At my son's school I help to coordinate the Lenten Rice Bowl Project that benefits the Catholic Relief Services. Yesterday a friend of mine told me that some pro-life parishioners at our parish had sent her information objecting to CRS' efforts to collaborate with secular or non-Catholic organizations in impoverished nations because those organizations often promote abortion and contraception. Some research into the matter revealed that the main objections seem to be coming from a group called the American Life League, who published a very odd article that opens with an implied dig at the leadership of Carolyn Woo as a "woman" and a "layperson." In addition to the charges that CRS is not "pro-life," the article also condemns CRS for its employment of a married gay man. The USCCB has tried to take a stand against such criticisms in support of CRS, but that will never stop some people from trying to be more Catholic than the bishops.
These internecine quarrels can't help but make me sad. We sound just like the Pharisees critiquing Christ for eating with the tax collectors. Now people might object that Christ eating with tax collectors was simply meant to show that He transcended "cultural norms" and was able to see past irrelevant external actions to the "heart." But really his action was more than that. Christ wasn't just showing His transcendence of cultural norms. Tax collectors were sinners, and Jesus never denied that they were sinners. Jesus was not just transcending cultural norms; He was transcending human justice by offering fellowship and friendship to those who were engaged in very serious sin.
But some may argue that CRS has gone farther than simply offering fellowship or friendship; they've offered material cooperation with sin. To me it seems there are two different issues at hand in this discussion. First is the question, as some have argued, of whether or not CRS has directly promoted actions that violate Church teaching while at the same time trying to hide or obfuscate these violations. If CRS is engaging in behavior contrary to Church teaching they should absolutely be called out on it. And certainly I don't object to doing your due diligence when it comes to where you should donate your money.
On the other hand, there is evidence that CRS is trying to remain reflective and responsive about these issues. Moreover, I think we should try to be sympathetic to the fact that they are a worldwide organization that serves many people who aren't Catholic and whose employees likely encounter moral dilemmas I couldn't possibly imagine. And I do think it reflects an excessive hypercriticalness to believe that, before you donate to a charity, you must first scrutinize every minute aspect of its conduct. If you feel that way, I doubt you'll ever find a charity - or even an individual person, for that matter - you'll feel entirely morally comfortable in assisting.
Consider a parallel but more personal case: let's say your younger sister is really struggling financially, and you've given her a loan to help her pay her rent. A few months later, you find out she's had an abortion. Now, perhaps the money you loaned her didn't go directly to her abortion, but you still feel that you materially supported it because the money you gave her freed up the money that did pay for it. Let's say that, after her abortion, she shows up homeless at your doorstep. She's not at all repentant for having had her abortion, but she's looking for a place to say for night. Do you say no? And if so - why?
I leave that question open for consideration, realizing that it's not quite the same as material cooperation between charitable organizations, although I do think it raises similar moral questions. But the second issue in the CRS case, and the one I want to deal with here, regards how we decide when to cooperate with people or groups that don't embrace Church teaching on certain matters. My gut feeling is to say: well, how else are we supposed to convert them except by our witness? And how else are we supposed to witness to them unless we work alongside them and demonstrate our good will?
And even aside from the question of our witness to nonbelievers - are we supposed to not do the good that our faith mandates that we do because we are so afraid of somehow, somewhere coming into contact with the evil that our faith says we should avoid? This idea seems, again, contrary to the Gospel. Recall St. Peter, fearing to eat unclean foods (Acts 10:9-15), and God's declaration: Do not call anything impure that God has made clean. This isn't about God suddenly deciding that the rules of the Old Testament no longer mattered or were just "cultural norms" and not a moral matter. Eating impure foods had everything to do with morality - with one's worthiness to stand before God as a righteous person. But God tells Peter not to be afraid of becoming impure through his contact with impure foods, because God's purity was stronger than the impurity of any food - or, for that matter, any person.
It was on the basis of this revelation regarding food that Peter felt morally justified in visiting Cornelius, the righteous Gentile. It was perfectly possible for a Jewish Christian in Peter's situation to have decided that, because visiting a Gentile was anathema, he should not go to Cornelius even to spread the Gospel. In this way he could have kept himself "pure," even while doing great harm to Cornelius by neglecting the opportunity to bring him to Christ. In the same way, we can keep ourselves "pure" by refusing to give except to individuals or charities who fit some lengthy moral checklist. But Christ seems to be saying: Don't neglect doing good out of fear that you'll be tainted by evil. Rely on my purity to protect you, and be an instrument of my purity to others. If a Catholic organization is, itself, actively promoting actions that violate Catholic moral teaching, that's one thing. But if such an organization remains mindful of its own house, they needn't fear being "contaminated" simply because they cooperate with other groups on projects that do not violate the moral law.
How else are we to call people to repentance and conversion? If we refuse to do good because we object to their evil, all the world will see is our refusal to do good and our self-righteous sanctimony. But if we can find a way to object to their evil while at the same time doing the good we can agree on, we've opened a door. We have found a bridge, and we can use that bridge to lead them to conversion.
We can't wait for people to recognize or repent of their sinfulness before we offer them our hand in friendship and fellowship. That's not Christ's way. There's no evidence that Jesus waited for people to repent before giving them His mercy. Think of the adulteress whom the Pharisees brought before Jesus asking if she should be stoned. There's no indication that she said she was sorry before Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you." Yes, He did say: "Go and sin no more." But that injunction came after He offered her mercy and forgiveness. Sometimes people will argue that we should only offer forgiveness when someone has repented. But that's sort of like insisting that someone stand up and turn around when they're tied to a chair facing a wall. You have to untie them first, before they can rise to face you. And the way Christ unties us is through His mercy, His understanding, His love.
As a mother I sense the truth of this phenomenon. I remember once my son spoke disrespectfully to me and I sent him to his room. I told him to come out when he was ready to apologize. He stayed in there for hours - first crying loudly and angrily, then sitting in silence. Finally I went to knock on his door. He was lying on his bed facing the wall. I sat down next to him, put my hand on his arm, and said, "What you did was wrong. But I still love you, you know."
That did it. He turned around to face me, burst into tears, hugged me and said, "I'm sorry!" It was my affirmation of my love for him that opened the door to his apology.
And that's what people need from the Church: an affirmation of God's love. That comes before repentance is even a possibility. God's action first, then the change of the human heart. This change doesn't occur miraculously or overnight. For an individual it might take a lifetime; for a group or a culture or a nation, it might take centuries.
If a Catholic person, or a Catholic organization, can show people the face of God's love, we must take a chance to do it. We can't wait for someone to convert before we offer them our aid. CRS can't wait for every secular organization in the world to follow Catholic moral teaching before it offers its cooperation in doing good. Yes, it's a dangerous path. It will require constant vigilance; we will have to be constantly mindful that we're not tempted by the world's wisdom. But Christ tells us: do not be afraid. Rely on His mercy, His righteousness, His purity to keep us safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment