Freedom from religion?

What is freedom from religion? Ever since the Canadian government recently unveiled the Office of Religious Freedom, which is intended primarily to protect the religious freedoms of minorities both in Canada and elsewhere, humanists and atheists have protested by insisting that freedom of religion should also include freedom from religion.

By freedom from religion, let me be clear, I am not referring to the separation of church and state, which is a largely American issue. Nor does it mean keeping religion out of politics. Both are beyond the scope of this post and would sidetrack me from what atheists mean by freedom from religion.

So, what do atheists mean when they talk about freedom from religion? I have selected two writers and will let them state what they mean using their own words as much as possible.

One writer explains why freedom of religion also requires freedom from religion: "You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions." 

Freedom of religion should be a universal right, and not just for religious people, he argues, noting that "real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves."

For him and many others, freedom from religion means "the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not."  Under the latter, he means atheists.

But he also carefully notes that freedom of religion does not mean that people are free from seeing religion in society, whether churches or other symbols of religious expression. For him, freedom of religion and freedom from religion are two sides of the same coin. I beg to differ with him on the latter point.

However, I do concur heartily that religious freedom must be for everyone. Dr. Andrew Bennett, the newly appointed ambassador who heads this office would agree with that. 

Bennet emphasized at the opening a few weeks ago that his office would defend everyone, even those who have no religion: "All people of faith and, again, those who choose not to have faith, need to be protected, their rights need to be respected. That's what this office is about." That would seem to include atheists and humanists.

Another writer has asked how the Office of Religious Freedom will be able to deal with competing groups, without seeming to favor one faith group over another. She correctly observes that protecting one group of adherents might lead to discrimination against another vulnerable group. She gives several examples, some of which involve groups that may include atheists.

Catholic schools in Ontario claim that anti-bullying legislation violates their religious beliefs because it requires them to allow gay-alliance clubs in schools, even though, according to her, about 21 per cent  of gay students are bullied compared to about 8 per cent of non-gay students. She also asks: should anti-abortion groups have the right to harass women outside abortion clinics?

She mentions a report on global discrimination against non-believers submitted to the US Department of State last year by several atheist and humanist groups. This report documents numerous prosecutions against non-believers in 47 countries, largely through blasphemy or apostasy laws.

According to the report, prosecutions of non-believers for their lack of faith or for criticizing religion occur almost exclusively in countries that favor one religion over another, or religion over non-belief. Thus the best way to protect religious freedom for all people, whether religious or not, would be in secular societies that have laws protecting not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. 

She interprets freedom from religion to mean being free from having the belief systems of others imposed upon people. Most religious persecution, she contends, is a product of one religion being intolerant of another religion, with both being equally intolerant of those with no religion at all. 

Atheists and humanists want to portray themselves as not having any religion. By the narrow definition they use, they are right. However, using a wider definition I can argue that every person is religious. 

Everyone has a faith, even if that faith involves the absence of a belief in a god or gods. It is still a faith or belief. Religion is much broader than it is in the list of characteristic practices that some atheists use to define the term. I will not debate this issue now, except to note that such lists mean that atheists and many humanists are excluded by their own definition, which is a questionable form of arguing. My response to them might include a quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Some atheists now have their own churches where they can experience community and ritual without faith. And atheist chaplains are available on some campuses offering students the benefits of religion without God. Atheism has become respectable -- so respectable that it has become a quasi-religion. 

One atheist even calls art galleries the new churches. He wants the secular world to imitate religion's effective use of art, literature and music. “Religions are too good to be abandoned to people who actually believe in them,” he says provocatively.

The so-called New Atheists, including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett have described at length the moral failings of organised religion, little realizing that their own position has become a religion of sorts to many people.

Dan Brown’s bestseller, The Da Vinci Code, recycles the dominant cultural narrative that depicts organised religion as complicit in institutional abuse, moral corruption and dishonesty, but his readers remain unaware of  the good that the great religions of the world have also done. He ignores the failings of atheists and humanists, not all of whom are the paragons of virtue that are often portrayed as being.

Recently I attended a symposium in which an author introduced his new book by pointing out the faults of theists. I objected to his presentation by arguing that he had set up straw men, since I could accept only one of his assertions accurately reflecting what I as a theist believe. He clearly displayed his rationalism when he responded to a question about miracles by claiming that science has not yet been able to explain them, but one day it will.

From the other panelists, who were also atheists, it was clear that they considered theists as people who were biased by their religion, whereas they had no religion and were therefore free from any such prejudice. Some atheists hold that religion is responsible for much of the evil in the world, or as Christopher Hitchens succinctly puts it, "religion poisons everything."

Religion can be a force for good in the world, and not just for evil. That it has often been used for evil should not surprise anyone. Religion is not inherently evil; people are, whether they consider themselves religious or not. Atheists and humanists are not excluded. Thus they are mistaken when they attach blame exclusively to religion. No matter how one defines religion, the problem of people who are evil remains.

Freedom from religion, as has been remarked by many atheists, means that people should not have anyone else's religion imposed on them. To escape from religion and its influence, however, is absurd. One may not like everything about the majority religion that dominates a particular culture, but one must accept it as long as those who adhere to that religion do not infringe on the rights of others.

Where rights collide, and inevitably they will, a balance must be struck. This is what those who are in favor of abortion and those against often forget. Both sides must try to respect each other's rights and not seek to make their own position normative for everyone else, whether through the use of legislation or in other ways. Then we have a tyranny of the majority. Thus Christians and others do not have a right to picket abortion clinics and harass the women who need these services. And Catholics should not limit access to birth control.

One cannot be entirely free from religion anymore than one can be free of gravity. One can deny God, but that he does not mean he no longer exists, and that religion has therefore been eliminated as an influence in society, except in a negative way. Atheists and humanists who claim otherwise have buried their heads in the sand. 

In their desire to achieve freedom from religion, they try to impose their own secular beliefs on everyone else. That is unfair. Then they are doing precisely what they do not want others to do to them. Thus it is not fair to insist that Catholics must allow gay-alliance clubs in their schools. Personally, I have no problems with such clubs, but they must not be imposed upon those who disagree because of their faith. 

Freedom of religion is a basic right that people all over the world must enjoy. Unfortunately, that right is often curtailed in many countries. However, freedom from religion is not the other side of the same coin. I have no right to impose my faith on anyone else, but atheists and others have no right either to impose their views on me or everyone else. Then they deny me my freedom.

The tyranny of the minority can be as bad as the tyranny of the majority. Atheists may claim that they are not doing that, but they do when they assert that theism must not be taught in schools since it is not intellectually respectable. That is a statement of faith, not a scientific fact. 

But freedom from religion as some atheists and humanists present it is impossible. The influence of religion is pervasive. Sometimes it is healthy and productive, sometimes it is not. Yet when atheists and humanists want to avoid the influence of religion entirely, they are -- to use a hackneyed phrase -- throwing  the baby out with the bath water. 

They see religion as entirely evil, but I do not. That is a fundamental religious difference. That is why I differ with them on the issue of freedom from religion.

      

Should Protestants reunite with Rome? Some personal remarks

On 31 October 1517, a then obscure monk named Martin Luther reputedly nailed his now famous 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg. This action sparked the Protestant Reformation. Some scholars doubt that he actually posted these theses on the church door, but there is no doubt about what happened later. To make a long story short, Luther was excommunicated, and a breach with the papacy became reality, a breach that has persisted for almost half a millennium.

Now, after the election of Pope Francis, more than one Protestant leader has raised the question whether Protestants should reunite with Rome? This question may seem premature, since most Protestants are not ready to address this contentious issue. Yet, sooner or later, this question must be dealt with openly and honestly.

To assume that the answer will always remain negative is to deny the fervent wish for unity that exists in many churches today and is shared by many individual believers. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to even raise the question, and certainly not all the leaders of these churches who have a stake in preserving the status quo.

In this blog I cannot begin to list the many issues that would need to be discussed, much less describe them in any detail, but as an ecumenist I do want to make a few personal remarks regarding this important, yet very controversial, question.

St. Cyprian of Carthage

Reunion with Rome will take a long time. Even to use the term reunion implies a return to the Roman fold, to the mother church of which Cyprian of Carthage famously wrote, "you cannot have God for your Father unless you have the church for your Mother." Cyprian's concern was the unity of the church. In his time, that unity was expressed in the Catholic church which recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

This unity is confessed by most Christians in the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Catholic here does not necessarily mean the Roman Catholic Church, as many Protestants take great pains to point out, even substituting "universal" as a synonym for "catholic."

