Got Grapes?

I am considering the Eucharist today, at least I started to after watching this video about the labor conditions of agricultural workers in California. They pick the grapes that go to making the wine that Catholics believe becomes the blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ during the consecration at the Eucharist. This video points to the ongoing human sacrifice that happens in order that we may eat our meals...including the Eucharist. For more information look into the Courage Campaign.

When Telling the Truth Can be Heard?

Here is another story of a bold truth teller. This time it's Madonna, who told a Romanian audience who came to hear her perform that the discrimination against the Roma people, known also as Gypsies, "It has been brought to my attention ... that there is a lot of discrimination against Romanies and Gypsies in general in Eastern Europe," she said. "It made me feel very sad." Thousands booed and jeered her. A few cheered when she added: "We don't believe in discrimination ... we believe in freedom and equal rights for everyone." But she got more boos when she mentioned discrimination against homosexuals and others."

Should a performer impose their personal political and social views on their audience during a performance? Was this the appropriate moment to preach and be heard?

I ask because I am starting to think that I am being asked to agree with everyone I have business with (i.e. Wholefoods CEO Mackey). Do I really need to agree with everyone I admire, appreciate, and pay money to see for their talents in something other than politics? I would very soon stop being a fan of much classical music and college football of I did.

And yet, I see that she had an attentive audience...and she was, no doubt, seduced into being an activist to help others.

Maybe to be of service with others, one must first live with them and not presume to help anyone...

What do you think?

Bold Truth Teller

Rev. Roy Bourgeois is a truth teller. He is willing to speak the truth he holds in his heart and is willing to take personal responsibility for the outcome of speaking that truth. Specifically, he speaks his truth about the injustice he sees in the fact that women are not ordained in the Roman Catholic Church. As such, he has endured excommunication from the Church and has responsibily acted accordingly, not wearing his clerical collar, or performing any official acts of ordained priests. But he continues to speak his truth.

Regardless of your stance on this particular issue of women's ordination, what do you think of ordained leaders and their willingness to voice their truth and take personal responsbility for the outcome? For that matter, what do you think of all people of faith and their willingness to voice their truth and take personal responsibilityfor the outcome?

What I find admirable in the case of Bourgeois is his fearless willingness to speak his truth. I experience a lot of fear in the Church these days...ordained leaders who balk at acting on the truth they are willing to speak in private, but are afraid to express publicly either through preaching or active outreach. I hear many priests speak privately of supporting gay marriage, for example. But I've only heard one sermon the came close to openly exploring that issue; and that was back in 2005 or 2006. I undertsand their reluctance. Such an open contradiction to the Vatican's stance would get them into trouble. And they don't want to lose their jobs over this.

What if all ordained priests spoke the truth on the injustices of poverty and inadequate health care? One result could possibly be a personal response to poverty: perhaps priests could start with a reduction in the size of all those liquor cabinets I've seen in quite a few priestly residences, and give that money to the poor. It's just a thought.

Just One Reason I Love Dogs

This is a lovely story of a dog who saved a baby left for dead:

Non-Violence as Spiritual Practice

For years I've had a quote from Thomas Merton's Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander as a quote on my email signature: "The rush and pressure of modern life is a form, perhaps the most common form, of its innate violence. To allow oneself...to surrender to too many demands, to commit oneself to too many projects, to want to help everyone in everything, is to succumb to violence. More than that, it is cooperation in violence." (p. 86 where Merton is commenting on Douglas Steere's remarks about activism and overwork as forms of violence.) Some people tell me I need to change it, but about once a month someone returns an email just because they read this quote on one of my emails. They say they needed to read this quote. I do too, although I don't read it often enough and I don't always live by these words.

It's when I get overworked and over-committed, that I tend to live completely in my head and am willing to be overly sharp, impatient, and careless with people. I succumb to violence.

This may seem like an extreme or even inaccurate use of the word. But I do think we plant seeds of violence when we treat one another disrespectfully or with disdain, impatience, irritation, anger...

In his biography of Merton, Jim Forest writes the following: " Nonviolence is a discipline, Merton stressed, of refusing to hate or to be captive by enmity. It is commitment to see the human face of an adversary , and to make every effort to enter into dialogue." (Living with Wisdom. A Life of Thomas Merton, p. 188)

On that same page is a quote from Merton's Blessed are the Meek, in which he writes, "Nonviolence must simply avoid the ambiguity of an unclear and confusing protest that hardens the warmakers in their self-righteous blindness. This means that in this case above all nonviolence must avoid a facile and fanatical self-righteousness, and refrain from being satisfied with dramatic self-justifying gestures...Christian nonviolence...is convinced that the manner in which the conflict for truth is waged will itself manifest or obscure the truth.

These are some of the ideas I was reflecting on when I wrote about the episode with Barney Frank the other day, and it's why I entitled that blog entry, Planting Seeds of Violence.

That nonviolence is a discipline (and a difficult one at that) is where I am focusing my reflection right now. How to cultivate that discipline of nonviolence and still speak one's truth? How to speak one's truth in the midst of angry diatribes and not get pulled in to the angry energy? How to keep one's self contained, especially when others want to pull you into the fracas. How to express one's views even passionately, without letting others control or govern that passion?

I have no easy answers. I am living through this day by day. And so realize that nonviolence is a practice, like meditation.

A Contemplative in the World

One of the best ways to learn is through doing...I can read all day long and think I know a subject or feel confident I know how to handle a situation, but then I flub up when faced with the reality of a situation.

When to censor? Some of my readers know that I stopped blogging for awhile given the tone of some comments I received that alluded to the intention of violence. I will not support a site that furthers violence to self or others.

Earlier today I received a rash of comments most of which I did not publish because of their violent tone. Some of these pointed to another comment first; even though that comment itself was not offensive, I made the rooky mistake of deleting it. You can see the fall out I'm taking. But more importantly, see here for Peacebang's views. Apologies for going overboard.

Planting Seeds of Violence

I'm reading a lot of Thomas Merton now, esp. his anti-war pieces from the '60s. His notions of violence and non-violence have affected how I view this video of Congressman Barney Frank and a constituent who likens the Obama health plan to a Nazi policy:

I feel a teaching moment was really lost here...After being asked, "Why are you supporting a Nazi policy?" Frank asks "On what planet do you spend most of your time on?" As difficult as it is to remain poised when enduring a question like he was asked, at this point he lost the chance to have a real dialogue with the questioner. Her question was disrespectful and extremist. And it makes me wonder if she knows anything about 20th century history. But this was the very moment to break apart the facile connection between Obama's plan to provide health coverage for all Americans and the Nazi systematic program to do the opposite: the Nazi agenda was to kill rather than provide health care. In response Frank admits he has no interest in having a conversation with her. And so we arrive at impasse; mutual vilification...a seed planted for future violence by allowing disdain grow in their hearts.