We're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. But I will do so in the case of Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, who passed away on April 17, 2015. I'll start with a definition of "good riddance." Definition #1 from the Urban Dictionary*:
"A welcome relief from someone or something undesirable or unwanted."
Just to be clear, it was a welcome relief to me that we have one less cardinal in our midst. Sure, the Catholic Church will continue to appoint replacements of those who pass away. But for at least one blessed moment, we'll have one less. Especially one who is considered a noteworthy intellect. I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect who operated well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of which I'll describe below.]
In the newspaper
In the April 21 edition of the Chicago Tribune** appear two statements concerning the cardinal (which are followed by my comments):
As often as he could, he invited groups of parish priests in for
Sunday supper. He encouraged them to bring up any issue on
their minds. The only subjects off the table were abortion and
women's ordination.
"Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die,"
he said not many months ago when his battle with cancer was
clearly lost.
As for that first statement: Why take anything off the table, especially women's ordination? As for abortion, this should have been discussed if only to brainstorm on ways to fight against it in the courts. Same for the issue of gay marriage, assuming that subject was off the table as well (perhaps Woodward forgot to include that subject among the other two he cited.) These two links connect to my essays on abortion and gay marriage:
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html
As for the cardinal's second statement, which I'll recap: "Of course, we don't know what happens to us after we die." I didn't know it was in fashion for princes of the church to lapse into agnosticism when death stares them in the face.
My view of Catholicism
Many people had become Catholics because their parents inherited that faith and passed it down to them. Then there are those who converted simply because some long-dead king from their country of origin adopted that faith, so therefore all of his subjects converted. Too bad about that last (which is really just a subset of the opening sentence of this paragraph) - we tend to obey long-dead kings far too long. Then there are untold millions of poor souls who had been converted by missionaries, who in turn were backed up by armies.
In other words - too many had become Catholics for bad reasons. I'll go so far as to say, "No one with a functioning brain that they use with an open mind could possibly embrace Catholicism." I'll extend that to include all of the other branches of the Abrahamic faiths as well. As for other faiths? I can only speak about Buddhism due to my 24 years of religious practice in that tradition.
Now I'll return to the passage of a cardinal and the man who was a cardinal.
A cardinal is a prince of the church, and as such shares responsibility for its evils as well as its good works. The evils far outweigh the good works, as evidenced (for example) in an excellent, very readable, well-researched book by Helen Ellerbe called The Dark Side of Christian History (1995). This link will direct you to a complete, free, on-line version of this book in pdf format:
http://ethosworld.com/library/Ellerbe-The-Dark-Side-of-Christian-History-%281995%29.pdf
However, I've noticed that people who too easily sweep things under the rug in one realm of their lives end up doing so in other realms as well. For instance, a man who beats his wife "believes" he has good reason for doing so. Worse than that? His wife also comes to believe in the validity of his "reasons." Given this, Cardinal Francis George and all of the other cardinals are engaged in an enterprise that severely compromises the spiritual growth of their congregations. And that is perhaps the greatest evil of all.
What the world of faith is all about
This is how I ended the Introduction to this essay:
I would add to that: "...a noteworthy intellect that operated
well within a closed system." And isn't that what the world
of faith is all about? [NOTE: There are exceptions, one of
which I'll describe below.]
Once a person accepts God as a savior, he becomes immersed in a closed system. Once a person accepts Buddha as a teacher, he becomes immersed in an open system. One has to accept God without any expectation of proof. One can accept Buddha, acquiring proof of the veracity of his teachings as a consequence of practice. He ends up knowing that Buddha is not a god and that even the untold trillions of gods in the universe aspire to become one of the fully enlightened trillions of buddhas.
If one practices the Lotus Sutra, one comes to realize that it would make equal sense to believe in either of these two statements:
- The universe was created by a God, who Himself was not created since God always was and always will be.
- The universe doesn't require something to have created it, since the universe always was and always will be; things within the universe are born, live, and die but the universe itself was never born and will never die. Why should it?
Anyone who practices the Lotus Sutra will acquire the knowledge of the second statement, without having to first believe. This is called attaining the wisdom that comes of itself - Buddha wisdom.
I myself was introduced to Buddhist practice 40 years ago. Prior to that, I was an agnostic. Friends introduced me to Buddhism, saying, "You don't have to believe, you just have to practice. Belief will come as a result of your practice, which includes meditation." Even though I am no longer with the particular Buddhist sect I had joined in the early 70's, my practice guided me down the path I'm currently on. And that is as a practitioner without a congregation - a solitary practitioner. But that's alright - since the Lotus Sutra mentions that as an acceptable form of practice.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
Footnotes:
*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=good+riddance
**
RE: The article written by Kenneth L. Woodward, "Chicago's accidental archbishop," Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment