Thursday, November 7, 2019

Preaching with a newspaper in one hand

I afflict our group with the texts of my homilies, and so far, not many of you have asked me to stop.  One of my recent offerings invoked Greta Thunberg and climate change.  I mentioned, in the blog discussion that followed my posting of that text, that I had received negative reaction from some parishioners.

I was checking my parish email box earlier today (something I do far too seldom; I never remember to do it), and discovered that I received the following fan letter a few days after giving the homily.  The parishioner was kind enough to sign it, but there is no need to mention his name.  If you read it, you will see that he gives me the benefit of the doubt at the end, and very nicely offers me his blessing as well, so it finishes on a friendly note.

I offer this, not to excuse, but to help illustrate why many preachers are loath to touch on church social teaching in their homilies.
Dear Mr. Pauwels,  I take exception to your Saturday, Sept. 28th homily at St. Ednas.  You stepped over the line when you used the church Altar to espouse your "liberal" views in reference to climate change, the south and west sides crime problems, and more importantly, the "poor families" being detained at the Arizona borders. The south and west side residences steadfastly refuse to Anonymously  identify  known gang members commiting theses shootings.  That’s on them, that is not being complacent.  That’s a group of people who don’t want to get involved in solving their own problems.  Those communities need to be part of the solution, otherwise they continue to be part of the problem.
Who went so far to put this pathetically “Inept” girl Greta Thunburg on world TV expressing  her outrage about climate change of which she knows nothing about.  From what educational institutions did she get her degrees in “Meteriology, Oceanology, Volcanolgy, Geophysics or Earth Science.  At the very minimum, these require a Bachelors Degree. Who would use an innocent child, who by the way, has Aspergers/Autism disease.  Sounds like “child abuse”.  The United States contributes only 15% of the carbon emissions while China and India contribute the rest.  You call that being complacent.  I think we did damn well.
Last, but not least, both sets of my grandparents came from Europe through Ellis Island in the early 1900’s.  They came here legally.  Who in the hell do these people think they are, invading our country, then demanding to be taken care of with my tax dollars.  Do you not know the definition of   “ILLEGAL”  Last, but not least, where’s your complacency about the Priests, Cardinals and Bishops on the past, present and future sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.. Why don’t you address a situation that cost the church billions of dollars, which should be helping these poor people that you are so worried about.
I’m sure you are a very nice person who loves his God and his Country, but please, in the future do not bring your political views to our Church. God Bless

50 comments:

  1. Why did he put "liberal" and "poor families" in quotes? What does he or she have against hiring the handicapped? Where has "Catholic education"?

    You may as well write a newspaper column. I used to get those all the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I like your homilies. Or are they "homilies"?

      Delete
    2. Thanks to both of you for being supportive, I appreciate it. Tom, besides my unwillingness to work for any newspaper that would hire me, there is the problem that writing is just too damn hard. I don't want to work that hard for a living.

      Delete
  2. Now I know why I would never make a good deacon or a priest. There's nothing liberal or "liberal" about climate change. Climatologist Katherine Hayhoe is an Evangelical. Richard Alley is a Republican. Science is science and Greta Thunberg has the sense to defer to their expertise. Does the letter writer have a degree in anything relevant? Perhaps one could use what is becoming a standard retort: "OK boomer." As for me, I'd be tempted to administer what one high school priest-teacher called "BOPtism". Again, I'll never be a deacon or priest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Science is science and Greta Thunberg has the sense to defer to their expertise."

      Yeah, that's really what it comes down to. There are conservatives who are willing to concede this, but apparently there aren't many of us.

      And I love "Bop-tism"!

      Delete
    2. Stanley, Can you enlighten us on what meteriology and volcanology are? The former looks like it might be the science of measuring distances, and the second might be related to calculus and the volume of cans. But I feel so ignorant in the presence of Jim's fan.

      Delete
    3. Haha. What do I know? I'm just a fizzycyst.

