Father Joe

So there we were at home, an Evangelical Christian and a moderate Muslim, watching PBS and they had this story about a Catholic priest working in a Bangkok slum populated primarily by Buddhists, and, well, we were deeply moved by his story:

PHIL JONES: Children singing the national anthem of Thailand -- it's how their school day begins. After the anthem, it's time for their prayers, led by the teachers.

TEACHERS AND STUDENTS: Bow once to the Buddha. The Buddha is great.

JONES: What's so unique about this scene is, the kids are praying to Buddha in a Catholic school. But that's just fine with Father Joe Maier, who says he doesn't care if the children say their "Hail Marys" to a statue of Buddha as long as they know some prayers to help them deal with life. They live in Klong Toey, amidst poverty, drugs, gang violence, and child sex abuse. Father Maier came here more than 30 years ago and never left.

In addition to the schools he's built which are literally giving hope to folks who knew little before he arrived, Father Joe has begun to develop support networks for the victims of Thailand's exploding AIDS epidemic.

Fr. MAIER: Oh, look at this, here comes the AIDS brigade.

JONES: It's a brigade of children -- most of them born HIV positive. The Mercy Center is their home. On this day, they stopped by the office after school for some candy and compassion from the staff and Father Joe.

(To Fr. Maier): Are these kids going to survive?

Fr. MAIER: No, they are all going to die. This one might make it forever. The two boys won't make it. The two boys won't make it. But you do what you can -- day by day by day.

JONES: After candy, the children line up for what's called cocktail time -- their medicine. It will keep them alive for a little big longer.

Fr. MAIER: We're a house of hope and of joy and of life. You've got AIDS, you've got AIDS. You die, you die; but, you know, that's tomorrow. You live right now and here, today.

As an Evangelical Christian and a moderate Muslim, we know how fundamentalism can interfere with the more beautiful aspects of religion. "As long as they know some prayers to help them deal with life." Indeed. The rest is politics.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

Edward, that's wonderful. That's the kind of story that makes me feel good just thinking about it.

"This might be the only chance for them to learn. Seventy thousand children have graduated from our schools, our kindergarten. And they're going on to school. They know how to read and write. And that's really neat. We've given them a gift they'll never, ever lose. What a glorious way to spend your life."

Thank you for linking to this.

[Edward]

Father Joe is my kind of hero, Jes, transcending even his own calling to see that what's human about us all is more important than what differences we construct for ourselves.

[Macallan]

Nice post, though one quibble:

"we know how fundamentalism can interfere with the more beautiful aspects of religion"

You actually only know that human nature can interfere. It isn't fundamentalism per se; it is the darker sides of human nature that can make fundamentalism stray.

[Edward]

You actually only know that human nature can interfere. It isn't fundamentalism per se; it is the darker sides of human nature that can make fundamentalism stray.

That's probably a good distinction, Mac, but I'm not sure I'm interpreting it the way you mean it.

I see fundamentalism as going hand-in-hand with the type of absolutism in which there's one way, and one way only, to "worship" God. Father Joe would not be able to do what he does, were he to believe that.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Fundamental to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is concept of human dignity, Father Joe's efforts certainly reflect the concept of human dignity.

[Edward]

You are agreeing with me then, Timmy, no?

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Do I have a problem with what Father Joe is doing, the answer is no. You would be surprised how flexible the RCC has been in incorporating local custom into the institution.

But that same respect for human dignity, puts the Church at odds on the red hot issues of abortion, stem cell research and nontraditional marriage, so it is no bed of roses.

[Jesurgislac]

But that same respect for human dignity, puts the Church at odds on the red hot issues of abortion, stem cell research and nontraditional marriage, so it is no bed of roses.

You know, I can see how respect for human dignity could be argued as a reason against abortion and stem cell research. (I don't agree with it, but I see it as a logical argument, though the logic of it fails when arguing against abortion turns into arguing for making abortions illegal.)

