The Stand Effect

This post is more complex. It deals with two forces of Evil—active and passive. Active evil is obvious. It involves deliberate actions that are designed to hurt people and cause destruction. Passive evil is insidious. It involves denial, a refusal to act when the opportunity arises to help prevent evil, and neglect (meaning no response to stop evil).

Another theme is something I call "The Stand Effect." This has to do with souls gathering to be either on the side of Good or Evil. Among fundamentalists, there is much talk about Armageddon, the ultimate battle of Good versus Evil. With the way things are today, I sometimes wonder if we are not in the middle of Armageddon rather than waiting for it.

The Brothers Tsamaev

By now the world is quite familiar with the events of the Boston Marathon bombing and the subsequent identification of the two bombers. While the world watched, the older brother, Tamerlan, was shot and killed during an exchange of shots with law enforcement. Then came the spectacular capture of the younger brother, Dzhokhar. In between, we saw interviews with friends and family of these two evil brothers. These brothers behaved like jihadis who were Hell bent on destruction. Their mother talked just like a jihadi mother, saying that she didn't care if her sons were killed or if she were killed. The Boston Marathon, which was so dramatic and public, was only the beginning of these brothers' monstrous plans, which even included my own city of New York.  Tamerlan was wired with explosives when he died.

What caused these men to do what they did? That is the burning question here. They came here and began their education, and got involved with community activities and athletics. The older brother was not as well-adjusted as the younger one seemed to be, although Tamerlan evidently was able to get married. Dzhokar fit in quite well. He had a circle of friends and a lot to keep him busy.

What made these brothers any different from thousands of other immigrant Americans? We have plenty of people who are from the Caucasus, plenty of Muslims, and plenty of young people who are immigrants here. Dzhokhar was a naturalized American (on a September 11th of all things!). Evidently, there were crazy family dynamics playing a significant role.

But there's more. Many people from dysfunctional families don't turn to terrorism. Why did Tamerlan feel a need to even look at radical Islam? Wasn't peaceful Islam good enough for him? What made Dzhokhar follow Tamerlan? It was almost as if something evil was calling to them, looking for some vulnerable spot to attach to and draw them in. Perhaps it would not be considered possession in the classic Catholic sense of the word, but it is still a kind of force that does take some kind of possession in the souls of people who would have otherwise gone on to live unremarkable but productive lives. Were these brothers weak in some way that allowed this evil to enter their souls? Or were they just picked randomly by Evil to be instruments of death and terror?

When it comes to Evil, there are obviously more questions than answers. One hint comes from this in a story on Yahoo News, written by Jeff Donn and Jocelyn Noveck:

Albrecht Ammon, 18, lived directly below the apartment of the two suspects. He said he recently saw Tamerlan in a pizzeria, where they argued about religion and U.S. foreign policy. He quoted Tsarnaev as saying that many U.S. wars are based on the Bible, which is used as "an excuse for invading other countries."

Visit: The Stories of 2 Brothers Suspected in Bombing

Scary, isn't it? Wars and terrorism promulgated in the name of G-d. I can't help thinking of that Bob Dylan refrain:

If G-d's on our side, He'll stop the next war.

To that I can only add, AMEN, S/he will!

The pleas for peace from all Catholic Popes are well-known and familiar. This is an area in which progressives and the Church are exactly aligned. We all want wars to stop. Not just the obvious wars with the tanks, guns, and missiles (whatever happened to the missile rattling by North Korea?)—but also the wars by terrorists everywhere. And also the wars within ourselves.

Perhaps we need to start asking ourselves some questions: Who are WE to think we have any right to cause destruction of other human beings who are not harming us? Who are WE to think that G-d would pick US to do this? This is where a line must be drawn. It doesn't matter which form of G-d we believe in. When we start to force that vision of G-d onto other people, we are, first of all, violating their souls. And when we use physical force to do so, we are violating the temples of their souls, i.e., their bodies.

Why must there be a war between Christianity and Islam? Isn't our Pope trying to reach out? Aren't there imams trying to reach out? Why are these peaceful people being ignored in favor of the fundamentalists because the fundamentalists are noisy and shout the loudest?

Is it because Evil is gathering souls to counteract the forces of Good that are also gathering souls? 

The Stand Effect

In Stephen King's famous book, The Stand, there is an Armageddon-like plague, and the survivors are drawn to either Good or Evil. Good is represented in the person of Mother Abigail, an old African-American woman living alone on a homestead. Evil is represented by the roaming Walkin' Dude (Randall Flagg), who collects followers by doing favors for them and demanding unquestioning obedience as payment. I'm not going to tell you the ending, but there is a blowout. There are characters who are inherently good and others who are inherently evil. And then there are characters who struggle with good and evil within themselves. Some end up with the forces of Good and others end up with the forces of Evil. The whole point is that souls are called and gathered together to battle for their sides after many, many people are eliminated from the Earth. Everybody has to choose and they can decide whether to be destructive or constructive. No one can just stand by and do nothing, because, that is simply allowing Evil to prevail—one is compelled to take a stand.