      Delete
    4. Oh, God, please don't lure me into the weeds of a close reading on this kind of word vomit. As a comp instructor, I can verify that doing so will take years off your life.

      To wit: The writer has two "last" points (in the same graf), wants to know where Jim's "complacency" is about the sex abuse crisis, and tells him to keep "your" politics out of "our" parish as if Jim were some type of liberal rogue deacon.

      I gotta go take my Prilosec.

      Delete
  3. The obvious solution is to invite me or Stanley to give a guest homily in which we outline our ideas about taxation, immigration, and climate catastrophe, which would, by contrast, reinstate you as a God-fearing white Catholic conservative.

    If this screed were a student paper, I would fail it for making unsourced claims. (Never mind the sad lack of compositional skills.)

    But I'd say your best option is to view this as an encounter with Christ crucified. Among the many agonies Our Lord suffered was the knowledge that there were many dumb asses standing at the foot of the cross condemning him on similarly false info and faulty conclusions.

    My favorite part is the "God Bless [sic]" at the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it were me, of course, I would ask this individual if I could have his letter printed in the next bulletin exactly as written. The sweetest revenge is when someone's stupidity is revealed by their own hands. But being a "very nice person who loves his God," I doubt this would occur to you.

      Delete
    2. Jean, are you kidding? I've been suffering agonies of guilt at having published this anonymously on this blog which nobody reads.

      Personally, I think writing is hard, so I tend to cut people some slack for grammatical errors, etc. (not least because I'm a frequent violator of those norms here at NewGathering). I admit that I thought the bolds, underlines, etc. added some additional seasoning to the reading experience.

      Delete
    3. No, I'm not kidding about what I would do.

      Delete
  4. The author's point about the need to talk about the abuse crisis is a fair one. I've done that once in 15 years, and got in trouble for it. But the author could easily have missed that episode in my diaconal career.

    The writer's point about Greta having Asperger's and/or being autistic, as though those things are character flaws: that was a common theme from the letter writers who peppered my mailbox. I can only think that it is something that Fox News, or some other Trumpian organ, really emphasized in the wake of her UN speech. The conservative media has been disgracefully churlish about her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a list of famous people that are believed by some to be on the autistic spectrum. Some seem rather speculative but here they are:

      https://www.appliedbehavioranalysisprograms.com/historys-30-most-inspiring-people-on-the-autism-spectrum/

      Delete
    2. If we're just speculating, J.D. Salinger and Franz Kafka need to be on that list.

      Delete
  5. If that homily is too political for them, wonder how they feel about voting advice? Our pastor has never done that from the pulpit. But you can count on "Catholic Voter Guides" appearing under your windshield wipers in the church parking lot when election day approaches. I don't think that was the pastor's idea, more likely church ladies or gentlemen.
    In a neighboring diocese when the last presidential election was approaching, the bishop wrote in the diocese newspaper that he could understand why people might not want to vote for the Republican candidate; that they could vote for a third party candidate, or just leave it blank, with a clear conscience. The implication was that you wouldn't have a clear conscience voting for the Dem candidate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, we get an advice column from a priest in our award-winning diocesan magazine that says stuff like the bishop you mention. I think he actually said once that not voting at all is a valid vote of protest.

      He also holds out two education options for parents--Catholic school or, if you can't afford that, home school. Apparently he thinks that Catholic mothers can afford stay home popping out babies and doing lesson plans for the little monsters.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, what's with all the homeschoolers? That's something you never heard of when I was growing up. From what I've seen, some people do a good job and others aren't remotely qualified, but it doesn't stop them from trying. I don't think people do their kids any favors to continue homeschooling through high school.

      Delete
    3. I know a couple of home-schooled kids who turned into fine adults. That said, there are a lot of published and on-line resources for home-schooling parents, and I suspect most of us would be appalled if we saw what is in them. There seems to be a nexus between home-schooling and avoidance of vaccinations, and between home-schooling and creationism as an alternative to godless science. I don't know if the people who are attracted to scientific flimflam become home schoolers, or if home schoolers' resources and milieu make them so. Someone must be doing research on that.