John Calvin similarly described the visible church as the mother of all believers. Such language is a healthy corrective to the individualistic spirituality that pervades much of evangelical Protestantism.

Luther and Calvin both emphasized the importance of the sacraments for the nourishment of believers. Thus Calvin wanted weekly communion, although the city council of Geneva did not permit him to institute that practice.

I could not agree more with the emphasis of the magisterial Reformers on the importance of sacraments and the need for frequent communion. For decades I have longed for weekly communion. When I was warden at St. Andrew's, the only Anglican church in Moscow and indeed in Russia (since any other worship groups were supervised by St. Andrew's), I attended several communion services every week. I thoroughly enjoyed that.

Now, here in Toronto, I will often seek out a church where I can have communion on a weekly basis, but I do not always manage to do that since I have to balance that desire with the need to have fellowship with my friends in the church where I am a member.

There is an Anglo-Catholic church not far from my house where I can indulge myself on occasion. There the mass is celebrated richly:with all the "bells and smell." Perhaps I need that type of spirituality, especially as I am growing older.

However, I admit that I have a few difficulties, especially the Angelus at the end of the service. Protestants tend to diminish the role of Mary, but her role in Catholic churches, or churches that lean that way, makes me uncomfortable. This may be due to my upbringing. But on a deeper level I question the theology that underlies the prayers that invoke Mary. Thus I cannot recite them.

What does this have to do with reunion with Rome? Much, in my opinion. Somehow I resonate especially with the sort of spirituality that is found in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, as well as in those churches that also celebrate the sacraments as elaborately. I am not the only one who has this inclination. Nor am I alone in experiencing difficulties with some aspects of Catholic theology.

I admit that occasionally I have taken communion in a Catholic church, but only when there was no danger of being recognized, since I did not want to give offence to anyone. Canon law does not permit this, as I know very well, but there were times when no other church was available.

I would like to see reunion for many reasons, not only the sacramental or liturgical as important as they are. I recognize that the pope is not only the chief pastor for 1.2 billion Christians but to the outside world he also represents many other Christians. This universal leadership would be more understandable and acceptable if the bishop of Rome would become simply primus inter pares, a first among equals, and not claim primacy over all other bishops in the world.

The Basilica of St. John Lateran. Inscribed on the wall of the entrance are the claims

of this, the cathedral church of the Bishop of Rome, to be the head church in the world. 

"Sacrosancta Lateranensis ecclesia omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput."

This claim is central to the papacy. The pope bears many titles, including Vicar of Christ and Successor of St. Peter. Papal primacy is basic to the Catholic church. Moreover, the primacy of the Roman bishop is what makes that church Roman.  This claim is not likely to change soon, if ever.

Yet this does not mean that all Christian churches should therefore withdraw from all ecumenical efforts. On the contrary, these efforts should be redoubled, especially in the light of the (as yet small) signs of renewal that Pope Francis has already displayed.

If he would be willing to recognize that the bishop of Rome is only one bishop among many, this would go a long way to heal the schism with the Orthodox churches that became official in 1054, but had been brewing already for many centuries.

That schism might be healed sooner than that which the Protestant Reformation represents, largely because the Orthodox churches are united in their theology. The divisions that exist between them are based on ethnicity and jurisdiction. But they will insist that any reunion is a return to the Orthodox fold. In contrast, Protestant churches are divided extensively and continue to divide ad nauseam.

Aside from unification, which is still remote, churches can cooperate extensively on social justice and many other issues. Francis has described what he wants: "Oh, how I would like a poor Church, and for the poor."  Like his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, Pope Francis has opted for the poor.That is something that many other churches can identify with and endorse. Unfortunately, on many theological issues the gap is almost unbridgeable.

Many Protestants are unaware of the ongoing dialogue on many contentious theological issues. On baptism and the eucharist, a large degree of consensus has already been achieved. My own denomination recently signed an agreement with the Catholic church involving the recognition of each other's baptisms. The chief bone of contention that remains, however, concerns ministry, especially the role of the bishop of Rome.

I wrote my dissertation on papal primacy, In it, I suggest some reforms that the Catholic church needs make. I will not rehearse them now, except to note that more than a few Catholics also promote such reforms. In fact, the time for such discussion is ripe.