I feel Stand-like effect these days. So many people are just being eliminated in explosions, floods, earthquakes, storms, shootings, and more. It's almost as if they have paid their karma, and G-d has called them back to the spirit world, leaving we survivors to remain for the battle. That battle seems to be ongoing, every day. First it's the Middle East (Israel versus the Palestinians; Iran versus Iraq), then it's somewhere between the "Stan" countries and Russia. Then it's the Koreans. Now it's Syria and Israel (and maybe the United States). Groan! We have our own things going on in Afghanistan (one of the "Stans") and the problems with terrorists on our own soil. And, as duly noted, Nature is playing a role too.

What to Do? What to Do?

In the face of all this, most people just go about their business. They hope for the best, but somewhere, we are all prepared for the worst. That is hard enough. Yet, all of us have to do more. We must respond—but not by proselytizing. We must speak out, over and over and over again, against extremism. We must not permit extremists to rule anywhere at any time. We need to use all the powers at our command to do this. But we must do it nonviolently. I'm no Mahatma Ghandi, but if push comes to shove, I sure would want to would use his tactics rather than throwing bombs around or shooting people. 

It is vital to stop insisting that there is only one route to salvation via our particular religions. Pope Francis recognizes this when he attempts to reach out in an ecumenical way. While his version of Catholicism is strict and not especially progressive, at least he is not saying "no salvation outside the Catholic Church," like the infamous Father Coughlin did in the past.

Can we not recognize that there are many routes to G-d that Rabbi Schlomo Carlebach, as Rabbi Schlomo Carlebach said? Can we not realize that these roads help control all the spiritual traffic and represent specific kinds of missions, specific kinds of "being chosen peoples"? Can we not find the most good, the gentlest parts of our religions—or even our atheism—and simply practice these things? It's true that one person cannot save the world. But, collectively, by paying kindness and goodness forward, we give our own souls and the souls of others a fighting chance to emerge intact from the battles we are in.

Can we not use the gentle actions of Pope Francis—whether or not we follow his brand of Catholicism. He isn't a progressive but he has something very, very important to teach all of us: Humility! If we  must evangelize, can we not evangelize about that?

I'm not saying it's easy. It's NOT. Humility is really tough—especially when trying to combine it with strong, well-grounded beliefs. I'm going to have to write about that struggle one of these days. For now, I ask forgiveness that I've been absent from this blog for a week. I was totally caught up in the Boston events.

An Apology

I was planning on blogging more with The Stand Effect but the saga with The Brothers Tsamaev absolutely riveted my attention. Now that Dzhokar has been captured, I was finally able to sleep and get my thoughts together to continue on my theme about good and evil. . . .

 Something is Happening Here. . . .

Today, I want to discuss an article written by a Jewish man, Roger Dubin, who experienced a conversion to Catholicism when Pope Benedict first came out after being elected Pope. Some of Dubin's experience echoes what I have been going through with Pope Francis, and I suspect that something very big is going on. The article was published in The Catholic World Report.

Visit: Pope Benedict XVI's "First Convert"

Like me, Dubin did not feel a strong connection to the religion he was born into. As a Jew, he felt that his religion was simply a collection of rituals and practices tied to a cultural identity, but he did not feel the presence of G-d. As a Catholic, I part of a very secular, nonchurchgoing family. In fact, I was not baptized until I had a tonsillectomy at age 7, when the hospital's priest thought it a good idea. Then, I was baptized again, when I decided to go to Catechism, because the priest didn't feel that the baptism I had had in the hospital was sufficient. However, from the very start, there was a problem. Instead of allowing me to use my own name plus a Saint's name, the nun decided I had to use only a Saint's name and that my own given name could not be used. Hence, I was Billie Theresa Mudry in my mind but only Theresa Mudry in the church's records, with my confirmation name added in later (Brigid after the name of the church).

Other problems emerged. We learned everything by rote. Questions were dismissed with a stock answer: "You have to have faith." That answer did not satisfy me, because I did not understand all the mysticism. How could there be one G-d Who was was Three? How could anybody rise from being dead? What happened in Fatima? That last one was scary, because rumors were going around that the world was going to end in 1960, when the famous letter was going to be opened.

After watching the movie, The Lady of Fatima, with a friend of mine, I was frightened. This otherworldly Lady had appeared to these children, and they underwent such terrible ordeals as a result. Later on, my friend woke me up in the middle of the night, in the dark, claiming she had seen the Lady. Needless to say, I did not sleep a wink further. All the next day, I kept anxiously looking over my shoulder to see if that scary Lady was going to emerge somewhere.

Understand this: To a child, Catholicism can be very eerie. Events happen that are gruesome (crucifixion), unearthly (miracles), and just plain creepy (visions, risings, spirits). When explanations regarding these things are not forthcoming, the questions about them just fester and eventually get repressed into the darkest part of one's consciousness. I wanted no part of it.

