The discussions last week in the combox resulting from my post regarding the appointment of a Hindu as head of the religion department at St. Olaf College (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) were still fresh on my mind when I discovered a story linked to on TCRNews on the rise of Islam in London.
Although I agree with TCR, and I find many of of the claims in the article they reference to be highly doubtful, something inside tells me there is there is a truth being communicated that is still relevant in a world where the traditional religious makeup is quickly changing. Moreover, it precisely brought up the important question, which I had just visited in the post mentioned above, about how we relate to those in our society who differ from us. It's more than interesting to me because I find that multiculturalism is a challenge that we cannot ignore. In response to the story on London's Islamic future TCR's editor writes:
The Church has never embraced a naive multicultural utopianism which mixes irreconcilable principles and thereby risks terrible conflict, but rather urges peace and caring between nations across respectful borders, sharing the bounties of each for each, without precluding reasonable international institutions which assist all nations when called upon.
TCR's response caused me to ask myself several questions. How much is my commitment to multiculturalism naive, and is not multiculturalism in keeping with Catholic social doctrine?" Does multiculturalism in fact mix irreconcilable principles? Is there any hope for the world beyond establishing a peaceful or respectful border?
The official answers from the Church concerning multiculturalism required a good bit of searching, but the question has been addressed in several statements concerning the migratory people in our midst. Often I've heard it said that provided that immigration is legal, and those immigrants show willingness to assimilate into our culture, there's no problem. I find both these positions to be problematic and possibly untenable.
Moreover, when immigrant people share our religion, my observation is that acceptance, while often being troublesome, is not impossible. However, when we add in the variable of a religion that in recent years has shown itself to be challenging, both in terms of its growth worldwide and the intolerance associated with its extremists, multiculturalism asserts unrealistic demands. Do we then dismiss multiculturalism as the enemy of the Church?
Pope John Paul II made the following statement:
In a rapidly changing global order, I am convinced that multi-cultural and multi-religious societies...have much to offer to other nations, since they can assist the wider international community in developing new global models of unity within diversity. A sustained commitment to dialogue between different religions, cultures and traditions is in fact "the obligatory path to the building of a reconciled world, a world able to look with serenity to its own future." (Source )
Such sentiment was shared by Rev. P. Antonio Pernia, S.V.D.
Our ever increasingly multi-cultural world is challenging the Church to also become multi-cultural itself. A multi-cultural Church will be seen by strangers and foreigners not just as a more tolerant but also a more welcoming Church. Part of the missionary task of the Bishop will be to promote a multi-cultural Church - a Church, that is, that fosters recognition of the other, respect for cultural difference, and healthy interaction between cultures. (source)
Actually, I have held off a few days on posting this particular entry. I needed to give it time and prayer because I sense that it is immensely serious as well as being relevant to our times and needs. The gospel today tells us to let our righteousness surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, and we live in a world that more and more demands that we understand and represent the truth in what we convey in our claim to faith.
Ours is the ministry of mercy; the ministry of preaching Christ as Lord. Certainly since the truth of God is in our message we have nothing to fear from the challenges of a changing world. We have no need to be concerned about phenomenal growth in a religion that does not recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Ours is still to show mercy--in it I cannot help but see a gentle hand; a loving and listening heart--rather than to fret over the doubts of a thousand tomorrows.
I believe entirely that God has a plan for us and in that plan we are called to accept those who are most different from us like they were one of us. Vatican II showed us that this thing we call Church is much larger than we imagined. In standing for multiculturalism with all its diversity--not as an empty utopian ideal that gives away all we value, but as part of God's final plan--we stand for the deepest and truest meaning of Church.
There were always and always will be similarities between peoples, but the task set before the Church is not to find the similarities between religions (without Christ, it's a moot point, isn't it?) We are to go and make disciples of all the nations. Not world disciples who can get along alright, but Christians. The point is salvation.
I think St. Paul tried to go that route - upholding similarities in spiritualities - and his reception was a giant yawn. He reconfigured his preaching right back to "Christ Jesus, and Him crucified." Then he got beaten up properly, as befits a true disciple living the Beatitudes as well as the Gospels and the Commandments.
And I think Peter and the others (except for the Boanerges initially) all thought it possible to get along alright multiculturally, and that's a grand goal.. but it's also perhaps why Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, satan.. you think like man, not like God."
1. Christianity is God's will and God's call. "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life within you."
2. There is nothing to be ashamed of in Christ Jesus. Without Him, we are a Head-less Body. What can a body do without a head? It can't think, see, move nor even breathe, and it's Heart cannot circulate continued health.
3. We are not Confirmed as nice people (only), we are Confirmed in loyalty, priority, to the Church He established.
4. Jesus of Nazareth was personally crucified for each of us and all our loved ones, and for all peoples. He'd like for His other flocks to hear about this, for it was Him, and He alone, Who paid their ransom into the Kingdom.
5. The world will pass away, but His words won't.
6. We need to find and upload Soloviev's Tale of the Antichrist. Very enlightening.
7. Without Jesus, we would have no Holy Spirit sent to us, we have no Mother Mary, we would have no saints, and all the martyrs and all those suffering for the faith would be but fools.
A re/reading of the Gospel of John brings a marvelous light, as does Revelation. As does Isaiah.
I've been told point-blank by a Muslim (whom I liked verrrry much) that Jesus was not divine and most certainly did not arrange to be transubstantiated from bread and wine, as the prophets do not touch wine. Now, here's where we need enlightenment.. where do we go from there? One place we don't go is multiculturism, lest God spit us out of His mouth for our lukewarmness, and lest we delay anyone from the Kingdom. It is his duty to tell me this.. to tell us that there is no Holy Trinity.. what is our duty, then?
Yes, dialogue is necessary.. and no one did it better thatn JP II. I guess we'll have to fumble our way through it all. Just as the Apostles and disciples did.
Meanwhile, we must teach the faith at least to our own, properly. And that is, traditionally: The Gospel never changes.
So many kind-hearted Catholics are nodding vigorously to His, "Will you also go away?"
Posted by: Gypsy | June 14, 2007 at 02:54 PM
Agreeing with Gypsy, my motto is "Go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." [Mark 16:15-16]
I've worked side by side with Moslem believers and they respected me because of my orthodoxy. I never attacked their faith and beliefs but I never backed down in proclaiming Jesus as Lord! I have heard reports of many Moslems converting, especially in Africa. Some are saying that Jesus is appearing to them and that's why they converted. If this is true, the Lord is doing the work He commissioned us to do and we are not doing it! Maybe that's also why Our Lady is appearing too! She asks to especially dedicate the 2nd of each month to unbelievers! This was Her message for June 2nd: “Dear children, in this difficult time, God’s love sends Me to you. My children, do not be afraid. With complete trust give me your hearts that I may help you to recognize the signs of the time in which you live. I will help you to come to know the love of My Son. Through you I will triumph. Thank you.”
Deacon John
Posted by: Deacon John | June 14, 2007 at 08:39 PM
Good points Gypsy and John--thank you for commenting.
I was away all day at a conference (I had scheduled the post to go up automatically) so I wasn't able to view your comments until late.
Perhaps we can keep this subject going for a while--I'll see what I can find along similar lines.
Posted by: Deacon DW | June 14, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Also thanks for overlooking the typos:P
Posted by: Deacon DW | June 14, 2007 at 10:15 PM
DDW, typos are like freckles on a young child's nose. Utterly enchanting. You didn't know?? To me, they are a sign of honesty, of being real. Even tho' I just deleted a "b" from the word "didn't."
Deacon John, is "the second of every month" a message out of Africa or out of Medjugorje?
Posted by: Gypsy | June 14, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I'm parsing this, because I have goodwill. I don't need for Gypsy to be right, nor for others to be wrong, for then, it's nothing but a debate, similar to those the Pharisees held among themselves, (i.e., fruitless for His Kingdom). And I certainly don't thrill to being at loggerheads with others. What's needed is clarity about what to do, and how to do it, and by whom shall it best be done.
We might actually need our own pamphlets to hand out. Again.
If the Church says we need dialogue, we do. Even Jesus had to say, "Come and see." There are many ways to come to the Word, but not all words lead to Him. Some, however, are but a kind but giant step backward while being called progress. Maybe dialogue is something that mostly the hierarchy must do, as others tend to bollocks it all up with personal slants and mandates. Maybe Merton would've helped bring us to extraordinarily different non-inflammatory points to converge upon. Certainly JP II did.
Francis said to preach the Gospel, and to use words if necessary. My cousin, a lifelong Episcopalian, desired full communion and certainly not by my saying a word. Basically from coming to Mass with us. My husband's long-fallen-away friend suddenly hates to miss 7 a.m. Mass these days. And that friend's mother -- decades'-fallen-away widow who has been dating a devoutly Catholic widower, has also returned to Mass.. via her son's urging.
The quiet wildfire. How to start it? Who?
Posted by: Gypsy | June 16, 2007 at 02:57 PM