you ever stop to think that you (and I, and each of us) are fundamentally unique? In the entire history of the human race there never has been another person exactly like you, and there never will be one.
   You may have ideas or understandings or experiences that no one else has ever had. Similar, yes, but exactly the same, no!
   It’s mind-boggling to think of it, but encouraging, too. Without you, the world would be somehow diminished!

   If I really appreciate you, I should think “Thanks be to God for you”, and if I really appreciate myself, I should also think “Thanks be to God for me”!
   That we are, what we are, why we are, how we are, all of these are reasons for gratitude, thanksgiving, gladness, and joy (when we think of our creator and creation) and, conversely, sometimes reasons for regret, sadness, and shame (when we think of ourselves and our mistakes and failings).
   But, for better or for worse, there never was another person just like you and there never will be another person just like you.
   There are things that will never be done without your doing them; there are ideas that will never be explored without your exploring them; most of all, there are people that will never be helped without your helping them.
   You, and each of us, are very important to the designs of God, to the future of the world we live in together, and to the well-being of others.
   All this is not about fame. It has nothing to do with notoriety. You may never be explicitly recognized or appreciated. But, without the contribution you make, the world will never become what it could have, for better or for worse!
   It’s okay to wear the same uniform as others—it says that you are committed to the same cause, share the same values, and strive for the same purposes.
   It’s okay to march to the same drumbeat as others—so long as you never forget that you have a unique destiny and a unique set of skills and purpose, and that if you are lacking or holding back, there is no one who can ever completely replace you!


3 April 2022

Frames of Reference

Frame of reference:  a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc., by means of which an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior.

   We all have and utilize frames of reference, and much of the time we barely realize it or advert to them.
   Here’s a simple example. When I was a child and started school in New York City, the first question I was asked by the other kids was, “What are you?”
   In those days and in that place, the question meant, “What is your national background or family origins?”
   (Since the United States was generally an immigrant country, what differentiated people was the country they or their parents or other relatives came from.)
   I never had a simple answer like Italian, French, or English. I had to explain that my father was of German descent (German Jewish, since “Stern” was immediately identified as a Jewish name) and my mother, of Irish descent (presumably Catholic of course).
   My parents had agreed before marriage to raise their children as Catholics, and so I was, but the confusion lingered. Even as a young priest, sometimes I was asked how old I was when I converted (i.e., became a baptized Catholic)?
   Sometimes I enjoyed answering, “A couple of hours!” My birth was difficult for my mother, and I was presumably dying at birth and hastily baptized.
   The expected kind of answer to, “What are you?” would have been very different in another place or time. The answer might well have been your caste, trade, tribe, or social class.
   Some other frames of reference in our lives are more subtle and less obvious.

   For example, religious teachings, practices, and beliefs. First, they vary among different religions, but they also vary within the same religion. They may be fixed and unchanging or developing and evolving.
   In Christian tradition we still have a lot of words and practices which originated in and reflect a different physical, scientific, social, or other frame of reference. For example:
   – a flat world: the good go up (heaven) and the bad go down (hell).
   – a ranking of persons: “clergy” (upper or ruling class) and “laity’ (lower or subject class).
   – degrees or kinds of divinity or godliness: the blessed Trinity, angels and their ranks and functions, saints and their distinctiveness and roles.
   Often religious misunderstandings and conflicts are rooted in frames of reference that are not recognized as such.
   If you’re familiar with the great works of St. Thomas Aquinas, you can’t help but be dazzled by their depth and breadth. But, his frames of reference, besides Christian faith and the customs of his day included the philosophy of the pagan Aristotle.
   Many disagreements within Christianity are rooted in different cultures, practices, historical traditions, and linguistic systems.
   A holy writer esteemed by some may be considered as unintelligible by others.
   “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin” may once have been a legitimate topic for debate among scholars long ago, but now is usually dismissed as a ridiculous and even meaningless question.
   The point is, we all have frames of reference. Try to be aware of them. and try to keep yours up to date!