I had even had a dream that Jesus on the cross had somehow beheaded me, although my head was still attached to my body. Oddly enough, that dream didn't scare me. I am not sure why. Maybe because there was no pain and I still had my head. I think now that maybe the dream meant that Jesus was severing some things that were "in my head."

Then came the progressive problems. The first one was birth control. At first, I was appalled that my parents used it, but I came to realize that having ten children—as opposed to four—was not such a great idea, especially in the overpopulated city I lived in. The next was masturbation. A friend of mine was struggling with this issue and went to a priest to discuss it. I was with her at the time, and the discussion made no sense to me. My mother, my authority on everything, had told me that it was a natural but private act and that there was nothing wrong with it. It didn't seem right to condemn something that was, after all a part of nature. Yet the priest said it was a sin.

Abortion came later. At first, I was against it. But then, when I got older, I found that some people I knew underwent abortions. These people were troubled and teary-eyed. The decision they faced was not easy at all. What else could I do but try to offer nonjudgmental compassion to these people? Discussions and movies revealed tragic results of making abortion illegal. So, I had to flip over to a reluctant prochoice stance—one that I still struggle with today, because, in my view, it is a life and destruction of a life is a trauma. Yet, there are so many reasons why. . . .so I didn't want to pass judgments on people about that. Thank G-d, I never had to make such a decision.

Premarital sex and homosexuality also came into the bargain. I knew gay people as people not as evil sinners. I knew people were having premarital sex. I engaged in it. It seemed logical to do so, because then one knew what to expect rather than facing some really unpleasant surprises on one's wedding day. In fact, living together, in my view, was the ONLY way to ensure that I didn't pick the wrong person. I did it and I like the results some 25+ and counting happy years of marriage.

As I said in a previous post, the decision to marry in the Unitarian Church was not done lightly. I just couldn't do it in the Catholic Church, but we had to face my husband's aunt—the nun. And, as I described in that post, that sweet nun was the first indication to me that there was more than just the granite facade of the Catholic Church. From her, I saw that mercy and understanding were also part of the Church.

Yet, as I have said so many times, my progressive views are rock solid. They go down to the very bottom of my soul. This is not because I ever wanted to be "let off the hook," as Dubin described, regarding his search through Eastern/New Age religions. Instead, I sought for a real connection to G-d that was not just a bunch of rules and rituals. In fact, I actually liked the Catholic rituals. It was the rules that got me disconnected from the Church.

What New Age religion actually gave me was a path toward comprehending the mysticism of Catholicism. It made the miracles and the otherworldly events very understandable and indeed quite beautiful rather than frightening. While the story of the Lady of Fatima still gives me a shiver, I now understand it as a very profound account of how the faith of children can move so many people. 

The Law of Karma did not give me ANY reprieve from sinning—quite the opposite. I saw the effects of karma all around me. I didn't want to have to die and face reincarnation to a worse life. I didn't want to do things only to have them rebound on me in this or another life. No Law ever bound me as strictly as the Law of Karma. I saw it in action in the form of what is popularly known as "instant karma"—how something I did would have a result that was truly connected to my original action.

Through New Age religion, I understood the connectedness of everything and how three could indeed be one. It was clear how G-d could be everywhere. G-d was within ourselves and all around us, and this was benevolent. At times when I felt despair, the Law of Karma prevented me from contemplating taking my life, because I feared ending up in a spiritual zone where there were terrible evil formless beings. These things brought me closer to G-d. Indeed, New Age religion is the deepest form of connection to the All and the Almighty. And, New Age religion keeps me in line much more than any Decency List from the Catholic Church ever could do.

I've talked about how I wanted to be a Jew, because the Jews where I lived were the most educated, enlightened, and accomplished people I ever saw. But, when I was faced with Orthodox Judaism's mountain of ritual and more rules that didn't make sense to me, I didn't want to deal with them. This would have been stricter and more confining than what already existed in my own religion. I felt like a Jew, culturally and politically, but not religiously. Like Dubin stated, it didn't really seem like a path to G-d. How happy I was when I thought I didn't have to convert, because my DNA seemed to indicate that, through my maternal line, I was a Jew. How crushed I was when I learned that further research showed that this was not the case.

So here I was, this ex-Catholic, having very strange and spiritual learning experiences. I was having numerous psychic experiences. I had my own G-d dream, which I have described in an earlier post. Dubin had had one too. In that dream, G-d commanded Dubin to slay Satan. My own dream was so much more benevolent: Help people, and educate them when they come to you. No demons to slay.

Some people talk about being "Godfearing folk." Trust me, Catholics aren't scared of G-d, but we are deathly afraid of the Devil. Even we ex-Catholics have that fear deeply embedded within us. In my case, that was definitely true. Why else—after seeing The Omen movie, and walking home, and seeing a license plate with the number 666 [cross myself here]—did I scream in utter terror? Why did I have such trouble sleeping, so much so, that I needed to get medicine from a doctor to be able to fall asleep? Yes, indeed by the time I had my G-d dream, I was quite glad that my mission was so much gentler and didn't involve staring down the Devil.

