Category Archives: Links to others

Sally Quinn’s Five Lessons after Five Years “On Faith”

Posted on by

I’m glad that The Washington Post publishes its On Faith section regularly. I was disappointed, however, in Sally Quinn’s reflections on five years of managing this important forum for discussion and mutual education.  Her Five lessons from On Faith makes one wonder how much she was paying attention, especially given her final statement that the one thing she knows is that God is whoever anyone of us says God is.

Here’s my comment that I posted there:

While this article has a few good points (especially the reminder about the common search for meaning, a la Viktor Frankl, that is present in all human cultures and times), on the whole Ms. Quinn doesn’t seem to have learned much in five years, at least not much about what religions and faiths and spirituality at their best do for humanity. 

Ms Quinn, do you realize the utter absurdity of concluding an article about “lessons on faith” by stating, “God is what you or I or anyone else says God is,” and then following this with the statement, “This I know”??? By definition, “faith” cannot be “known.”  If it were knowable, it would not be faith.

The Latin root of the word “absurd” means deaf. You say you came to the perspective that God is whoever or whatever anyone of us says God is because “nobody has the same view” and there are such different views about God held by people throughout the world. Instead of looking for cookie-cutter “definitions” of God that were the same everywhere, did you ever consider that such divergent views of the Divine themselves were evidence of the many paths to the same Ultimate Reality? Did you hear nothing of people’s views that God is utterly Transcendent and beyond our ability to categorize? Did you not listen when people of faith spoke of the divine as Mystery? Did you not ponder in silence, letting go of your rationalistic “need to know” when people of faith told you that their experience of God lead them to find forgiveness for enemies and deeper love for others?  If religion does this, then it is indeed “true religion,” and it helps us see that God is precisely NOT who or what we say God is. Such a god would be an idol, a “thing” of our own making. For people of faith, any faith, God, however, is indeed “no thing”; God is Being Itself and the source of all that is good, loving, kind, wise. As the scriptures from my tradition says, God is “I Am Who Am.”

WebMD: ADHD Medications and Cardiovascular Events

Posted on by

I think I’m starting to get the hang of this press/media/interview thing!

Today I had to pinch hit again and do a brief phone interview with WebMD about an article that appears in today’s New England Journal of Medicine on ADHD medications and cardiovascular “events.” (“Study: ADHD Drugs Likely Do Not Boost Heart Risk“).

My quote is on page 2.

The Pilot — Boston’s Catholic Newspaper — Prints Heresy

Posted on by

UPDATE:  On Nov. 2, 2011 The Pilot issued a retraction of the story, noting its “theological error” (though without specifying what that error was, exactly). The original piece has been removed from the website, and the link below leads only to the retraction and Daniel Avila’s “retraction/apology.” In case this retraction is eventually removed as well, I’m posting it here:

Editor’s Note: Daniel Avila issued the following “Retraction/Apology” Nov. 2 in regard to his opinion piece “Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction” which was published in our Oct. 28 edition. In addition to echoing Mr. Avila’s statement of regret, The Pilot also wishes to apologize for having failed to recognize the theological error in the column before publication. The Pilot has removed the column ‘Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction’from its Website.

Retraction/Apology from Daniel Avila

“Statements made in my column, ‘Some fundamental questions on same-sex attraction’ of October 28, do not represent the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the column was not authorized for publication as is required policy for staff of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The teaching of Sacred Scripture and of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it clear that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and have inviolable dignity. Likewise, the Church proclaims the sanctity of marriage as the permanent, faithful, fruitful union of one man and one woman. The Church opposes, as I do too, all unjust discrimination and the violence against persons that unjust discrimination inspires. I deeply apologize for the hurt and confusion that this column has caused.”

The Pilot
The Oct. 28 edition of the The Pilot, newspaper of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, has printed an article in which the author asserts that actions of “the devil” are what cause same-sex attraction.  He makes this outlandish claim not only by suggesting that the devil causes people to become gay, but suggests that this devilish hand is at work in the act of creation itself.  Lest you think I exaggerate, here’s Daniel Avila’s article in full.

If Mr. Avila were just some independent author presenting his own thoughts, that would be one thing.  He is, however, an attorney and Policy Advisor for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. The fact that a man with such a position would write such bunk is bad enough.  That The Pilot editors would not see such statements heretical in the narrow definition of that term is inexcusable.

In addition to the quotation cited in my comment below, the following paragraph from Avila is perhaps the most egregiously erroneous:

“Therefore, whenever natural causes disturb otherwise typical biological development, leading to the personally unchosen beginnings of same-sex attraction, the ultimate responsibility, on a theological level, is and should be imputed to the evil one, not God. Applying this aspect of Catholic belief to interpret the scientific data makes more sense because it does not place God in the awkward position of blessing two mutually incompatible realities — sexual difference and same-sex attraction.”

I submitted the following comment on The Pilot’s web site, though am posting it here in case it never gets published:

“I never thought I’d live to see the day when The Pilot would actually support heresy!

For this venerable Catholic newspaper to print this article in which it is not only suggested, but clearly stated, that “the devil” is involved in creation itself is amazing and truly scandalous.  Yet, this is what Mr. Avila’s article asserts as he appears willing to go to any length whatsoever in a theologically empty attempt to hold up his argument that God didn’t create gay people. Lest you think my criticism is overstated, let me quote:  “In other words, the scientific evidence of how same-sex attraction most likely may be created provides a credible basis for a spiritual explanation that indicts the devil.”