But opposition to same-sex marriage is founded firmly and squarely on an extreme disrespect for human dignity: the kind of disrespect for human dignity that would be shown if this priest were trying to force Buddhist children to pray only to his Christian God.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

I won't bore you with the details but the Church's concept of human dignity melds conception into the sacrament of marriage and of course the Church is kinda prudish in that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Prayer to a higher being is universal as well as an excellent segue into the other principle of the Church man's relationship with God. If someone believes in prayer to a higher being, that is a start.

The relationship with God and human dignity the core tenents of the Church and from there it just gets more complicated.

[Jesurgislac]

but the Church's concept of human dignity melds conception into the sacrament of marriage and of course the Church is kinda prudish in that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

...so it follows that, according to Church doctrine, any couple who can't conceive may not get married.

Curiously enough, I don't see the Catholic Church out there trying to force the outlawry of marriage to any woman over the age of fertility or who's had a tubal ligation; or any man who's had a vasectomy. It ought to, of course: according to the definition of marriage you've outlined, such marriages are exactly as contrary to Church doctrine as two men with two adopted children who want to get married.

It won't, of course: because sterile heterosexual marriages are far more common than same-sex marriages, and because straight couples who want to get married even though they know they can't have children are not nearly such a popular target for vitrolic abuse as gay couples are.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Jes, no it doesn't follow. But someone with tubal ligation or vasectomy could not be married in the Church. But that wasn't your point.

[Edward]

I've always had rather romantic notions about the RCC. The history and iconography around it makes for some of the best art in the world.

My step Mother is Catholic, and I've attended Mass with her. I was slightly offended that I couldn't take communion, but other than that I always found the experience inspiring. Much more so than the rather mundane and predictable experience of the church I grew up in.

I've also shared drinks with priests (not something I can fathom doing with a Pentecostal minister, all of whom preach that drinking is oneway ticket to hell), and find them to be so much more honest about what it means to be a human than my own clergy. And I get highly annoyed each time the Pope feels compelled to re-condemn all gay people (does he set his watch by it or something?), but what I wouldn't give to be the curator at the Vatican.

[Jesurgislac]

But that wasn't your point.

No. My point was two-fold: it's a bizarre definition of human dignity that looks first at whether someone can conceive with their chosen partner (but hey, all religions have their bizarre aspects): and second, that the Church is hypocritical, but we knew that anyway.

The Catholic Church is so frequently and so obviously bizarre and hypocritical, so uncaring for human feeling, so unsupportive of human love, and so horrifyingly indifferent to human misery, that's it's a pleasure to be reminded that there are priests like Father Joe who do so much good in the world. So, I'm grateful to Edward for linking to this story.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

And I get highly annoyed each time the Pope feels compelled to re-condemn all gay people (does he set his watch by it or something?), but what I wouldn't give to be the curator at the Vatican.

Edward, not that you would be surprised, but I've missed the Pope's condemnation of gay people per se. Most priests are well educated, interested in a variety of subject, not just religion and enjoy a drink with people who are social. A curator at the Vatican would be an excellent job.

Jes, the Church is a caring institution (with more than a number of flaws and scandals) and sexual orientation is not a huge issue, except for sex and marriage. Sexual orientation for Religious is not an issue as long as they remain chaste which is also applicable to the laity.

[Edward]

Sexual orientation for Religious is not an issue as long as they remain chaste which is also applicable to the laity.

"not an issue"---easy for them to say. ;)

[Edward]

er...should have been

"not an issue as long as they remain chaste"---easy for them to say. ;)

[EDG]

Sexual orientation for Religious is not an issue as long as they remain chaste which is also applicable to the laity.

So, as long as I'm never in a situation where it makes a difference, my sexual orientation doesn't make a difference?

Way to tautologize, Tim.

On the plus side, "sexual orientation is not a huge issue, except for sex and marriage" is probably the single funniest thing I've read today, so you do get a laugh point.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

well them is the rules, don't like em, don't be a RC.

[Edward]

If there's one thing I know about the RC, it's that the rules change, Timmy.

[EDG]

Timmy, this isn't about who is and who isn't Roman Catholic; this is about treating a sizeable proportion of the population of the Earth as second-class citizens at best and calling it "respect for human dignity". And, frankly, you have yet to tell us how "non-traditional marriage" violates human dignity.

