Either-Or-ers vs. Both-And-ers

What’s an “either-or-er”? The odd title suggests a keen awareness of differences, an inclination to focus on the incompatible aspects of things, perhaps a tendency to be judgmental, a likelihood to position everyone and everything on a scale of individual values.
   What’s a “both-and-er”? This odd title suggests a greater awareness of commonalities, an inclination to focus on the compatible aspects of things, a tendency to be inclusive, a likelihood to position everyone and everything within a pool of similar values.
   Here are a few examples:
   – in medical practice, a highly competent cardiology specialist may know little about infectious diseases and barely recognize them, while maybe a general practitioner would;
   – in baseball, an overall good team player may be more highly valued than an occasional heavy hitter.
   – in politics, a leader of a party who can effectively communicate and collaborate with a leader of another party is often more effective than an esteemed and perhaps popular individual who cannot.
   Historically, sometimes people who are initially more “either-or” may gradually tend to become more “both-and”.
   People initially thought of as primarily one or the other, this or that (i.e., totally different), gradually can come to be seen as having a lot of commonalities, one with the other.
   The opposite is also true: someone at first attracted by commonalties may end up increasingly focused on differences.
   Changing attitudes and understandings can also be seen in religious matters, too. Many religious groups that once had been decidedly divided one from the other and separated are gradually finding common ground.

For example:
   – Judaism originally (in the early Biblical times) was perhaps more unified and less diverse than it is today. But, even so, today, in spite of a wide variety of points of view and religious practices, all their adherents still consider themselves Jewish.
   – Christianity started as a branch of traditional Jewish religion, but after a while both Jews and Christians became more focused on their differences than their commonalities.
   – Christians themselves once had such low tolerance for differences that Christian groups with different practices came to be regarded as separate (and antagonistic) churches that were often denounced by the other. (The modern ecumenical movement is trying gradually to reverse that.)
   In our days, there are three great monotheistic religious groups—Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Each of them worships the one (and necessarily the same) God, in spite of their difference in their holy books, history, and practices.
   Something similar could be observed about other aspects of our modern society. Almost all religious, political, and social groups, in spite of their differences in practices, values, and mutual esteem, tend to share more and more what once were the separate history and values of each.
   Every person has personal dignity, unique values, and can make unique contributions. In spite of all the problems in our modern world, happily we’re gradually, slowly but surely, seeing more both-and-ers (and fewer either-or-ers)!
   At the risk of being a little chauvinistic, don’t forget, “E pluribus unum!”

28 May 2023

Coronation and Ordination

6 May 2023 was the Coronation of Charles III as king of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland and a sovereign venerated in many other places around the world.
   In the United States we’re English enough in our roots that the whole beautiful ceremony in London was televised in full by several TV stations.
   Watching, I couldn’t help but thinking that this ceremony, in church and being led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, was similar to what I’m familiar with as an ordination.
   An ordination ceremony is about receiving holy orders—that is to say, about being commissioned to a role of service and leadership in the Church, much like the assignment of officers in the military.
   The coronation didn’t make Charles king. That was a matter of lineage. He became king as soon as Queen Elizabeth II died. But the coronation was the celebration of his elevation to this special rank, office, and responsibilities in his land—and intercessory prayers to God to strengthen and guide him.
   The coronation, again referencing the military model, was a commissioning—about holy orders, about the king assuming responsibilities under God for the country and all its people.
   The ceremonies, though they didn’t make Charles king, celebrated his new role, under God, for the good and welfare of the people subject to his rule.
   English history has many a tale about great and good kings—and the opposite! (The same could be said about the English church leaders.)
   The days described in “A Man for All Seasons” and the tales about Henry VIII were entertaining. They probably were accurate enough. But they were about times of bitter divisions and violent competitions.
   Sanctity is not a requirement to be a king—but a commitment, a willingness to sacrifice for others, to serve is!

   We cannot demand perfection of a ruler or leader—perfection is a rare and special gift of God. It’s enough that each does his or her best to do what is right, seeking always what conforms to the will of God and willing to sacrifice themselves for others.
   Thanks be to God that there are people in positions of authority and leadership today willing to do just this, to sacrifice their lives in service to their people. Not necessarily saints, but nevertheless willing to serve God and country, no matter what the cost!
   I suppose in England there may be people who find fault with their new king. But, that could be the case with anyone, since we are all limited creatures of God.
   Thanks be to God, also, that in our day there is much better mutual understanding and respect. We live in a time when nobility is not just a word about class but a description of the service of modern queens and kings. We live in a time when there is no longer competition between Britain and Rome, but collaboration and mutual respect.
   Pope Francis sent a highly meaningful and valuable gift to the new king—a fragment of the true cross of Jesus, a powerful reminder of the price of leadership, collaboration, and responsibility.
   Also, there was an interesting innovation in King Charles’s coronation ceremony: prayers and blessings were offered for the king not only by the senior bishop of the Church of England but also by other religious leaders, even a Catholic cardinal!
   The ancient English royal coronation is still very religious and increasingly ecumenical in spite of the change of so many other things in our tangled and confused modern world..
   God save the king!