Mr. Avila’s twisted presentation of “the scientific evidence” notwithstanding (most scientific evidence suggests that homosexual orientation is a normal and naturally occurring characteristic in the diversity of the human family), his assertion that the devil’s hand is at work in the creating God’s LGBT children is a new low indeed!

As far as I know and believe, God and God alone is the Author of Creation. Surely to suggest otherwise is heretical to 2,000 years of Christian faith and is anathema to a most fundamental Catholic belief.

I look forward to The Pilot’s retraction and correction on this most basic point of Christian faith.”

The “good” bishops apologizing? A nice idea, but ….

Posted on by

Brian Cahill’s suggestion in the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) that the small number of “good guy” bishops apologize for the harm done by the church leaders to gays and lesbians is intriguing. Unfortunately, I think it misses the bigger picture, and falls way short of what these “good guys” can and should be doing.

Here’s my comment.

Mr. Cahill,

The idea of an apology from church leaders for the ways in which the official church currently treats God’s LGBT children is certainly appealing. However, the problem with your suggestion — i.e. that this small group of “the good guys” apologize for the actions of others — is that it is inconsistent with the more complete idea of “reconciliation” and misses the point that, for reconciliation to be truly meaningful, it must be personal.

If my brother steals your car or harms you in any way, I can tell you that “I’m sorry this happened” or “I regret what my brother has done; he should not have done it,” but this is not an apology in the formal sense. It’s a statement of empathy, care, and concern for the harm you have experienced at the hands of another. Only my brother can truly “apologize” for the harm HE committed (sorrow for one’s actions), only HE can make right (penance) this harm, promising not to do it again (purpose of amendment), and only YOU can forgive him. These elements are what is necessary for reconciliation to occur.

  • What these “good guys” CAN do, however, is challenge — fraternally, respecfully, lovingly — the misguided “teachings” of their fellow bishops on the various issues surrounding homosexuality.
  • What they SHOULD do is embrace their teaching responsibility and fraternally correct their brother bishops who continue to misinterpret Sacred Scripture and ignore the truths from all current sciences about sexuality and sexual orientation.
  • What they SHOULD do is help their brother bishops form their consciences so that they — the bishops, including the Holy Father, who speak harshly and disrespectfully of God’s LGBT children — may allow their hearts to be unhardened, and they may find it in themselves to apologize for the wrong they continue to do.

Now THAT would be a good day in God’s Church!

Archbishop Dolan’s Letter Recognizes US Bishops Don’t Speak for US Catholics

Posted on by

I just re-read the letter which Archbishop Timothy Dolan, current president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, sent to President Obama last month expressing concerns that the Obama Administration is no longer defending legal challenges to the constitutionality of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).

Dolan repeatedly notes that he is writing on behalf of the “Catholic Bishops of the United States,” and that the views he is expressing are shared by “millions of citizens who stand with us on this issue.”

What the good archbishop does not say, however, is that these citizens are necessarily Catholic; nor that he is writing on behalf of Catholics in the United States.  Perhaps this is because, given whatever limitations the logic of his arguments might have, Archbishop Dolan at least is able to read opinion polls and he knows that the views he and his brother bishops are espousing are not the views of most American Catholics when it comes to recognizing that even gays and lesbians are God’s children, with all the rights and responsibilities this brings.

Archbisop’s Argument Supports Gay Marriage Argument

Posted on by

He doesn’t seem to know it, but Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York is actually expressing public support for the basic values and arguments in support of same-sex marriage. In a blog entry entry entitled The True Meaning of Marriage, here’s what Dolan wrote just the other day:

NY Archbishop Timothy Dolan“Last time I consulted an atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of America – not in China or North Korea.  In those countries, government presumes daily to “redefine” rights, relationships, values, and natural law.  There, communiqués from the government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of “family” and “marriage” means.”

Gay Wedding CakeHis point seems straightforward and simple enough — governments have little business involving themselves in defining or limiting the most basic and fundamental of human relationships. Isn’t this what the supporters of same-sex marriage are seeking to do, namely to have existing state laws updated to reflect this “less government intrusion in the lives of individuals” approach?

Except in those situations where there is potential harm to individual or to society (as in the case of children, or close relatives, or those already married), what interest does government have in placing limitations on which two adults — male, female, gay, straight, young, old, black, white, citizen, non-citizen, etc. — may or may not enter into that most fundamental of human relationships in which spouses commit to one another to share their lives, their resources, and their very selves?

Archbishop Dolan, I’m with you!  Those government communiqués dictating limits on fundamental human rights need to stop. How best to do this?  By telling the government it can’t limit these rights and by supporting marriage equality for all in New York State!

Thoughful analysis of Phoenix “abortion”

Posted on by

This is a very helpful, thoughtful article (National Catholic Reporter), and it would be instructive to read the entire analysis that Professor Lysaught provided.

I wonder if Bishop Olmsted has an equally thoughtful and detailed analysis of his own position, one that is not simply an “argument from authority,” (i.e. “it’s wrong because I say it’s wrong,” or simply “I disagree” without giving detailed explanation as to why he disagrees)?

However, seeing how Bishop Olmsted has handled this situation, I won’t hold my breath.