Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sin. Show all posts

Thursday, 17 May 2012

Sin, conscience and Ġorġ Preca of Malta

We are not marble statues!

© Godric Godricson
When we consider death, burials and the cemetery we inevitably come back to the idea of theology and the Christian faith. I was recently thinking about Saint Ġorġ Preca of Malta (recently canonised by Benedict XVI) and noted that there is an allegation of homosexuality against Ġorġ Preca. I’m not particularly interested in this ‘allegation’ of homosexuality; the allegation neither interests me or concerns me although it does bring up the idea of image or hypocrisy both for the living and for the dead.

Thinking about theology, reputation and Saint Ġorġ Preca;  I remembered a young friend of mine training for the priesthood some years ago. This young man couldn’t get over the idea that he was, at some indiscernible point in the future, going to be charged with hypocrisy or preaching one thing and going on to do another. He was particularly horrified when he understood that he would be an ‘icon for the people’ or an ‘alter Christi’. It was all too much for him in his young life. How would he cope with that level of stress and expectation as a gay man? He still has such feelings of inadequacy although he successfully manages such feelings. Sometimes, ordinands need support when faced by negative images which are unhelpful unless managed and channelled effectively. None of us are marble images and we are all ‘gooey individuals’ with a soft centre.

If ‘we’ all needed to be free from sin and the temptation towards sin before being ordained then ‘we’ would all be in trouble because ‘we’ all sin and despite knowing about sin we continue to sin.  We would all be up the creek without a paddle!

Hidden Cemeteries and hidden lives
Saint Edmund's - Hunstanton

© Godric Godricson
The idea of “hypocrisy” came to my young friend and he began to hate the idea of this sort of theological dualism and he began to have a sort of zealot existence whereby ordinands try to expunge sin from their lives and lead the most virtuous life imaginable and that sort of destroys life around them and destroys any real life with their family.  In the United Kingdom, after the MP expenses scandal and where the larger denominations have men who have broken most of the major rules about conduct it is a problem to be seen as a “hypocrite”. No-one wishes to be seen as a hypocrite and no-one wishes to condone that sort of moral ambiguity.

My young friend   sometimes hears the inner Policeman within him and he tries to silence the voices of criticism as he speaks to people about sin and the mindset of being sinful.  The  nature of hypocrisy is such that it is a sort of inner crime and we fear being caught out and exposed like an MP who has claimed inappropriately for a second home or the priest found to have slept with a parishioner.

The problem is that we, as men and women, expect too much of ourselves and we set the standard too high both in life and also in death. We are not perfect and yet we do have a belief that clergy are not like the rest of creation. We are all sinners who have fallen into the lake of sin and we are all collectively swimming to the shore. The task seems to be to help each other and to give each other support as we try to wade out of that great lake of sin that exists in life and in the afterlife. Rather than cast stones and berate people who are often swimming hard and against the tide; our role is to support each other and to be supported in our turn as we move closer to the judgement. We are all judged and will be judged on the final day.

Knapton
© Godric Godricson
It isn’t that my young friend has weak beliefs or has had a crisis in spirituality and faith and it isn’t that he has gone all ‘hippy’ and entered an ‘anything goes’ Catholicism. He has his personal Catholic faith and he does have a traditionalist belief. Moreover, he has a belief in the ultimate goodness of Jesus.He strives to live up to the beliefs and inner values given to him by the Bishops and clergy from long ago and ultimately from the Gospels. He turns and turns again to God and asks forgiveness and tries to encounter the Risen Christ. He is swimming, along with countless others, across the great sea of sin and towards a brighter future supported by the prayers of other flawed but wonderful human beings.

Is this itself a sort of hypocrisy? Well, I think not. Recognising our own human failings and weaknesses  is not hypocrisy and an allegation against Ġorġ Preca didn’t prevent him being declared a saint.  Understanding sin and human realities is not weakness. Instead, hypocrisy  would be the  failure to understand that failing we all have and to go about our lives as if we all were good all of the time. It would be a sort of abominable deceit if we failed to recognise the weakness in ourselves and then challenged the crimes and transgressions of others. It would indeed be wrong for us to pretend to be a totally moral person whilst being a crook or a charlatan or a fraud.


Ġorġ Preca of Malta

Carmelite Church - Valetta

© Godric Godricson
 The real and significant difference that we have as Catholics is that we are sorry for our sins. We recognise that we are all sinful and that we need to repent of our sins and then to move forward having learnt a lesson. The ideal is not to backslide although this is always a danger. We must keep moving along the pathway that God has set for us.  The true hypocrite in the 21st century understands all of the moral and intellectual problems that s/he creates and simply ignores the moral dilemmas.  

As far as sin goes, we all know the problems created by guilt. My neighbour in a previous geographical area was a man wracked by guilt and he displayed that guilt (and that hypocrisy) by always staying at prayer that little longer than anyone else. My neighbour always made the loudest “Amen”. You get the picture! This neighbour had a case of unhealthy guilt and that guilt was infectious as people looked at him and felt that he was a  model to follow. When we acknowledge our sins then that should complete and finish the matter.  If we then continue to hold onto past guilt and feel guilty then we should know we are in trouble. That reluctance to let guilt fall away may indicate a serious personal problem that requires the skills of a trained counsellor rather than a priest. 

My young friend tries not to judge others in his ministry as judgement is ultimately an action for God Himself. It simply isn’t up to humanity to judge others in the traditional sense. Yes, my friend cries out against injustice and he will take up the struggle when it is called for but he will not throw the first stone. He will always try to understand the sinner and the sin that is being committed before speaking out. He never speaks in anger and always speaks softly. 