30 January 2022

At Home on the Range

No, this is not about the song
   It’s about how comfortable we are about where we seem to find ourselves—or others choose to situate us—on the various ranges or scales that we use to describe and measure our appearance, behavior, popularity, feelings, skills, etc.
   Here’s a notorious example: skin color—classifying people on a range from Black to White (which actually is a range from dark to light).
   Nobody is at either extreme. Nobody’s skin is 100% black or dark, and nobody’s skin is 100% light or white.
   We all may know many so-called “black” people who are paler than some so-called “white” people, and many so-called “white” people who are darker than some so-called “black” people.
   When we use a range or scale like that to describe one another, we’re really thinking about all kinds of factors besides skin color—physiognomy, dress, behavior, ethnic origins, family, social status, education, wealth, etc.
   Just think about what we’re trying to get at—and how confusing it gets— when we classify people on the “conservative-liberal” range, or the “young-old” range, or the “smart-dumb” range, or the “weak-strong” range, or the “good-bad” range, or the “rich-poor” range.
   Whatever range we’re using to describe ourselves or another, there’s one common factor to them all: nobody is at the extreme of any range; no one is 100% anything!
   In other words, we all have and may display to some extent a bit of both: I may be fairly liberal about somethings and conservative about others, know a lot about somethings and little about others.
   And, of course, as we change and develop, our position on any of these ranges shifts, more towards one extreme or the other—sort of like the way the mercury moves one way or the other in a thermometer.

   Here’s another contemporary example: sexuality—classifying people on a range from heterosexual to homosexual.
   Nobody is 100% at either extreme—or exactly in the middle (e.g.. “bisexual”). Nobody is only and exclusively attracted to others of the opposite sex and never, ever attracted to the other—and vice-versa.
   When we use a range or scale like that to describe one another, we’re really thinking about all kinds of factors besides sexual attraction and/or behavior—physiognomy, dress, mores, cultural standards, affects, etc.
   With this range, there are key factors which strongly influence our reactions and judgements—our standards of morality and, or based on, our religious formation.
   A strong influence in the shaping of standards of morality and religious formation until fairly recent times, especially in Western societies, is sometimes identified as Jansenism (based on the writings of a 17th century theologian, Cornelius Jansen).
   This movement, rooted in Augustinian theology, emphasized original sin, the fundamental sinfulness of the human condition, and the need for divine grace. It inspired a very rigorous moral theology, especially in sexual matters.
   For example, I can remember being taught as a child in catechism class that the sixth commandment (about adultery) forbade, under penalty of mortal sin, “impure” thoughts, feelings, desires, and actions.
   I was terrified by what, in retrospect, I later realized were bad religious teachings.
   A moral to all this: be aware of the range of views regarding most matters and beware of believing your judgement about the right point on any range is the only legitimate, unbiased one. (Alas, we’re not infallible!)


23 May 2021

Traduttore, Traditore

traduttore is Italian for “translator”.
traditore is Italian for “traitor”.

It’s a great expression. It sums up so much so concisely and unforgettably. It calls attention to the tremendous challenges of effectively and correctly translating from one language to another.
Within the same language, it’s possible to mistake one word for a similar other (that’s the play on words in the title above).
Every language has words or phrases without an exact one-word-to-one-word equivalent to another. (That’s most of what we mean by “idioms” — and if you mistranslate idioms are you an “idiot”?)
There also can be a translation problem within the same language, since — like all things — languages change, develop, and evolve with the passage of time.
I have a vague childhood memory of a meaningless lyric, “Flat Foot Floozie (with a Floy Floy)”. Now I know it was the title of a 1938 song. “Floozie” was slang then for a sexually promiscuous woman, and “floy floy”, for a venereal disease.
Sometimes you may have had difficulties understanding Shakespeare — he used a lot of contemporary slang, too!
From the ridiculous to the sublime, how about understanding and translating the Bible and other documents of the Church?
Most of the Jewish scriptures (“Old Testament”) were written in Hebrew, but some parts were in Greek.
The Christian scriptures (“New Testament”), as we have them, are in Greek, although many biblical scholars hold that some may have been translated from an Aramaic original.
The early Church spoke, wrote, and prayed in Greek, the common spoken language of the Greek and eastern Roman empires.