      Delete
    4. When we were growing up, our parents' sending us to Catholic schools (at least those of us who grew up Catholic) implied a rejection of public schools.

      The Catholic families I know who homeschool are rejecting both the public and the Catholic schools. They are almost always fairly prosperous families; they need to be able to live on one parent's income.

      I don't want to be too judgy of them. In my experience, they are, without exception, wonderful people. They see what they are doing as a vocation.

      Delete
    5. My relatives who were homeschooling their kids were pretty much fundamentalists from the get-go. And their homeschooling community gave them plenty of support for anti-vaxxing and anti-sciencing. That said, they seem to do a decent job with math and grammar and writing skills.

      Delete
    6. I had many college students who were home-schooled. Very mixed bag. My objection is priests telling people they ought not send kids to public school. Also object the diocesan youth leadership programs that select students only from Catholic schools as participants.

      Delete
    7. I've no quarrel with people who want to homeschool and are equipped to do a good job of it. But if a critical mass of people are avoiding both the parochial and public schools in a given location, the question needs to be asked why. Are there serious problems in those systems that need to be addressed? I have known people who homeschooled because of relentless bullying that wasn't addressed by the administration of the school their child had attended.

      Delete
    8. Katherine re: relentless bullying: I know at least a couple of families with kids in Catholic schools that have struggled with that. At multiple schools, and at all different levels, i.e. elementary, middle school and high school.

      But, I would cautiously say, bullying is not a major issue in the public schools around here. The only incident I've ever heard of re: bullying in the public schools, happened at least 20 years ago.

      My own kids all seemed to enjoy their public-school middle school experience; that's so opposed to my own public-school middle school experience from 40-45 years ago that I can scarcely believe it. Middle school was hell for me, and the bullying was endemic. Kids who were bullied one year, turned into bullies the next year.

      How are the public schools around here so good at handling bullying? I think it's because the teachers are now highly trained on how to recognize it and on how to handle it.

      I also believe that there was a sort of athletics-culture aspect of bullying; many of the coaches I knew in my own school days were bullies themselves, and thought that bullying was just fine. Bullying was what they wanted to see on the athletic field and court from their own young athletes, and if they were sharpening their skills on the playground or in the hallways, so much the better. I don't think the coach-as-bully is nearly as countenanced now, at least not around here. All of the coaches around here are also teachers, and not just make-work gym teachers. It really is a culture change.

      Delete
    9. I remember how the Sister who was my teacher in 5th grade shut down some bullying. One of my classmates was the daughter of a widow, who bought the child's clothing at rummage sales (we didn't have uniforms at that time), and didn't know how to style her hair. In addition the girl didn't do very well in her schoolwork. She was made fun of and excluded by many of her classmates. Sister sent the girl out of the classroom, to return a book to one of the other teachers. And then proceeded to read the class the riot act. This nun was small in stature, but she put the fear of God into the 5th grade. They gave no more trouble to that girl for the rest of the school year.

      Delete
  6. Probably an important point: What we post here is not anonymous.

    NewGathering posts can be found through a Google search. If you Google "Jim Pauwels Greta Thunberg" it will take you to the sermon he posted here back in September.

    There may be a setting that allows the admin to block blog posts from a Google search. Or posts you don't want those outside the group to.see can be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What we post here is not anonymous." That's the reason the name I post under is my middle name and my maiden name. I don't think anyone would care, but I'm from a smallish parish in a not-large town.

      Delete
    2. Oh, my goodness! My pastor may see this?! It may reveal to him that I am not the atheist he thinks I am. That will ruin his day since he considers my future conversion the acme of his priesthood.

      Delete
    3. Jim is in a more sensitive position than the rest of us.

