Search

Results

Bishops promote reconciliation between U.S. and Cuba

23 Aug 2009 - Preaching the News for Sunday

In the shorter version of Sunday's second reading we are counseled to "live in love, as Christ loved us." Just in time for hurricane season, a delegation of U.S. Roman Catholic bishops with charitable giving on its agenda is visiting Cuba this week. The bishops were following up on hurricane recovery projects funded by the church last year, and they also called for Cuba and the U.S. to improve ties. Relations between the Cold War foes have thawed in recent months, with Cubans residing in the U.S. now more easily traveling and sending money to Cuba. However there are no signs yet that the U.S. trade embargo on the island in place since 1962 will be lifted. "There's about 50 years of lack of confidence on both sides. That's a lot of history to overcome, but for the good of people who are separated, and suffering because of that separation, we would hope that both sides listen to their better angels," said Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida at a press conference in Havana on Tuesday. "The important thing is not to lose the opportunity of increased closeness and understanding between our two governments. I believe that the church, here and there, should advocate for this," Wenski said in Spanish at the press conference. Wenski is part of the delegation of bishops that includes Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley and Oscar Cantu, auxiliary bishop of San Antonio, Texas. O'Malley, who said he had visited Cuba several times over the past 20 years, pointed out there has been a "notable improvement" of ties between Havana and the church since Pope John Paul II's visit in January 1998. "Now we see that the church has more space. We would like for it to widen more," he said. In April President Obama acknowledged that Washington's policies toward Cuba, including a decades-old embargo, had failed, but said that issues such as political prisoners, freedom of speech, and democracy in Cuba could not be brushed aside in any new approach toward the country. Source: Articles by Jeff Franks for Reuters and Agence France Presse

Pope John Paul II bishops barack obama cuba us bishops thomas wenski sean omalley oscar cantu
Proposed mosque location raises questions of religious tolerance

22 Aug 2010 - Preaching the News for Sunday

This Sunday’s readings focus on the worldwide scope of God’s promise of salvation. Religious pluralism and tolerance were challenging notions in biblical times and they remain so today. The controversy over the proposed construction of an Islamic cultural center and mosque near New York’s “Ground Zero” attests to that. The issue had been a local one for some time but gained national prominence in recent weeks when national political figures began weighing in. Republican leaders including Sarah Palin, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R.-Va.), and Newt Gingrich, among others, spoke out against the proposed location of the $100 million Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center. Noting the project developers’ commitment to improving interfaith relations and countering the influence of radical Islam, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg forcefully defended the project and said it stood as a strong statement that the horror of 9/11 had not destroyed New York City’s and the nation’s historical commitment to religious freedom and tolerance. At a White House meal commemorating Ramadan last Friday, President Barack Obama defended the constitutional right of project developers to construct the center near Ground Zero—though the next day he said he had not explicitly endorsed their plan. Many Republicans have called the proposal an affront to the memory of those killed in the 2001 attacks, although a few have warned their colleagues not to turn the issue into a political football. The tone of the Republican opposition to the mosque marks a shift in the party’s posture toward Islam, observers say, from a very public tolerance after Sept. 11 to an openly aired sense of mistrust. This week, former Bush aides were among the very few Republicans siding with Obama. Muslim leaders say, regretfully, that they also see a dramatic change. Republicans have “shifted completely away from the Bush administration line on relations with Islam and they’ve obviously made the political calculation that bashing Islam and Muslims is a winning issue for them,” said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who blamed the “tea party movement [for] liberating the inner bigot in people.” Few religious groups in the U.S. have spoken in support of the proposed Islamic center. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has not taken a position, and according to a spokesperson has no plans to do so. Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, however, supported the project in a blog post. Commenting on an interviewer’s question, he wrote: “I told her it is a sign of the value we have for freedom in this country, and for religious freedom in particular." Homilists have an opportunity to discuss the issue in the context of this Sunday’s readings. Surely it was not easy for the Jewish people, “God’s chosen people,” to hear the words the prophet Isaiah spoke on behalf of the Lord: “I come to gather nations of every language; they shall come and see my glory.” Centuries later, Jews may have felt offended to hear Jesus say that “people will come from the east and the west and from the north and the south and will recline at table in the kingdom of God.” Jesus was calling his people to open their minds and hearts to a wider appreciation for God’s saving power. People outside the original covenant were invited to participate in God’s glory. That is still the case today. Source: Articles by Michelle Boorstein for the Washington Post, Kevin Hechtkopf for CBS News, NBC News, Karen Dewitt for WNED ALBANY, Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman for Politico.com, Margaret Talev for McClatchy Newspapers, CardinalSeanBlog.org, and Daniel Trotta for Reuters

barack obama ground zero park 51 islamic cultural center toleration michael bloomberg ibrahim hooper tea party sean omalley republicans religious freedom new york city mosque
Which bishops will get the better of it?