Latin, the common language of the Romans, began to be used instead of Greek for church liturgy, law, and official communications from the fifth century.
From ecclesiastical history, we know that many of the early divisions of the one Church were rooted in ethnic, cultural, and, especially, linguistic misunderstandings.
Translating key theological expressions from the Greek into the Latin was challenging and sometimes inadequate. Thanks be to God, in the ecumenical climate of the latter 20th century, most of these linguistic misunderstandings, inadequate translations, and theological controversies have been resolved.
The Church of Rome took over 400 years to switch finally from Greek to the Latin vernacular language.
It took it over 1,500 years to switch entirely from Latin to the various spoken vernacular languages of the modern world.
“Traduttore, traditore” — translation is always challenging. For example:
– Regarding translating the Bible into English, some still favor familiar Elizabethan English usages (e.g., the King James Bible), even if dated, over contemporary English.
– Regarding translating the Mass into English, some favor fidelity to Latin style and structure (i.e. our current text), even if less intelligible to the majority of present-day speakers of English.
The proud construction of that tower, later known as Babel, was really seriously punished by God: “Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that no one will understand the speech of another.” (Ge 11:7).


13 September 2020

The Whale Tale

It’s often included among the “prophetic books” of the Bible, even though it has little to do with prophecy: the book of Jonah.
It’s not much of a book, only a few pages long; it’s a very short story, but one with lessons.
One of the latest of the Old Testament writings, probably a few centuries before the birth of Jesus, it was a well-known story in Jesus’ day—in fact, he quoted it in his preaching:

An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. At the judgment, the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and there is something greater than Jonah here. (Mt 12: 39b-41; also Lk 11:30-32)

What were the lessons that the book of Jonah was meant to teach?
Well, first of all, how astounding is the mercy of God! No matter how much anyone may ignore God’s will or go against it—no matter what—if they repent, they can be forgiven.
Even more important, God plays no favorites: God’s mercy is for all, without discrimination—as much for the repentant “unbelievers” as for the rebellious prophet!
God isn’t just the God of the Jews—or of the Christians, or of the Muslims. God is the god of every one of his creatures—e.g., everybody, no matter who!
A great lesson for today, when “we” (the right people) are so discriminating about “them” (the wrong people) —no matter who the “we” and the “them” may be!

When I was a child, I learned about people in terms of colors: Black meant of African descent (but south of the Sahara); Red, Indians (Native Americans); White, of European (or Mediterranean) descent; and Yellow, of Asian descent (usually Chinese).
We still haven’t let go of this odd—and inappropriate—way of typing people. Once upon a time, “Colored people” was rejected as “racist” terminology; now it’s “politically correct” for “White” people to refer to most others as “people of color”!
We’re all “people of color”. Everybody has melanin, the pigment in their skin that protects against too much sun, ranging from very little to a lot. (Historically, peoples living closer to the poles were paler and closer to the equator were darker.)
We misuse the word “races” to classify people, since there is only one human race.
Many other of our “classification” words also can be misused or are inappropriate: caste, class, status, education, maturity—also upper, lower, rich. poor, smart, dumb, lazy, and hard-working. They may be useful for comparisons but not for categories—e.g., because I’m fatter than you, that doesn’t necessarily make me a “fat person”.
Most people use these words carelessly with no intention to depreciate or to do harm; some use them carefully and deliberately, knowing what they are doing.
“. . . the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah”. We have something greater—the teaching of Jesus and the best of our religious traditions.
If we really believe, then our actions should speak even louder than our words!


   23 August 2020

From Another Point of View

Remember the experience? A time, when all of a sudden, you looked at a thing from another point of view—and, all of a sudden, it looked very, very different.
Optical illusions are a simple example of that. As a kid, I remember drawing the outlines of a box. You look at it one way, and it’s like you’re looking down on it, even into it, from above—then, all of a sudden, it seems you’re looking up at it from below!
Einstein’s theory of relativity is a sophisticated example of a similar thing. It calls attention to the fact that the position and movement of the observer affects the observation.
Does the sun rise and set? Or, does the earth rotate and the sun stand still?
When did we begin generally to accept the idea that the earth isn’t flat, but round?
Isn’t it odd that the shortest flight from New York to Tokyo may go over the Arctic?

During the Second Vatican Council (1962-1966), there was a very controversial and life-changing shift in a theological point of view:
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 21 November 1964, stated in section 8:

The one mediator, Christ, established and constantly sustains here on earth his holy church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as a visible structure through which he communicates truth and grace to everyone . . .
This is the unique church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic . . . This church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church . . . Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.