What is sorely needed today is a willingness on the part of the Catholic hierarchy to discuss these reforms and to implement them. That is a tall order, but not impossible, since even the College of Cardinals is aware of the need for change. They discussed this need extensively before the election of the new pope, although they may not be ready to go as far as many Catholics and non-Catholics alike are demanding.

Yet the election of Francis can be interpreted as a signal that change is coming. Many observers had hoped for a more reform-minded pope. But I am old enough to remember the election of Pope John XXIII, who was initially dismissed as a transitional figure, but who proposed the game-changing Second Vatican Council.

Should Protestants reunite with Rome? My answer is not yet, but they should continue to ask this question to show their sincerity in promoting the unity of the Christian church. And they must continue to pray for unity.

I must not allow my desire for a richer way to celebrate communion to cloud my wish for a reunited church. But at the same time I hope that other Protestants do not question the need for unity simply because of their rejection of some aspects of Catholic theology and practice. One day reunification may be achieved. Then even Luther and Calvin might feel vindicated in their attempts to achieve reform.

Pope Francis has motivated me to pray more diligently for church reunion. I sincerely hope that I will not be disappointed in him and the signs of renewal that I have discerned.
      

Habemus Papam

"Habemus Papam" or "We have a Pope" is always announced from the balcony at St. Peter's Basilica after the election of a new pope. And the appearance of the new pope on that balcony is the signal that he has accepted this election. Only then does he officially become pope.

The new pope, who chose the name Francis, was announced this way and, by appearing on the balcony, he accepted his new position. He seems to be an excellent choice. His choice of papal name is very revealing. Francis of Assisi was one of the most impressive and beloved figures during the Middle Ages. He was a truly humble man, as is his namesake, who too has a passion for the poor.

But what would happen if someone who was elected refused to appear on the balcony? That is the premise of a 2011 comedy-drama which I saw a few months ago.

In this film, the conclave after many votes finally elects a pope, but he immediately develops a panic attack and is unable to appear on the balcony. However, the conclave is not considered over until the new pope has accepted his election. Thus the cardinals announce that the new pope is in prayer and will appear in a few hours, but this does not happen.

The cardinals then ask a psychiatrist to examine the pope, but that did not help. The psychiatrist has an ex-wife who is also a psychiatrist. When the pope is driven secretly to see her, he escapes and is shown in several comic scenes. Such comedy is disarming, because some elements in the Catholic church did not appreciate this film very much.

Eventually, the new pope is discovered and brought to the balcony where he announces that he is declining his position, explaining, "I am not the leader you need." Apparently only once in the history of the papacy has someone declined to accept that position. Yet one can readily understand why a person might do that.

The papacy is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. The man -- women need not apply! -- needs to be a truly spiritual person with extensive pastoral experience and at the same time an experienced CEO who can manage the Curia and the rest of the Vatican bureaucracy.

He must also be multilingual and fluent in Italian, which is the working language of the Vatican. Preferably, he should be a scholar, but not so scholarly that people are unable to understand him.

He can be neither too conservative, so that he can attract the young people and keep the older ones from leaving, nor too liberal for the College of Cardinals who have elected him and expect him not to rock the boat but to keep the church on its present course. Thus he should be careful not raise such contentious issues as celibacy and women priests.

Yet he should be able to address issues such as sexual abuse, but not offend those who may not have been diligent in dealing with the perpetrators. He must be both loving and firm. He ought to be a father figure for all the faithful.

He must be ecumenical and open to people of other denominations and faiths, yet he should be able to articulate the Catholic faith in unequivocal terms. He must also be a statesman, since the Vatican is a state -- the smallest in the world.

Above all he must be charismatic, much in the style of John Paul II. In fact, an amalgam of John XXIII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI would be a good choice. But such a person is hard to find.

The world will soon discover what sort of a person Pope Francis is. He has been described as a very holy and spiritual person, a quality that is crucial in any pastor, especially the chief pastor of 1.2 billion Catholics. If he is anything like Francis of Assisi, he too may one day become a saint. But he is not a saint yet.

He is a Jesuit, which makes him suspect in some Catholic circles and even some Protestant ones, since this order was founded during the Protestant Reformation to counter Protestants, and has been repeatedly banned by the Catholic church and then reinstated again. The Catholic church has a long history.

The personal history of Jorge Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, makes fascinating reading. Yet from this history it it difficult to determine what the new pope will do in the future.