      Delete
    4. Jean, thanks. I realize this is a public blog. When I referred to the letter that the subject of this post as "anonymous", I meant that I withheld the name of the author.

      He's a real person, and it always behooves us to be kind and just about what he wrote. I am sure it is from his heart.

      Delete
  7. I suppose another way to look at the letter Jim shared is as a blow for anti-clericalism, laity pushing back against the authority of the pulpit. Lord knows there have been times I wanted to rake a cleric over the coals with my poison pen.

    And I presume my disgust with what I will try to be charitable and call the artless sincerity of the missive in question could be seen as a form of liberal elitism.

    The problem is that this person isn't asking for an exchange of ideas, just wants to shut down ideas he or she doesn't want to listen to, and implies those ideas were sacrilegious.

    I'm sure it came from the heart. Which is what I find appalling.

    OK, done thinking about this now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, it was sort of a screed. I really would love to engage with some of these critics sometime. It's actually easier to do it in a forum like this than it is face-to-face. And most of us are extremely uncomfortable with confrontation and conflict.

      FWIW, whenever someone emails me with criticism, I always reply, and most of the time, it seems to soothe the roiled waters. There is still some hope that people can get beyond divisive ideology to have a personal relationship.

      Delete
    2. I love Jean's comments, especially after she said she was going to stop. Reading that email is like watching a wreck in slow motion -- horrible but you have to peek anyway.

      I doubt there is much engagement to have with this guy. It looks like classic Dunning-Kugler (thanks again, Katherine). The guy would come off as magisterial, and probably thinks he did, if he could spell, organize his thoughts and think. And if he knew what he was talking about. As it is, he must have glommed onto something he heard on talk radio and now proudly misstates it for all to see.

      I used to occasionally get into back-and-forth notes with critics, but there had to be a glimmer of thought in their missive someplace before I would try. Jim, I know you would like to save this guy's soul, and that may be possible. But his head is gone forever.

      Delete
  8. Katherine, I also use only my middle and maiden names when commenting online. Some years ago a friend warned me about giving out TMI online. He had been harassed via phone and mail by someone who tracked down his address and phone # and didn't much like his opinions.

    Jim is a public person, called upon to preach. That puts him in the position of being attacked at times. Richard Rohr often notes that many prophets were not very popular among those they were preaching to!

    So, if Jim is a modern prophet, preaching challenging things that upset some people, at least they vent via email only! (We hope).

    Jim, you alluded to this as being one reason few priests or deacons preach on Catholic Social Teaching (among the best teachings the RCC has, but often not actually taught). They probably should be doing more of it rather than less.

    Years ago, still in a RC parish, I was part of a Social Justice Committee that was led by a young man who was very passionate abut social justice. A number of parishoners voiced complaints about some of his initiatives. It took us months to get the parish council to approve using Fair Trade coffee - they complained about the cost and about the "socialist" nature of Fair Trade. We finally got permission to have Fair Trade coffee once/month and leave some literature on the coffee table for people to read about WHY paying a little bit more for Fair Trade coffee paid huge dividends for small coffee farmers in Latin America. This was the wealthiest parish in the entire archdiocese and the parking lot was full of luxury cars every Sunday.

    After that battle we decided some education was needed and planned to introduce a series on Catholic Social Justice teachings using resources available from one of the several Catholic groups that offers them - as talks or as adult ed presentations - in order for the parishoners to begin to understand the church's stance on social justice and prepare them for the "hard" teachings that might be conveyed in homilies. Unfortunately, the Social Justice Minister left the parish before we got this off the ground. I left not long after he left, and I don't know if his successor (who was hired several months after he left) picked up the ball and ran with it.

    CRS has some teaching materials available - perhaps a similar initiative in your parish could provide the groundwork for homilies such as the one you gave.

    https://www.crs.org/resource-center/CST-101?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIk_i0vYrc5QIVGHiGCh11vAfGEAAYASAAEgJVcvD_BwE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anne, many thanks for that URL, and God bless the work of CRS around the world.

      That is pretty interesting about your former parish's Social Justice Committee. Fair trade coffee doesn't sound that outrageous to me. But the world and people do change, and over time they come to accept things that seemed outrageous a decade or two ago. That doesn't just happen all by itself; it happens because groups of people, like your committee, disrupt ways of thinking with new ideas. Most people are opposed to change.

      Delete
  9. It is clear that this person did not get anything out of the homily. The question is: what does he need to hear in a church homily? Something that would touch him, but what might that be?

    If everyone in the assembly had this kind of reaction (hopefully that was not the case!!), then I would consider the homily to be a failure, because it did not reach the people. It does not matter that the homily said things that were true, and that resonate with the readers of this blog: it did not accomplish its objective.

    In fact the letter writer’s indignation probably prevented him from being disposed to express thanksgiving and live the rest of the Mass. People are vulnerable at Mass, they need to be treated with the softest of touches, I believe. But the question is: what would that person care about that might be appropriate for a homily?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part of the answer to that question of what the person would care about -- maybe the major part -- is: Something that applied to other people, not himself.

      Jim often says "I" when he means "we," but the we's see through that and know he is talking about them, too.

      Delete
    2. "People are vulnerable at Mass." That's a good point, Claire. We're there to worship and give thanks. Maybe the best way to get social teaching across is through materials such as Anne suggested, in talks or adult ed presentations.

      Delete
    3. Claire - I am always grateful when you decide to make yourself apparent :-)

      You make a good point about people's vulnerability. There certainly are many people who are afflicted, and who crave comfort. Preachers do need to be sensitive to that reality.

      At the same time, I can't help but think that if all a preacher does is comfort the afflicted all the time, he is not fulfilling his full charter.

      The place where I live, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago, is, on the whole, pretty comfortable. There are wealthier places, but it seems fair to say that we're among the "haves".

      The comfort of our personal existence here serves as a barrier that blocks from our senses and our consciences the uncomfortable and challenging reality of some of the things I named in that particular homily: climate change, and suffering and injustice at our southern border, and the daily stress and terror of residents of some parts of Chicago, who are not "haves", who live not many miles away from us but, for practical purposes, may as well be on another planet.

      If this particular homily afflicted the comfortable, then I admit that was part of the point. I would defend that approach by noting that people can change, that they are capable of conversion. My hope is that this particular homily was a call to conversion. My sense is that these particular topics - climate change, immigration, et al - are important ones for our lives in this faith community, and for which some conversion is possible. I can say this with certainly, because those are topics for which I've been on a road to conversion for some years now.

      Conversion doesn't always happen dramatically and all at once. Sometimes it starts with the planting of seeds, an experience that can be disruptive, unwelcome and unpleasant.

      Delete
    4. To Claire's and Katherine's point, I will say that a common thread in the negative feedback from that homily was, "You should not be talking about political issues from the pulpit." (They perceived this homily as political.)

      One person, who was brave enough to confront me face-to-face after mass, went on at some length about how she wanted to hear things that would help her spiritually. She contrasted my effort with one she had recently heard at another church, where the homilist had urged us to love our neighbors, or something that was similarly applicable to her personal life.

      I do take feedback seriously. It's food for thought. But as I mentioned in my previous comment, I think preaching, on the whole, needs to more capacious than simply offering personal spiritual advice each week. We're communal and social, and I don't think it's out of line to touch on those aspects of our lives in preaching.

      Delete
    5. Even the pagans love their neighbors. The disciples of Christ are supposed to love their enemies. I imagine that among the enemies of some of them are kids with Asperger's who keep up with current events. Such disciples needed to hear the offending homily.

      In fact, from my over-coffee observations, when somebody says she wants more spirituality, she usually means she wants less social justice. (We had a parochial vicar for awhile who could turn any Gospel into the preferential option for the poor. So I heard a lot of that.)