What a controversy the cautious words, “subsists in the Catholic Church”, caused! (I remember it well; I was working in the Council at that time.)
Till then, the common point of view was “Outside the church there is no salvation”, and “church” was taken to mean by Catholics as “the Catholic Church”.
The traditional point of view among Catholics before Vatican II was that, over the centuries, many dissidents broke away from the one church of Christ. As a result there now are many churches, but only one is the true church.
The Council began to look at all this from a different point of view. Now, for the first time, Catholics began to distinguish “the church of Christ” from “the Catholic Church.”
“The church of Christ” includes all Christians in their individual and organizational diversity—Western and Eastern Catholics, the various Orthodox churches, the Anglican church, the traditional Protestant churches, Evangelicals, Charismatics, every follower of Jesus!
From this different point of view, there is no black nor white, but various shades of grey. There’s no longer in or out, but varying degrees of unity. The various churches are not ancient enemies seeking unity, but one family whose scattered members are seeking reconciliation.
Negotiations between enemies tend to be rife with suspicion; family reunions are matter of forgiveness and love.
Even if it still seems odd, the shortest way from East to West may go over the North pole!


26 July 2020

Rights, Rules, and Regulations

“It’s a free country, ain’t it?” That used to be part of a very snotty comeback from someone being told what to do—or what not to do.
It’s a very American attitude: brash, bold, assertive, proud—and even disdainful and rebellious.
The United States was born out of rebellion and revolution. The thirteen English colonies rejected the authority of their king, disobeyed his laws and edicts, and asserted that they had a God-given right to be free of him.
Let’s face it, by the standards of their day their behavior was considered illegal, criminal, wicked, and sinful. And, we celebrate it every 4th of July!
The American justification for the revolution and the war for independence involved invoking a higher power and authority than the king and asserting the existence of inalienable natural rights, rights that cannot be taken away by any human authority.
An irony of American history is that we’ve become a very litigious, legalistic country—constantly bring charges against one another and seeking punishment and redress.
We’re constantly arguing about laws, invoking laws, rules, and regulations, and challenging the legitimacy of their interpretation.
American Catholicism also has been very legalistic. For many, the impact of Vatican II was not much more than a change in Church laws, rules, and regulations: turning the altars around, Mass in the vernacular, no more Friday abstinence, and easing up of regulations for Lent.
Here’s a current example of a religious legalism: Because of the Coronavirus, we were “dispensed from the obligation of attending Mass every Sunday”. Dispensed? There weren’t any Sunday Masses!

We can’t blame all of the legalism on American culture. There is a certain legalism in the Church itself.
For centuries, the Church defined itself as a perfect society. The two perfect societies, Church and State, each had their own legislative, judicial, and executive functions and personnel. They each could make laws.
The Church has a Code of Canon Law, courts, judicial trials, and can mete out sentences and punishments.
Of course Church authorities have to be of service to all its members, and their challenge is to be of service: to serve more than rule, to teach more than legislate, to witness more than enforce.
What a curious irony of history! American Catholics historically have been outstandingly obedient, dutiful, and rule-abiding. When it comes to the Church, the majority of them are certainly not at all “brash, bold, assertive, proud—and even disdainful and rebellious”!
In the history of the Church, many others—in many other times and places—have been, for better or for worse!
In hindsight, the American revolution came to be seen as a good—not perfect, not without flaws, faults, and limitations—but as a good. Today, the U.K. and U.S, are not enemies but allies and share common roots, culture, and history.
In the Church, a similar change of attitude has occurred. The “heretics” and “schismatics” of the past are now brothers and sisters in Christ, part of the one Church of Christ in all of its diversity.
Let’s stop waving the “Don’t Step on Me” flag and march under “Ex Pluribus Unum”.


28 June 2020

Motto-vation

Motto: 1. A word, phrase, or sentence chosen as expressive of the goals or ideals of a nation, group, etc. and inscribed on a seal, banner, coin, etc. 2. A maxim adopted as a principle of behavior.