7 May 2023

Violence Betrays Religion

During Pope Benedict XVI’s lecture at the University of Regensburg on 12 September, he quoted the views of a late 14th-century Byzantine emperor concerning the unreasonableness of spreading faith through violence.
Emperor Michael II Paleologus presided over a drastically reduced empire. For 700 years, first militant Arabs then Turks had been steadily pushing its frontiers back to the point where it was scarcely more than a city-state.
Christianity was the state religion of the empire. Its opponents, Arabs and Turks, were Muslim. History describes the conflict simply in terms of Muslim versus Christian, omitting the social, economic, and political motives involved, not to mention greed and the hunger for power.
Alas, the followers of each of the three great monotheistic religions from time to time have had recourse to violence in the name of God.
Both ancient and modern Israel were born out of struggle and violence — for example, Joshua tells a tale of merciless bloodshed in the conquest of Canaan.
Christians cannot throw stones with impunity — remember Byzantine Christian armies fighting Persia, Catholic Spaniards conquering pagan Mexico, and Inquisitors judging fellow Christians accused of heresy.
In ancient times, Muslim warriors spread their faith across North Africa and the Middle East to the Pyrenees and the gates of Vienna. Today sectarian violence within the world of Islam is still pitting Shiite against Sunni.
Unfortunately, the holy scriptures of Jews, Christians, and Muslims are sometimes used to justify violence. It is possible to find verses supporting violence in the Torah, the Gospels, and the Qur’an.

What is the main thrust of each of these three great religions? Is it violence? Each has a bewildering array of texts and traditions: Torah, Mishna, Talmud — Gospels, creeds, catechisms, canonical codes — Qur’an, Hadith, Sharia.
The heart of the matter for Jews is the text of Deuteronomy that is enshrined on the lintel of every doorway and wrapped on the arm and brow at prayer: Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone! Therefore, you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength . . .
Christians look to the Last Supper discourse in John’s Gospel where Jesus says: I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
A Muslim never tires of reciting the phrase that is, in effect, the central confession of faith of Islam: There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his messenger.
Violence is in contradiction to what each faith is supposed to preach. Regrettably, rather than see the other as a fellow believer and child of God, we make easy recourse to labels — goy, heretic, infidel, kafr — and easily oversimplify complex modern conflicts as struggles, e.g., between Christianity and Islam, Jew and Muslim
Is there still a lot of violence in the name of religion? Sadly, yes, we know it daily. But, who dare stand before the throne of the one God with brother’s blood on his hands and expect to be rewarded.


(Published as “Religious Violence” in
one, 32:6, November 2006)

Are Christians Jews?

Words are squiggling little things, tough to nail down — their meanings are always changing. When we speak, we presume that the word we use means the same thing to another person as it does to us. But, it often doesn’t work like that.
A challenging word that has a variety of meanings — yet seems so simple and obvious — is “Jews.” It has a long, distinguished history.
The word is rooted in the name Judah, which refers both to one of the twelve sons of Jacob (Israel) and to the Israelite tribe that traced its ancestry to Judah.
After the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan, each tribe was given a territory. From that point on, “Judah” refers not only to a son of Jacob and to a tribe but also to a geographical area.
After the death of Saul, the first king of all the Israelites, David of Judah succeeded him. Initially, he ruled only Judah; later he ruled all Israel. However, this unity was short-lived. A few years later, all the other Israelite tribes except Benjamin rebelled against David’s grandson, and the Israelites became permanently divided into two separate kingdoms.
“Judah” now begins to refer also to a geopolitical entity, the southern kingdom. The northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians in 721 BC; the kingdom of Judah survived until its conquest by the Babylonians in 587 BC.
Until that time, the Bible refers to the people as Israelites. It was only after the conquest of Judah that we find the people referred to as “Jews” and the land as Judea.
“Jews” now means the people of God — worshipers of the one God and practitioners of a religion, Judaism.

In the New Testament it is not so clear what “Jews” means. For example, Jesus and his apostles are called Galileans. This seems to distinguish them from Jews in the sense of people from Judea — yet they are all, religiously speaking, Jews.
At times “the Jews” are portrayed as hostile to Jesus and his disciples. This seems to refer to the official religious leaders, especially those who collaborated with the Romans. Criticism of “the Jews” cannot refer to all Jews, since Jesus and his disciples are numbered among them.
At that time, Jews were divided by doctrine and practice into Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Jesus’ followers formed a new group, messianic Jews, later called Christians.
There are many references to criticism of Jesus by Pharisees and Sadducees. In the years his death, hostility broke out between them and Jesus’ followers. “Jews” came to mean those Jews in opposition to the Jews who followed Jesus.
After the destruction of the Temple, the Pharisee school survived and evolved into modern Judaism. The missionary, expansionist part of the Jewish family became Christianity.
Alas, the ancient differences and hostilities survived rather than the unifying, common traditions and faith. For many, “Jews” became a pejorative term.
It’s baffling how a Christian can be anti-Semitic. I think it means he hates his antecedents and himself.