[Anarch]

Father Joe has begun to develop support networks for the victims of Thailand's exploding AIDS epidemic.

Slight quibble: IIRC, Thailand's AIDS epidemic hasn't been "exploding" over the last fifteen years or so, thanks to the courageous efforts of Captain Condom, the living mascot invented by Mr Condom himself, Senator Mechai. The delayed effects of Thailand's existing epidemic are now reaching fruition, but that's a very different thing.

As a related aside, I tagged along with my dad's MA group in a field-trip to Thailand circa 1993. One of the stops was an AIDS symposium at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok; I've never forgotten the strange juxtaposition of the students' boredom and my utter fascination at the devastation that the Thai AIDS epidemic was predicted to incur. [They were talking 90% HIV infection rate by 2010, and no, they weren't kidding.] Had it not been for Mechai and Captain Condom, it's entirely possibly that Thailand as we know it would not exist. I have no idea what would be there except that it would probably really, really suck.

[Nathan S.]

I find it interesting when people choose to criticize the philosophy of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that they are on pretty stable ground as they have had 2000 years, or so, to go over these things.

Now, I am no theologian or philosopher, just a simple engineer muddling through life. Just as an engineer can look at well established design criteria and think of ways to improve it, so can an individual look at Catholic philosophy and feel that it requires correction. In both cases, however, I think that it would serve one well to have a healthy respect for the established doctrine. Tried and true, and all that.

Regarding chastity, I guess it comes down to what one values in life. As we live in sex-obsessed times these days, many people look upon chastity as a rather odd thing to do. Tough subject to think about, I suppose. Particularly with the connection of physical gratification to feelings of love.

[Phil]

I think it's more than a little tautological to observe that 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine work well for people who want to be Catholics. It appears not to work well at all for people who want to be atheists, or animists, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientologists, or Jews. (Who, by the way, have a 3,000 year head start, with doctrine that also appears, from the inside, to work pretty well. So if that's your criterion -- a set of tenets with longevity that work for people who want to adhere to them -- shouldn't you be converting?)

[sidereal]

"So, as long as I'm never in a situation where it makes a difference, my sexual orientation doesn't make a difference?

Way to tautologize, Tim."

EDG, you seem to be implying that the only thing that differentiates homosexuals from others is their practice of having homosexual sex. Not only does this seem degrading (I'm not on the other end, so just guessing here), but it supports the bizarre notion that homosexuality is a choice, which probably isn't a road you want to go down.

People who choose not to have sex out of a vow of chastity are still either homosexual or heterosexual according to their desires, so Timmy's comment seems straightforward and reasonable (not sure if it's representitive of Catholicism as a whole, however).

I have to agree that 'sexual orientation is not a huge issue, except for sex and marriage' is pretty funny, though. Next question is why people are so hung up about sex all the time. Silly monkeys.

[Nathan S.]

Phil,

Umm, okay. Catholicism works well for Catholics. Who would have thought?

If someone wants to be an animist, then they have decided that they should not live in line with what the Catholic Church teaches. That is fine.

What is not fine, is expecting that the Church should change its practices and philosophy because some people find them objectionable. I referred to the established doctrine because it means that most have these arguments have likely been brought up before, and rejected.

[EDG]

sidereal, forgive me if I'm wrong, but in my experience the word "homosexual" means "sexually attracted to one's own sex". Regardless of the social and cultural attachments that society has added to the concept, this is the single characteristic that applies to every person who falls into that category. Saying that every gay man in the world is effeminate and has a lisp is derogatory (and absolutely not a stereotype I mean to support; if nothing else, I know it's not true), but saying that every gay man in the world is sexually attracted to men is a simple statement of definition. Is it offensive? I surely don't mean it to be.

By the same token, it doesn't "[support] the bizarre notion that homosexuality is a choice"; it could be construed to support it, but it could also be construed to support the notion that homosexuality isn't necessarily a choice, and that's how I'm intending it to be read.

That said, yes, I probably overreacted to Timmy. He tends to have that effect on me.