And, yet, again, like Dubin, something happened to me when a Pope walked out to greet a crowd in St. Peter's Square for the first time. For Dubin, it was Pope Benedict. Dubin had some kind of spiritual vision that struck him much like Saul on the road to Damascus. It felt instantaneous, although Dubin had been kind-of building up to this quietly, and his wife had been praying for his conversion.

It could never have happened to me with Pope Benedict. His eyes did not seem spiritual to me. They resembled those of a mean raccoon. His general expression looked mean. His Prada shoes did not impress me at all when I learned about them. What I liked even less was learning that he had covered up pedophile scandals while he was a Cardinal.

For me, it was Pope Francis, instead. 

Just a few days prior to Pope Francis' election, I had a dream that I call my Bird Dream. In this dream, my sister went shopping and brought home a South American bird. This bird was stunningly beautiful. It had a riot of colors, all in a lovely mottled pattern. Typically, I don't tend to reach out to birds, but, in the dream, I cradled this bird in my hands. I expected it to fly away as birds will often do. Instead the bird responded by nestling warmly in my hand. I was amazed. "He likes me. He likes me," I exclaimed, Sally Field–like. I loved that bird and he loved me back. Then came my psychic experience of saying on March 13, 2013: "Today is a good day to elect the new Pope. It's 3-13-13 and Catholics love 3s." What possessed me to say that? Not the Devil I can assure you. Quite shortly after the announcement of the white smoke came through my computer. And the Pope was from South America! And St. Francis, lover of animals, is often depicted with a bird as a symbol of this love.

In an earlier post, I described how I felt looking at his expression when Pope Francis looked out at the crowd with such deep reverence and respect. While I was not pulled into a "conversion" or even a return to the Church, something definitely moved me closer to G-d.

So, what is this all about? 

Evidently, I am not alone in having some very powerful and odd spiritual experiences regarding Popes. I would be willing to bet that other people are having similar things occurring in their own faiths. By this, I mean benevolent, spiritual awakenings that make people more G-dly. I don't mean the fervor of the extremists and fundamentalists at all. In my view, those extremists are part of the Devil's plan to drive good people further away from true religion and G-d. Either they cause people to be cruel (such as by encouraging bombings and other terrible actions), or extremists drive good people away by turning them off. I know some atheists who want to vomit at the mention of G-d. When I probe into that, I find that there are horrific experiences that cause these people to avoid churches, temples, and anything that even reminds them of religion.

In the words of one popular antiwar song:

Something is happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear. . . .

...

Stop, children. What's that sound?
Everybody, look what's going down.

Indeed, we need to look at this. It's almost like a gathering of souls—just like in my G-d dream. Perhaps, as in my dream, Satan can be slain by gentle forces. 

In my next post, I will speculate about what I call "The Stand Effect."

Stay tuned. . . .

BAM Goes Boston!

 And Kerplop Goes the Pope! 

It's a Bad Day!

I was going to blog a nasty one about Pope Francis not backing up a bunch of nuns who really needed his support, but events superseded that, so this one is a rather confused missive about hatred.

We were talking about war and hatred last time—and this is just a continuation of that. Well, the Pope was not too nice to a bunch of nuns who just wanted to go out and help the disenfranchised people in the world—the poor, the minorities, and also the "sinners." Evidently, the Pope's homophobia came out instead, and he supported what Pope Benedict's Council said against the nuns.

Not so nice, not so nice. Not helpful in reducing hatred, which continues to fester in this evil world.

2 (or 3?) bombs went off in Boston a while ago, disrupting the Boston Marathon. Runners and watchers just wanted to enjoy a festive Boston holiday, and, instead, they were treated to explosions, injuries, deaths, and fear.

We don't know who did it yet. 

I remember how it was on 9/11. I remember saying that "we are at war, but I don't know who we are at war with." That same nasty feeling overtakes me. Is it Al Queda? Some splinter group in the United States, like the Minutemen? The KKK? Is it the Koreans, who are spewing fury at us every day now? Or some gun nuts who are angry at the U.S. Senate for a bill on gun restrictions? 

I don't know. Nobody knows yet.

What I do know is this? Pope Francis started out with some very lovely actions that were designed to bring people closer to G-d. He reached out to everybody outside the Catholic Church, and that felt very good. But for, some reason, when it came to his own (a bus full of nuns), he rejected them. What example can we get from that? Be nice to outsiders but behind closed doors, be rejecting and cruel.

In my view, that only leads to more hatred. If we cannot love people within our own circles, how can we love those on the outside? How can we embrace our diversity?

With prayerful respect, I would hope that Pope Francis might reconsider. There is too much hatred in the world to even want to spread any more hatred and rejection.

Sigh. . . .

Psst! This is What Pope Francis Said. . . .

Evidently, Pope Francis offers daily homilies just like an ordinary priest does. Rebecca Hamilton reported yesterday on a homily about gossip. That may seem quite trivial, given all of the bigger issues at stake, but, as usual, with this Pope, there is more to this than meets the eye.