12 Jun 2011 - Preaching the News for Sunday

“Devout Jews from every nation” were in Jerusalem to witness the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, this Sunday’s first reading informs us. Some pretty devout sports fans from four cities in two nations are getting into the spirit of the final rounds of this year's NBA and NHL Stanley Cup playoffs. Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami has a bet going with Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell on the NBA finals, while Cardinal Seán P. O’Malley, O.F.M. Cap. of Boston made one with Archbishop J. Michael Miller, C.S.B. of Vancouver on the Stanley Cup finals. Wenski has offered Farrell key lime pies from Monroe County, a box of cigars handmade in Miami, a fish bowl containing Fort Lauderdale sand, water from the Atlantic Ocean, shells from the beach, some ocean breezes, and oranges to "sweeten" the deal if the Miami Heat loses to the Dallas Mavericks. Farrell accepted the wager, and if the Mavericks lose he will send barbecue ribs, tortillas and salsa, deep-dish pecan pies, and a "Don’t Mess with Texas" cap to Wenski. Miller approached O’Malley with the idea for the bet: If the Boston Bruins win the Cup, he will donate $100 to Catholic Charities of Boston, but if the Vancouver Canucks ultimately prevail, O’Malley will send the same amount to Project Advance, a Catholic charity in Vancouver. Miller and O’Malley said in a joint statement that they hope their bet will highlight the work of both charities as well as each city’s passion for hockey. Sources: Articles by Bea Hines for the Miami Herald and the Patriot Ledger

thomas wenski nba finals dallas mavericks miami heat vancouver canucks boston bruins j michael miller kevin farrell sean omalley nhl finals
To forgive or not to forgive?

28 Apr 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Jesus is simple and direct in giving a new commandment to his disciples in this week’s gospel: “Love one another.” Religious perspectives on love, forgiveness, and punishment are one of the themes playing out in the aftermath of last week’s acts of terror in Boston. In a memorial Mass, Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston called on worshippers to “build a civilization of love” through forgiveness. Rabbi David Wolpe, on the other hand, wrote an editorial piece saying that “forgiveness is immoral if it in any way mitigates the punishment due.”In his homily last Sunday at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, O’Malley said it was difficult to understand “what demons were operative” in the minds of brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev or in their politics “or the perversion of their religion.” “It was amazing to witness, however, how much goodness and generosity were evidenced in our community as a result of this tragedy,” he said.After reflecting on aspects of the lives of the Tsarnaev brothers that have been reported, O’Malley said that the “individualism and alienation of our age [have] spawned a culture of death.”He decried actions that “have coarsened us and made us more insensitive to the pain and suffering of others” and chastised the U.S. Congress for its inability to pass stricter gun control laws, calling it “emblematic of the pathology of our violent culture. It is only a culture of life and an ethic of love that can rescue us from the senseless violence that inflicts so much suffering on society,” he said.O’Malley also told those in attendance that they should be people “of reconciliation, not revenge” and that the Tsarnaevs' alleged crimes should not be justification for prejudice against Muslims and immigrants. “Forgiveness does not mean that we do not realize the heinousness of the crime. But in our own hearts when we are unable to forgive we make ourselves a victim of our own hatred,” he said. “Obviously as a Catholic I oppose the death penalty, which I think is one further manifestation of the culture of death in our midst.” Wolpe, rabbi of Sinai temple in Los Angeles and a popular author, wrote that “forgiveness is immoral if it in any way mitigates the punishment due to the brother who remains, and any who may have helped him.” “To the perpetrators all we can say is that their task is to spend whatever time they have left in this world to work toward a forgiveness they can never earn and will never deserve. That is the honor we pay to pain and the dignified response we offer to evil. Seek to understand; help those who are wounded to heal; but do not cheapen the horror with easy words of forgiveness. The beginning of sanity is the recognition that some acts are unforgivable,” Wolpe wrote.Homily hint: The views expressed by Cardinal O’Malley and Rabbi Wolpe provide a good point-counterpoint on the question of how to respond to evil acts. Are some acts truly unforgivable? Are any but those directly affected by an evil act in a position to judge? What does God call us to do in such situations? These are hard questions, perhaps impossible to answer fully, but nonetheless important to ask as people of faith.Editorial note: From a Christian point of view, Rabbi Wolpe's words are troubling. Can forgiveness ever be "immoral"? Can a follower of Christ—who forgave his killers—really believe that "some acts are truly unforgivable"? Do Rabbi Wolpe's words in fact "cheapen" the power of forgiveness for both perpetrators and victims? Can any of us ever "earn" or "deserve" forgiveness, which is actually a gift? —Joel Schorn, Managing Editor Sources: Articles by Michael A. Memoli for the Los AngelesTimes and Rabbi David Wolpe for the Washington Post

Forgiveness sean omalley bombings david wolpe boston
Time to order your designer genes?