      If the congregation really wants spirituality, I'd suggest finding a connection between the Gospel and John of the Cross. I'd love to see how that goes.

      Delete
    6. Thanks, Claire, for getting us to think more deeply about homilies.

      Most homilies tend to be psychological, i.e. they deal with our interior life; they tend to ignore the sociological world around us. Yet much research indicates that our behavior is influenced more by our social surroundings than by our personal dispositions.

      I reread Jim's homily. It was well balanced. However I can see why people from both ends of the political spectrum would characterize it as political. It is not Jim's fault, the media is always giving us these categories so people are going to use them. How can we take topics from the news without bringing in the political categories. Very, very carefully.

      If I had one suggestion to Jim it would be from Greenleaf who said leaders need to resist the temptation to say too much but rather "put your hand over your mouth and point."

      Maybe rather than canonizing Greta as the media has done she could have been made into the prophet that is in all of us. She is obviously young, and very disturbed about climate change, and feels the need to do something about a situation that very much disturbs her. We have all experienced that at some point in our lives.

      What do we do about situations that are disturbing, the Lazarus that is at our doorstep? Maybe the first step is just recognizing that something in our social environment disturbs us.

      Maybe at this point Jim could have taken an example from his life when he allowed himself to be disturbed by his social environment and how this led to his own conversion as encouragement for everyone to take the first step of allowing themselves to be disturbed.

      Delete
  10. Jack, that is a nice direction!

    Jim, I am not sure how one can avoid rubbing people the wrong way, so I checked out the homily for that day of my favorite preacher, http://www.stjames-cathedral.org/Pubs/Pastor/2019/19sept29.aspx
    And I see that (1) he sticks to a single "political" issue instead of several, so he has less of a risk of getting on people's wrong side (2) before getting to his main point, he makes sure to give lots of compliments for all the things that people do (3) he admits that he is aware of the complexity of the issue, and (4) he tries to circle around the topic without challenging people directly.

    I suspect that your letter writer would also have hated his homily, though.

    The part which he resented the most in your homily was the half sentence about immigrants. Maybe, no matter how carefully you would have brought it, it would have riled him anyway!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Claire, the line I didn't like in Fr. Ryan's homily was the one about complexity. There is no beatitude that says "Blessed are those who see complexity because they are never called to act."

      Those people in the half-sentence in Jim's homily must be treated as human beings. Period. The law doesn't make them different. What grandfather did at Ellis Island -- which was far different from what the people who bring up their grandfather at Ellis Island think it was -- does not change the immigrants' ontological humanity.

      We can pussyfoot and get the roof repaired and have everyone smiling at coffee hour just as if they had defected to the Church of I OK, U OK. But if we do, we are not doing what Jesus did, so what's the point?

      Delete
    2. But if we do, we are not doing what Jesus did, so what's the point?

      Yes, Jesus did upset people. But he also used parables so that he allowed people to be involved in the process and come to their own conclusions at their own pace.

      Delete
    3. Jack, but if people are going to react the way Jim's friend did when they are challenged, no matter how you sugar coat a parable, they will be ticked off when they figure out what it means. I prefer leaving Mass somewhat unsettled to leaving humming the Berceuse from the Dolly Suite.

      Delete
  11. Here's something from a snowflake point of view. The last political homily I heard was at Mass on the 4th of July of this year. It wasn't at our own parish, but the priest is someone I have known for 25 years and is a friend. Normally he doesn't get political, but he was on a culture war screed that day. The country was going to hell in a handbasket. It was quite a long homily, and I ended up wishing I hadn't come to Mass.
    My point is, there's a fine line between afflicting the comfortable and alienating them. It's also very alienating to feel that you may be the only person in the church who found the homily problematic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the country has become so Hallmark since the days when people would walk miles and come early to hear Jonathan Edwards preach on "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

      Delete
  12. I just want to express my gratitude for these thoughtful suggestions and other forms of feedback. You've given me much food for thought.

    ReplyDelete