Visit: PopeFrancis: The Struggle to Reject Gossip

Truth be told, I'm like most people—a real sucker for a bit of juicy inside information about people. The more "secret" and the more negative it is, the more exciting it seems. It makes one feel superior. A real insider who is above such flaws as reported. But, as Ms. Hamilton points out that when gossip goes beyond "idle chit-chat," it can be very harmful. Gossip can get people focused on a person's faults and can results in group judgments that may be quite unfair. This can be especially true if the gossip continues for a period of time.

Obviously, if false, negative information is spread, it can create bad impressions. However, even if something is true, is it really our business or our concern? Does it really affect our lives if a certain person has problems that have nothing to do with us? Why would we really prefer to focus on a flaw that is not so terribly important in an otherwise good person? Maybe that person is not a great cook or a great fixer of household items. Maybe that person is illiterate. Maybe that person is not perfect in organizing things in his or her life. Maybe that person bickers with his or her spouse or children. Maybe that person . . . . And yet, that person might be a sympathetic friend when one needs a good ear to hear one's troubles. That person might have a great sense of humor. That person might be a lot of fun to be with. That person might be very kind.

Pope Francis says:

When we prefer to gossip, gossip about others, criticize others—these are everyday things that happen to everyone, including me—these are the temptations of the evil one who does not want the Spirit to come to us and bring about peace and meekness in the Christian community. 

Notably, he does not exempt himself from the temptation. He is not lecturing us from on high. Rather, he is exposing his own weakness and sharing his wisdom about how to handle the problem.

He concludes that we don't have any business judging other people. That is up to G-d. He advises us to keep our nasty thoughts to ourselves. If it is necessary to bring information about someone to other parties who might be able to help the person, that is O.K., but, he cautions us not to spread such talk about indiscriminately. 

Gossip may be deliciously tempting, but the resulting stomachache (or headache) won't just affect the gossiper—it will spread indigestion and head pains far and wide. It's not worth it. 

Why dirty ourselves with other people's dirt? Like Pope Francis, we can rise above that nastiness, and everyone will be the better for it. Looks like I had better discipline my own tongue.

Pope Francis and the Power of One

OK, OK, I know, I know. I missed a day. I had so much work to do that I just didn't get a chance to blog, but I'm back again with more on Pope Francis. This time, the subject is simplicity. In today's Huffington Post, author Frances D'Emilio describes the Pope's formal installation.

Visit: Pope Francis, Bishop of Rome Invites Romans to Join Him at City Basilica

Pope Francis wore "a plain white cassock," which was quite different than the finery displayed by the welcoming Italian cardinal. In contrast to the entrance of many fancy pontiffs, the Pope came into a side entrance of the basilica complex in a jeep. He stopped to kiss babies in the crowd that was gathered there, before going inside.

After blessing a plaque in honor of Pope John Paul II, Pope Francis repeated something from his very first message to the people after his election: "I ask you to pray for me, I need it, don't forget." Emphasizing gentleness and caring, he said that "those who love are able to understand, to hope, to inspire confidence; they do not give up, they do not burn bridges, they are able to forgive."

Another different element in this occasion was that Pope Francis chose a pledge that was nonhierarchical. Most past pledges "elevate" the position of the pontiff, but he chose to consider himself as "presiding over all the Churches in charity."

Simplicity, no vainglory, nonhierarchical. . .these terms have been emerging as descriptors for this Pope. He doesn't always use words to "preach." He doesn't exhort people to throw off their fancy clothes and don sackcloth. Instead, he strips down as much of the ornate trappings of his office as possible. He shows by example what is possible.

That isn't to say that he will never "pull rank" on anyone. It does say that he would prefer not to. What a world this would be if people lived by that concept. We would not all be glued to our TV sets wondering if and when North Korea will set off a bomb just to show who is "boss." The United States would not be in perpetual gridlock, if it weren't for all the showboating that goes on in the halls of Congress.

Let's admit it. We are human. Most of us don't get a taste of power that often, and, when we do, we are tempted to flaunt it. Yet, there is something that can prevent this from happening. It's that old word again—empathy! We can choose to remember a time of powerlessness at the very moment of attaining power. We can choose to feel the feelings of the people who still do not have power. And that can guide our actions in the most humane way possible. And, like St. Francis of Assisi, we can also remember the animals in this world.

There was a reason that Bob Dylan sang, "you gotta serve somebody." And Pope Francis gets it. He knows that the highest, most gracious, and most spiritual power comes from service—not from wielding a scepter. This is at the root of true power. It is the power that never runs out and never reverses itself. It goes on forever unopposed in the end. And it prevails.

If only the rest of us could learn this lesson. Imagine if each one of us could emulate Pope Francis and use our power of one to spread humility and decency throughout the world. All it would take is a little simplicity.