26 May 2013 - Preaching the News for Sunday

What is a human being that God would even be mindful of us, wonders the psalmist, before affirming that God has made us “little less than the angels.” The belief that human beings are a sacred creation of God may change dramatically in the near future. Scientists for the first time recovered stem cells from cloned human embryos, prompting dire warnings from religious leaders who say the research crosses a moral red line and could lead to designer babies.Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley, spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on bioethical issues, said that “this means of making embryos for research will be taken up by those who want to produce cloned children as ‘copies’ of other people.”After 15 years of failed experiments, scientists at Oregon Health & Science achieved the breakthrough. Researchers were able to take DNA from a human patient and splice it into a human egg that had its DNA removed. The egg grew into an early-stage embryo whose stem cells—a virtual genetic copy of the original patient—were then harvested.Bioethicists and religious leaders who believe that life begins at conception object to the destruction of human embryos for any purpose. But they also say the new technique could lead to the cloning of replica human beings because it is similar to the process used to produce the cloned sheep named Dolly in 1996. That technique has since been used to clone a dozen other animal species, though efforts with primates have failed.The lead researcher on the team, Shoukhrat Mitalipov, said he does not believe the new technique could lead to cloned babies because many obstacles remain. But others say the innovation opens the door to human cloning scenarios that were once confined to the realm of science fiction.Homily hint: Many scientific and medical breakthroughs present moral dilemmas. On the one hand we are grateful for advances that prolong lives and alleviate suffering. On the other we wonder if tampering with the deepest mysteries of life—its creation and recreation—will lead us to a moral abyss. Raising the hard questions is important even when—especially when—there are no easy answers. Source: An article by David Gibson for Religion News Service

sean omalley shoukhrat mitalipov embryos oregon health science bioethics cloning
Ritual of ridicule moved off Harvard campus

18 May 2014 - Preaching the News for Sunday

Upright and trustworthy are the works of the Lord, the psalmist informs us this Sunday. A reenactment of satanic rituals known as a “black mass” scheduled to take place Monday evening on the Harvard University campus aroused vigorus protest from those who see it as the farthest thing from upright and worthy of being allowed ar a college. The event was moved to off-university property at the last minute.The Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club, which hosted the event, decided to move it off-campus, Robert Neugeboren, dean of students and alumni affairs at the extension school, said in a statement. “The Harvard Extension School is grateful the student group has recognized the strong concerns expressed by members of the Harvard community and beyond.”Boston Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley and Harvard University’s president had been at odds over the university’s initial decision to allow the reenactment on campus. O’Malley said the event is disturbing because the satanic ritual mocks the Roman Catholic religion. “Why people would want to do something that is so offensive to so many people in the community, whether they’re Catholic or not, it’s very repugnant,” O’Malley said. “There’s a great fascination with evil in the world, but you know, it doesn’t lead to anything good.”In a statement released Monday, Harvard University President Drew Faust said the performance would be allowed on campus. She called the student group’s sponsorship of the so-called black mass “abhorrent” but said she must protect the group’s right to free speech. At the time that the student organization was hosting its event, Faust said she would attend a service at St. Paul’s Church in Cambridge organized by the Boston Archdiocese. Faust said she was going to “join others in reaffirming our respect for the Catholic faith at Harvard.”Yet O’Malley said he is disappointed because he would like the university to cancel the event. “I was disappointed,” said O’Malley. “I was hoping that Harvard would see how offensive and how evil this was, and at least ask them not to do it on their property.”Nearly 60,000 students, alumni, and faculty members signed a petition against the ritual, according to a statement released by Harvard Rhodes Scholar Aurora Griffin. “I am ashamed that my university is allowing such a hateful event to happen under the auspices of ‘education,’ ” Griffin said in the statement. The Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club had said the event was meant to be educational, not offensive.Griffin, a former president of the Harvard Catholic Student Association, said there is no value in this event. In the statement she said she believes it promotes contempt for the Catholic faith and other religions.Homily hint: Where do we draw the line between free speech and standards of basic human decency? A society that chooses not to uphold even the most basic of shared values is on the road the becoming an amoral society. Source: An article by Travis Anderson, Laura Crimaldi, and Jacqueline Tempera for the Boston Globe

sean omalley free speech black mass harvard university