The United States of America has a motto. It was inscribed on its Great Seal, which was adopted by the Continental Congress on 20 June 1782. It has appeared on its coinage since 1795, and on $1 bills since 1935:

E pluribus unum [Out of many, one]

It’s about unity, originally about the uniting of the 13 separate British colonies to become one new, independent country.
It has come to mean the unique ethos of that new country—the fundamental character and spirit of American culture—the underlying sentiment that informs the beliefs, customs, and practices of American society—the ideal and inspiration of the people of the United States.
It has been suggested that the origin of the expression can be traced back to Cicero’s paraphrase of a saying of Pythagoras, regarding basic family and social bonds as the origin of societies and states. Cicero wrote, “When each person loves the other as much as himself, it makes one out of many (unus fiat ex pluribus), as Pythagoras wishes things to be in friendship.”
A much older expression of this ideal is found in the Hebrew scriptures (Leviticus, 19:17-18):

You shall not hate any of your kindred in your heart. Reprove your neighbor openly so that you do not incur sin because of that person. Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your own people. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

Jesus gave us a still higher standard, “Love one another as I have loved you!”
If you’re Catholic and your neighbor is too, you have something in common, a similarity in religious affiliation—but you’re not the same. If you vote Republican or Democrat and your neighbor does the same, you have a similarity in political affiliation—but you’re still different. If you’re male, and your neighbor is female, you have your humanity in common, but you’re not the same.
Loving your neighbor implies loving him/her in spite of differences and diversities—for no two persons are, have been, or will be 100% identical, no matter how many similarities or commonalities they may have.
In 1623 John Donne wrote:

No man is an island,
entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friend’s
or of thine own were.
Any man’s death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.

The one God made the one world we all share. The one Lord redeemed everyone in the whole world. We form one human family, and should be united in spite of our diversity
E pluribus unum is a motto for everyone!


3 May 2020

Cover Story

A precious legacy of blessed Pope John XXIII was the encyclical, Pacem in Terris, issued just before his death in 1963. This forthright, clear and openhearted appeal “to all men of good will” showed the way to peace in the modern world.
One challenging section distinguished “between error as such and the person who falls into error — even in the case of men who err regarding the truth or are led astray as a result of their inadequate knowledge, in matters either of religion or of the highest ethical standards.
“A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity . . . Besides, there exists in man’s very nature an undying capacity to break through the barriers of error and seek the road to truth.
“God, in his great providence, is ever present with his aid. Today, maybe, a man lacks faith and turns aside into error; tomorrow, perhaps, illumined by God’s light, he may indeed embrace the truth.”
What followed startled many readers by its implicit reference to Marxist Communism:
“Again it is perfectly legitimate to make a clear distinction between a false philosophy of the nature, origin and purpose of men and the world, and economic, social, cultural and political undertakings, even when such undertakings draw their origin and inspiration from that philosophy.
“True, the philosophic formula does not change once it has been set down in precise terms, but the undertakings clearly cannot avoid being influenced to a certain extent by the changing conditions in which they have to operate.
“Besides, who can deny the possible existence of good and commendable elements in these undertakings, elements which do indeed conform to the dictates of right reason, and are an expression of man’s lawful aspirations?”

Pope John is affirming that “actions speak louder than words.” We should be more concerned about the other’s behavior than the ideology to which he or she appeals — it’s possible to collaborate in good works with anyone.
In matters religious, one can always find texts in Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy books that can outrage and offend the sensibilities of others. But that doesn’t mean that Jews, Christians and Muslims should never trust one another nor work together.
As a Christian, I’m outraged and offended by many things done by Christians over the centuries. I don’t identify with these deeds. For me, those responsible for them are “so- called” Christians, since what they have done is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus.
With all due respect, the same can be said by Jews and Muslims — and by adherents to Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, various traditional religions, and no religion at all.
Relentlessly holding on to historical — and recent — memories of past offenses, like a dog with a bone, belies compassion, mercy, forgiveness and love.
In matters political, the situation is similar. Politics is the art of the possible, founded on respect for the dignity and rights of every person. Political leaders who demonize the other because of his or her politics, belief or ideology, who refuse to trust or to work together, don’t even need to be identified as a “so-called” anything — by now calling them “politicians” increasingly suffices.
You might say that Pope John’s thought is, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” In that case, look for the inside story and try hard to read each other person like a book!


(Published in
one, 37:2, March 2011)