 Of War and Peace: What Truth Can't Twist

A slow news day today. North Korea is hogging all the headlines with the threat of a nuclear launch. Unfortunately, Papal pleas for peace are routinely ignored by everyone. Pope Francis is no different in this respect. Every Pope make them all the time. These poor men probably get scabs on their knees from praying so hard for peace, as war after war after war breaks out.

As such, it is highly doubtful that the leaders of North Korea will pay any attention, although Catholics in South Korea are asking for help from the Pope. His hands, however, are tied. He doesn't have an army. He can't run maneuvers to prevent this. And that truly is not the Catholic way in modern times, although, in centuries past, Catholic bloodbaths were common during the Crusades and Inquisition.

Why, after all these centuries, must the world still be at war? If I knew the answer for that I'd either get a Nobel Prize or be nominated for Sainthood. Given that neither of them is about to happen, all I can do is speculate, like everybody else. 

And Pope Francis has offered some inspiration regarding that topic. I don't just mean telling the world we need peace. That's too obvious. It's more by example that he directs us to look at a pathway that could lead to peace if it were followed. I'm not even saying the Catholic or Christian pathway. It's more like something that every human being on earth could follows regardless of his or her beliefs.

That is the path of inclusion, of love. Not love in the sense of agreeing with another person or even wanting to live the way that person lives. Not love in the sense of any kind of positive attraction to a person, whether it be romantic or in terms of family or friendship. Not even the love that comes with admiration. This kind of love is what the Greeks called agapé. It's a more generalized love of all humanity, with all its messy warts and mistakes.

This kind of love allows for tolerance. It allows for respect. It allows for differences. It relishes diversity. The only thing it is intolerant of—the only thing it hates—is hatred. It is the kind of love that makes us hold back instead of shouting or raising our fists, or our knives, or our guns, or our bombs. It makes us think before we speak or act. This love makes us feel the blood and nerves within ourselves and realize that the very same things exist within other living and breathing beings. It makes us aware of our connectedness to everybody and everything. We are all part of the whole, so when one part is wounded, the whole feels it through empathy.

When the Pope says that he wants to reach out to Catholics and non-Catholics and even atheists, he is saying that he wants to engage in agapé. When he hugs a disabled boy, his showing his caring. When he worries about people in his homeland experiencing floods, he is empathizing with those people. When he refuses glamor and vainglory, he expresses an identity with people in poverty.

Catholic or not, can we do any less?

How does this answer the question about why there are wars? War, I believe, in part, is a direct result of not feeling part of a wholeness. It's a result of putting one's own egoes above other people. It's a result of shutting down our ability to empathize. There's more. . . . 

As I said, Pope Francis is beginning something to expand our consciousness. This is the kind of expansion that doesn't require any drugs or revelations. All it takes is looking at other human beings and going beyond our boundaries to take in their experiences, thoughts, and feelings. It's opening up a bit and letting humanity in so our own humanity can come out and be expressed.

 Pope Francis "Fix My Church"

An ABC News report from Vatican City says that Pope Francis wants to have the Church act "with determination" on the sex abuse cases in the continuing scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church for some time.

Visit: Pope Seeks Decisive Action Against Sex Abuse

While mentioning things that could protect minors, help victims, and prosecute the guilty parties sounds good, some doubt troubles my mind. Here's why: Unfortunately, the report also notes that the Pope recommended following the same "line" that Pope Benedict used. This raises an alert, because Pope Benedict was noted for covering up these kinds of scandals while he was a Cardinal. Admittedly, as Pope, he did try to do some damage control. It was too little, too late.

If Pope Francis is the kind of man that we have seen so far, I would hope and pray, with all due respect, that he will take a much harder line than Pope Benedict ever did. I would hope that any cleric who engaged in such behavior would be summarily excommunicated rather than being shifted from one parish to another. Such behavior is inexcusable in anyone. It is especially abominable in a religious because we are all taught from childhood to respect and revere religious. We are taught to trust them implicitly as people bringing us to G-d.

My husband was an altar boy. Thank G-d nothing happened to him. But it could have. 

I offer my deepest prayers to St. Jude, the Patron of Impossible Causes, to help Pope Francis to root out this problem in the Church. Children need to be safe in churches everywhere. I pray that Pope Francis will go far, far beyond his predecessor Pope to work on this troubling problem. Pope Francis is undoubtedly going to uncover a lot of dirty secrets along the way. I believe that he sincerely wants to solve the problem, but he is going to have to go much further than he imagines to do so.

 Who Would Have Thought I'd Be Blogging About the Pope?

Today, in the Huffington Post, commentator Charles J. Reid, Jr., discusses the controversies swirling around Pope Francis' unusual actions since his election.

See: Pope Francis and Museum-Piece Catholicism

It is well-known that entropy leads to destruction. That which does not change dies. Traditionalists who want everything to be exactly the same as yesterday, yesteryear, and yester-century, are, in essence, condemning the Catholic Church to certain death. Instead of being a living, dynamic religion, Catholicism, would end up being a relic of days gone by.

Did not Jesus Christ initiate change in the religion of his time? Christians are told, time and again, to try to be as Christlike as possible in their lives. Wouldn't that mean initiating changes when they become necessary?