We all struggle to swim to the shore as we move through the sea of sin and head for the light.  However, there is no need for my young friend to feel that he is under more  supervision or scrutiny in his current ministry because he is Gay. Perhaps one day he will be like Ġorġ Preca and be a saint even if that saintliness is known only to God?

Thursday, 5 January 2012

The Parable of the Net

or..............The changing tariffs for sin
 "Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. 48When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. 49This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
In the Christian tradition, hell is not seen as being beyond Jesus’ reach although Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan, argued (2nd December 2009)  that gay men will never go to heaven and are an insult to God. This statement was subsequently toned down by the well practised Vatican press office and "Insiders" but there we have the idea in a nutshell.  The Cardinal seems to have stolen the responsibility for selecting souls from the angels themselves and he has willingly taken on that role. In doing so, the Cardinal  predictably incurred the wrath of the gay community around the world without actually surprising anyone. The Cardinal attracted even more ridicule for his own branch of Christianity in the media as if that denomination wasn't in enough trouble in the public imagination.


Is sin eternal or does the
tariff of sin change?
© Godric Godricson
 Gay men and possibly Lesbians didn’t have to wait for the Cardinal to make his pronouncement. Gay men have been quite sure (from the teachings of the Church)  that they will join in Dante’s 7th circle of Hell. Gay men has usually been seen by the Church as being damned without recourse to a complaints procedure. The implicit teaching of the Church has been that Jesus would not want to save gay men as opposed to the idea that Jesus could not save gay men. 

We may speculate on salvation in an erudite manner although in reality gay men are seen negatively in the New Testament and as such their souls have been perceived as ‘persona non grata’ in heaven. This does  have repercussions on the cemetery as a place of re-integration, where the living and the dead come together and where the departed start their journey to the other side

I think that the 21st century has been a real problem for the Churches in the United Kingdom and  for the Mexican Cardinal. Monogamous, long-term gay couples are increasingly part of legal civil relationships from 2005 and recognised by the state even if loving gay and lesbian partnerships are actively despised by competing denominations who often contradict each other. The usual anti-gay clamour seems to have subsided a little around Europe but what to do about the souls of gay men and the  unity of the cemetery? Are gay men’s souls really so intrinsically disordered and corrupt that they cannot be saved or  can the souls of gay men ever be seen as  “Righteous”. We have seen what the traditional Church has said but should gay men  continue to be judged by such terms as “Sodomy”, “Carnality” and “lust”? Is it the case that  gay men should be kept out of the cemetery and the salvific ministry of Jesus and be separated into a sort of ‘apartheid’ cemetery for the perpetually fallen? Could we say "Equal but separate", in terms of burial?


The cemetery as a place
of community
© Godric Godricson
 Matthew delegated the job of selecting the souls of the “Wicked” or “Righteous to the angels and it seems that they will decide our fate but we may ask what are the criteria for selection into the Kingdom of God and has the criteria changed recently? Certainly, 100 years ago being gay in the United Kingdom would have incurred severe legal penalties on Earth and would have consigned the accused to prison and hard labour or even death. I’m sure that the burial plot next door may have been cheaper if the sins of the interred person were known What about now? Does a change in the 21st century civil and criminal law and an increasing acceptance of gay men mean that souls already consigned  to hell will now be raised up and re-assigned a place in heaven by the angels? Could Oscar Wilde be judged “louch” but “Righteous” or will he remain a “sodomite” and remain in hell? With secular legality why do we still encounter homosexuality as a sin within the Church?  What to think in changing times and what to think about a place in the cemetery? How does sin play out in heaven when so many members of the Church hierarchy are gay even if they work so hard to 'hush-up' that guilty little secret?

We are used to seeing on monuments “Dear Father”, “Wonderful wife” but these  may soon augmented by “Dutiful Civil partner”? What will it mean for cemeteries when marriage between same sex couples is legalised in the UK by 2015? The imagery and contours of the cemetery will be challenged and changed and so will the sensibilities of visitors to the cemetery. What was once taboo will be out and proud so to speak. Now, this development may be more for the civil cemetery rather than being seen in the parish but I will turn my eyes to the courts from 2015 onwards to see which cemetery is the first to be hit by a claim against them based on discrimination.


Saint Botolph Banningham
© Godric Godricson
 This idea of comparative judgements of “Sin”, “Wickedness” or “Righteousness” fluctuating over time may seem frivolous but it has significance for real people as they try to understand the actions of the Church, their own options for the afterlife and  ideas about their last resting place and monuments. Do we happily trust the angels to judge our lives and if they do judge are they judging for just now or for all time? Do we listen to the Mexican Cardinal as he permanently refuses admittance to a percentage of God’s creation? Increasingly, we may ask "just how permanent is damnation and what does that mean?". How serious is it to be condemned to hell by a Cardinal anyway?  If we all go to heaven do some people have a better circle in heaven just as Dante would have circles in hell. Are some seats closer to God and how are they allocated?  The Churches still retain great powers of leadership and the state tries to harness that power for its own particular ends.

In the UK, David Cameron appears somewhat confused and, on one hand, would like people to take upon themselves distinctly Christian values whilst he also espouses socially progressive tendencies such as gay marriage. The Cardinal, in 2009,  and his denomination choose to speak in a traditional manner about gay men and the state of their souls although this does have some distinct repercussions for those currently living and their choices in the future? What is “judgement” and what is “eternity” and how do we record that event on the tombstone? Perhaps. rather than inscribing into granite, we should merely have a chalk board and change the details every few years or so!