(Published as”Jews” in
one, 30:4, July 2004)

A Rock and a Hard Place

In March I had the privilege of assisting a group of bishops and rabbis, led by William Cardinal Keeler, on their “Interfaith Journey to Israel and Rome.”
The trip was sponsored by the U.S. Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. Its purpose was for Catholics and Jews to share their experiences of the places dear to each and to see them through the other’s eyes.
You know who was the central figure of the trip? Simon son of Jonah, “the Rock” (or Peter), as he came to be known.
Scene I: We stood in the garden of olives, where Jesus agonized over the prospect of his forthcoming passion and death. And Simon’s role there? He slept.
Scene II: Nearby, we visited the grotto of Gethsemane, where Jesus often spent evenings with his disciples. The place of perfidy, for there Judas marked him with a kiss so that the soldiers could seize him. The Rock? He feebly fought, then fled.
Scene III: Caphernaum, once a bustling lakeshore town on the great Roman Sea Road from Syria to Egypt. Excavations have revealed remnants of a Byzantine church built over the foundations of one house in particular—the humble dwelling of the fishermen brothers, Simon and Andrew.
Only a few years ago a modern shrine-church was built over this site.
The remains of the nearby synagogue evoked memories for all of us — for the Christians, the miracles of Jesus that took place there — for the Jews, the revival in our days of the ancient land of Israel.
“Truly this is a place of miracles for us all,” reflected one of the rabbis.

Scene IV: Tabgha, the Church of the Primacy of Peter. It commemorates the resurrection appearance of Jesus described in John 21. We celebrated Mass by the lakeshore — the bishops who were the celebrants, the rabbis, the congregation.
“Do you love me?,” Jesus three times questioned Simon Peter, who had thrice denied him. And then and there Jesus gave him that great primacy of love: “Feed my sheep.”
Scene V: The Vatican, the Basilica of St. Peter. Upon arriving in Rome, we spent two hours walking through the great church, admiring its art and altars, chapels and statuary.
The next morning we gathered in the grottoes underneath for Mass near the tomb of Peter. Later that day we visited the excavations under the grottoes themselves — the very burial ground over which the church was built.
Scene VI: We attended the public audience in St. Peter’s Square — along with some tens of thousands of fellow pilgrims and visitors. After, we were greeted by Pope John Paul II, the successor of Peter as head of the Church.
Our interfaith journey spanned place and time — from Peter’s simple house in Caphernaum to the great shrine-church marking the place of his crucifixion and burial — from the first fisher of men of Jesus’ time to the one who still walks in the shoes of the fisherman today.


(Published in
Catholic Near East, 24:3, May 1998)

That All May Be One

Why is an organization named “Catholic Near East Welfare Association” concerned with Orthodox churches, not to mention Muslims and Jews?
Therein lies a tale . . .
CNEWA’s birth date was 11 March 1926, when Pope Pius XI directed that “all [American] Catholic organizations working for the common cause of aiding Russia and the Near East, as well as all other organizations proposing to labor for causes comprised within the scope of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church and the Pontifical Commission for Russia, shall be united in one body and remain united under a common direction.
“In particular, the two organizations already working in this field, namely, the «Catholic Near East Welfare Association» and the «Catholic Union» should be merged.”
The prototype Catholic Near East Welfare Association had been chartered 18 months previously to “solicit and procure the voluntary contribution of funds for the relief of suffering people, particularly children, in Greece, Turkey, Armenia and other countries known as the Near East.”
Only three months after that, an American branch of the Catholic Union was incorporated. The Catholic Union had been founded in Europe to promote the reunion of the Ukrainian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox churches with Rome.
The new papal agency, although using the name, “Catholic Near East Welfare Association (CNEWA)”, was charged by the Holy Father to continue laboring for the purposes of both the organizations that had been merged into it.

In 1930, the mandate of CNEWA was extended by the Pope to include support for the pastoral mission and institutions of the Catholic churches of the East.
As the years passed and the Holy See’s institutions and their purposes evolved, so did CNEWA’s:
When two special pontifical councils were established in Rome after Vatican II, one for the promotion of Christian unity and the other for interreligious dialogue, CNEWA began to collaborate with them.
CNEWA’s original purpose of working for the reunion of some Orthodox churches with the Holy See was extended eventually to include all.
As the model for seeking Christian unity gradually shifted from the return to Rome to that of establishing full communion among sister churches, CNEWA began increasingly to offer its services to all branches of the Church, both Catholic and Orthodox.
As the Holy See began to initiate dialogues with Muslims and Jews, CNEWA continued its policy of providing humanitarian assistance to all people without regard to creed and began to promote fraternal relations with non-Christians, especially Jews and Muslims, by collaboration in works of human development.
That’s why our operating principle in this dialogue of charity is: Always act as if the Church is one, unless forced to encounter a difference.


(Published in
Catholic Near East, 22:2, March 1996)