What terrible things has Pope Francis done except to defy a few old and crusted-over traditions that have become virtually meaningless to most Catholics? For example, I never even heard about the feet-washing ceremony until the Pope did something different with it. Can two women's feet defile and destroy an entire religion? Can they undo the basic teachings of Jesus? This is absurd!

Reid provides an overview of how the Bible developed, showing that what is considered "canonical" today was not always the case throughout the centuries as Catholicism evolved. This, that, and the other books of the New Testament were debated and edited and decided upon—this one goes in and that one goes on the trash pile, etc.

Let me add something that Reid did not each touch upon: Reincarnation was written out of the Bible in the Council of Trent. It was believed at the time that Catholics would sin more, because they would expect to be able to come back in new lifetimes to redress their mistakes. That was a simplistic error, because the Law of Karma is very precise, and most people would not want to suffer the consequences of their actions if they were aware that this would happen. Guess what? I still believe in reincarnation, and I am very careful about my karma. This does not—in any way, shape, or form—make me any less of a decent human being, and it does not conflict with my belief in Jesus. If anything, this so-called New Age belief enhances my understanding of His life and teachings.

New books from Biblical times are continually being discovered. Any watcher of the History or Discovery channels can find out about these alternative Biblical records. It is patently clear that much of what was said and done was affected by the times in which these accounts were written. Reid says: 

Tradition was not handed down in a single moment of radiant light on Calvary, but was developed by Christian communities trying to learn the authentic Word of God for themselves and to shape their lives accordingly. Tradition is not static, but dynamic.

So should Catholicism remain dynamic. Our Pope sees the dwindling numbers of Catholics in the world. He realizes that some things have gone very wrong. Like his namesake Saint, Pope Francis feels a mission to fix a Church enfeebled by corruption, scandals, and outmoded traditions.

Even moral teachings can change. Reid says that usury was considered totally wrong at one point and then evolved to an acceptable status. Reid explains that Pope Francis is aware of this history and that he:

understands that tradition is a continually unfolding process and that individuals are not passive observers but must play a role in the constant renewal and re-creation of what it means to be [the] Church. Nothing can ever be handed on exactly, because historical context is constantly shifting, altering our vantage point and making all things fresh. It is this deep self-awareness that makes him so very appealing to such a large audience of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Indeed, having been an unchurched, ex-Catholic for some 50 years, I now find myself fascinated with Pope Francis. I like him, because he is different. He is touching a very deep part of my soul. It's not making me go back to the Church, because I still cherish my progressive beliefs regarding a number of critical moral issues. However, this Pope is making me want to hear what he has to say. He is making me want to pray more. He is making me look at my spiritual life more deeply. And he is giving me a sense of peace that I have never known before.

My husband jokes that people should buy me a cassock, because I sound like a Jesuit priest in these blog posts. I look at him in total amazement and ask: "Who would have thought that I would be blogging about the Pope while you would be writing a horror novel." It really was supposed happen in reverse.

That's what I get for praying to St. Jude to tell me what to write about. I get Pope Francis. Well, I'm not unhappy. St. Jude never disappoints even when he provides unexpected answers to prayers.

 Pope Francis Opens a New Door of Perception

More interesting—and some people would say provocative—statements from Pope Francis are coming out every day. It's almost impossible to keep up with the media's fascination with everything this Pope does. Today, in the Huffington Post, author Naomi O'Leary covers what Pope Francis had to say about women in the church.

Pope Francis Stresses "Fundamental" Importance of Women in Church

Dare I make a pun here and say that the statement is intended to have Mass Appeal? Like the young priest in that movie, Pope Francis says: 

In the Gospels, however, women have a primary, fundamental role. . . .The evangelists simply narrate what happened: the women were the first witnesses. This tells us that God does not choose according to human criteria.

He notes that Jewish law during Biblical times did not deem women as reliable witnesses, and thus, their role was not recorded in the Bible.

Now, this is startling! Here we have a Pope—the head of the entire Catholic Church—actually looking back with a historical view at what happened and suggesting that culture had something to do with how women were treated at the time. While not going as far as endorsing women as priests, Pope Francis is at least admitting that the culture of that time was what we progressives would term "male chauvanistic." While not endearing himself to conservatives who would like to keep women in convents, nurseries, and kitchens, Pope Francis has managed to rankle women who feel that they are being given a symbolic "pat on the head" and then still being regaled to where the conservatives want them to be.

I, however, am not rankled at all. I already am gaining a feel for this Pope and what he is doing. He is proceeding by evolution—not revolution. He doesn't want to throw the whole Church in turmoil. He believes in the doctrines he was taught. As a Jesuit, he feels bound to obey those doctrines. But, true to his unconventional nature, he looks for "wiggle room." He asks how he can open the door and let some air in the stale and musty corridors of Catholicism.