Nathan, the issue was not that the Roman Catholic church was wrong in its beliefs and doctrines, but that we (or I, at least) had a hard time believing that the Roman Catholic's church's stand on homosexuality and non-traditional marriages was based in a respect for human dignity. (I do feel that the Catholic church is wrong in many of its deuteroreligious doctrines, but this is neither the time not the place to debate that.

[sidereal]

"in my experience the word "homosexual" means "sexually attracted to one's own sex""

Agree 100%.
In the post I was responding to, you seemed to be suggesting that acting on that attraction is what defines homosexuality, losing the distinction between desire and action, and thus the bit about homosexuality as a choice, since acting is indeed a choice while desiring is not. And if I understand Timmy's point, the difference between desire and action was fundamental to it.

[Nathan S.]

EDG,

Fair enough.

[Gary Farber]

"2,000 years of Catholic doctrine."

This phrase keeps being tossed about here. It's handy short-hand, but at the risk of nit-picking, may I point out that the earliest one could possibly claim there was such a thing as "settled" Catholic doctrine would be the Council of Nicea in 325.

But that was really just the beginning. One really needs to go here and scroll down to the list of Ecumenical Councils, and check the topics clarified at each one, briefly -- this can be done in about three minutes -- before considering, suggesting, or declaring, a length of time that Catholic doctrine has been "settled."

Council of Ephesus (431), which "defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius"?

Fourth Lateran Council (1215) was considered extremely important.

How about The Council of Trent (1545-1563)? Everyone remembers that one, right? Condemned some guy named "Luthur," and reformed the Church?

And so on.

One thing is clear: "2000 years ago" there was absolutely no such thing as either the Catholic Church, let alone "settled doctrine."

(If I were making nominations, I might nominate this one:

Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681)

The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.

But I'm really not sufficiently knowledgeable of Catholic history or doctrine to have an opinion worth speaking.)

[Anarch]

Gary's absolutely right about the strange progression of Catholic doctrine, btw. Consider -- in honor of Trinity Sunday which just passed -- the various interpretations of the Trinity and heretical Trinitarianisms that crop up periodically. Gnosticism, Arianism, Albigensianism... there's been a whole lot of disagreement on the matter over the past few millenia, and the fact that the Catholic Church chooses to see an unbroken historical progression doesn't, IMO, mean that such a progression exists in anything except their dogma.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

Gary, when the next Thomas Aquinas shows up please give me a call.

[Jean K.]

While I can 'sort of' understand the reasoning behind why he's doing what he's doing, there's an even "bigger picture" here. The Catholic church aside, if he took on the duties of being a priest, then his sole mission in life is supposed to be spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not doing what 'he' feels is right (Matthew 7:22; "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord did we not prophesy by they name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works"? 23:"And the I will declare to them, "I never knew you: depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness").
These people are going off into a Christ-less eternity, and their fates will be forever sealed, because he didn't do what he was really 'called' to do.
Have a heart to help people yes, but also make them aware of the fact that God loves them, Jesus died for them and wants and He also wants better for them too.
Why take on these 'titles' if you don't wish to adhere to your 'chosen' calling? God is not impressed by anyone's title as the majority of them are man made and not God given.
Also, not to start a debate of any kind here, but life is more than feeding and clothing, what about their eternal souls? Know I'm going to get into 'big' trouble here but the mistaken belief that 'all religions' lead to God is not accurate. All 'roads' do not lead to following the God of heaven and earth.
We can 'debate' all we want about whatever we want, but that still changes nothing. Wanting to help people to better their lives is a good thing, but the way in which we choose to do it is a whole different matter. God's 'direction' is not always 'our' direction.
Father Maier chose to become a priest and follow the precepts of the church (maybe if he reads and follows the word of God instead, he'd get much better results.), so if he doesn't 'believe' in 'their' laws, why not come out and 'do your own' thing instead?
'I am not dismissing the ways that he has already helped these people out (that's a good thing), but his 'ministry' entails so much more and the blood of many will be on his hands if he continues to 'leave out' the God of the Bible he's supposed to be preaching'. God help them all.