As Marinella Perroni, put it:

The fact that the Pope acknowledges that the progressive removal of female figures from the tradition of the resurrection   . . .is due to human judgments, distant from those of God. . . introduces a decidedly new element compared to the previous papacy.

I agree completely with this assessment.

Considering that Pope Francis is a 76-year-old male cleric, elected by old male clerics, this isn't bad at all. It's actually pretty good. The first way to solve a problem, after all, is to admit that it exists. By shining a light on the errors in the Bible, our Pope is inviting us all to think and rethink about how to interpret what is there. And, he is also admitting that women have value that may well extend beyond the limitations that we have had placed on us for all these centuries.

Given that conservatives were upset about 4 feet (belonging to two women), I can imagine that they will not want to go the miles and miles and miles that need to be traveled before women are given full recognition and total equality. But there is a draft coming into the Vatican along with a beam of light.

In the beginning, there was the question. The Pope said: "Let there be light." And that is a lot better than the medieval darkness that has surrounded the Catholic Church for so long. 

Pope Francis has taken the first steps into the 21st century. No matter how limited or how small these steps are, they steps are the beginning of change. And perhaps that is Pope Francis' role—to walk to a new place and open the door to show us where to go next.

A Bit of Empathy for the Pope

ABC News reports, in an article by Michael Warren, that Pope Francis still has most of his right lung and is in good health despite having some disabilities.

Visit: Pope Francis Still Has Most of His Right Lung

He does have some limitations from the removal of just the upper part of his right lung and he also has lower-back pain, which affects his walking sometimes and requires use of a cane.

Now, when I read that about that, I felt a big OUCH! How, could someone get on a bus everyday and go to work with lower-back pain? I cannot and never could. When I was younger I did it, and I was eating Vicodins like candy and stopping every two blocks to sit somewhere until the pain passed every time I went to work and every time I went back home. Pope Francis must be a strong man with an ability to tolerate pain even better than I can—and I am pretty good at tolerating pain.

This brings to mind the indelible image of the Pope hugging a young disabled boy recently. That boy looked so happy to get that hug. Doubtless other Popes have done similar things. Yet, I wonder how much empathy they felt. Perhaps a lot. Yet, somehow, with this Pope, that empathy seems more obvious. Maybe that is why he has such concern for poor people. He knows that poverty breeds hunger, bad diets and disabilities. And disabilities, conversely contribute to poverty.

It is not easy for people with chronic conditions—especially those that cause constant pain—to travel to work every day. Standing on crowded subways and busses. Dealing with jostling crowds. Sitting at desks with chairs that are not so ergonomically fit to relieve pain. Getting up and down to get things and do work. OUCH! Been There, Done That, whole nine yards! 

I thank G-d everyday that I can now telecommute. It reduces my use of painkillers and allows me to function better. I only hope that Pope Francis will accept a car and a desk and chair that won't cause him pain, because I don't want anybody to go through that. It may give him empathy but I think he has quite enough of that right now. Surely, he has enough empathy to help make people more aware of the daily struggles people with disabilities face.

A Reaction and Some New Thoughts

By Joan Amato

I like your blog. I think Pope Francis is a pope that people can relate to because he admits to desires that are quite human; attraction to a woman being one of them. It's also interesting that he studied science and chose a religious vocation. It turns the tables on those that would say science and religion are so separate. You can believe in both.

As a Catholic myself, I feel it is important to understand Jesus. I find it surprising that throughout history, many people did not seem to see Jesus as a Jewish person. And that instead of trying to learn about Judaism, since it is the religion he was brought up in, many chose to persecute His people instead. Perhaps if there was more understanding, there would never have been any Inquisitions.

It is my hope that Pope Francis will bring about more healing and greater unity, and will be a leader whose message will appeal to all people. Many like and admire the Dalai Lama, even if they're not Buddhist. And the Buddhist idea of enlightenment is something very encouraging and profound indeed. 

Billie's Note: My best friend, Joan Amato, sent me this reaction to my Populist Pope page. In it, she shares some of her reactions and adds her own thoughts as well. She points out that Pope Francis originally studied science and yet ended up choosing to work as a religious. I've always believed in both science and religion. In my view, evolution is real and is G-d's way of making things happen. I learned that the Catholic Church shares this view, so at least we know that, today, someone like Galileo would not be put to the test or relaxed per Inquisition torture methods.

Joan shares my Jesus-as-a-Jew idea and expands on the ecumenical perspective that Pope Francis espouses. This Pope has raised many hopes among devout and unchurched alike. I would repeat: If we are realistic about what to expect, it seems we will not be disappointed. Expect changes in style. Expect changes in how things are symbolized and expressed. Do not expect changes in doctrine.

Here's an example of what I mean: Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who works here in New York, told gay people recently that they were entitled to be friends but not to marry. Contrast that with how Pope Francis handled it when he was a Cardinal (before the conservative faction got to him and forced him to start talking about the Devil)—his "render-to-Caesar-what-is-Caeser's" approach was so much gentler. When I read what Dolan had to say, I could only think: "Thank G-d Dolan was not elected Pope."