All his life he has been concerned for the poor and is a fervent advocate for social justice. He has lived a life of austerity, for many years using public transportation and preferring a simple bed in a small room, where he cooked his own meals, to the ornate church mansion where John Paul II stayed when he visited Argentina.

Yet he has been reprimanded for the inability of the Catholic church to do more when thousands of Argentinians were kidnapped and killed. He has apologized for this failure, but many people are still very angry with the church, and refuse to attend anymore.

Crowd in St. Peter's Square waiting for the new pope to appear

Francis has his job cut out for him both at home and abroad. He will have to confront many difficult issues in the years that are left to this 76-year-old pontiff. He will need divine help to make the necessary changes and accomplish some much needed reforms.

Christians everywhere should pray for him that he may exercise his pontificate with great wisdom. As already mentioned, the papacy is one of the most difficult jobs in the world. No one would have blamed him if he too had refused to accept his election and had said, "I am not the leader you need."

But he did accept. Now his burden is very great. Pray for him and the Catholic church!
   

Death of a (saintly?) dictator

Death is the one certainty in life. The mortality rate of the human race is 100%. Dictators are no exception, as Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, has discovered. His death was a long time coming, yet it was inevitable as the "baseball-sized tumor in his pelvic region" that continued to ravage his body, in spite of many medical interventions.

His death sparked an orgy of emotions, not only by the poor who seemed to worship him but also by those who vilified him, both within Venezuela and outside the country. On the streets of Caracas there was a lot of real tears, while in Miami many Venezuelan refugees rejoiced, although one person admitted, "One should not celebrate the death of anyone, but one can celebrate change."

Chavez was a dictator; he enjoyed almost unlimited power. Even towards the end, he insisted he could run the country from his Havana sickbed. He went to Cuba several times for operations and chemotherapy, and even declared himself cured. Last October, he campaigned for and won reelection for another six-year term.

He was seemingly addicted to power and acclaim, but that is hardly unusual for people who once have gained a lot of power, as Lord Acton affirmed jn his famous aphorism (although he referred to the Catholic church): "power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Chavez ruled by whim, in the style of a Latin American caudillo. Yet, unlike Fidel Castro, he used elections not force and thus gave Venezuela at least the semblance of democracy. This tradition of elections will make it easier for the country to face the future without his dominating presence.

By promising to end corruption he won election for the first time in 1998 with a sizable majority. He then called for a Constituent Assembly that wrote a new constitution that enshrined basic human rights but also accorded new, almost absolute powers to the presidency and the military.

When the armed forces refused to support him in 2002 because of huge public protests, he stepped down briefly as president, although he did not officially resign. Yet he was soon reinstated by the military. Since then, he has won every election, including the latest. Unfortunately he was too sick to be installed again in January, so he disregarded his own constitution. This was the situation when he died.

Chavez was an autocrat who had packed the courts, gained full control of the legislature and the bureaucracy and emasculated the opposition. Yet even his severest critics have to admit that he did much to help the poor people of Venezuela. He came by his concern for the poor naturally. He was born into a poor working-class family. He became a military officer, but grew dissatisfied with the political system and wanted to overthrow it.

His greatest hero was Simon Bolivar, his fellow countryman and the great revolutionary and liberator of many Latin American countries, including Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, who was to become president of many of these countries for varying periods of time. Bolivar's name is part of the official name of native land (the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela), which is part of Chavez' legacy. Bolivar's name is also associated with a quasi-religious cult that Chavez later appropriated.

Fidel Castro was another highly important hero for Chavez. The countries they represented had a symbiotic relationship: Venezuela shipped highly subsidized oil to Cuba in return for the loan of sorely-needed medical personnel. Castro became Chavez' most important counselor and friend.

Chavez had a rogue's gallery of friends, including Muammar Gaddafi of Lybia and Mahmoud Amadinejab of Iran. His chief enemy was George W. Bush, whom he nicknamed the "Devil." Chavez had a very rocky relationship with the US for decades, among other things accusing the US of involvement in the coup that ousted him temporarily.

Venezuela sits on top of one of the largest oil deposits in the world. This makes that country vitally important to the global economy. What will happen to Venezuela now that Chavez is no longer alive? And what will happen to all the chavistas who supported him in the past and who still adore him to the point of worship?

Millions of Venezuelans lined up for hours to view the simple, glass-covered coffin holding the body of Chavez before the memorial service was held. The government decided that his embalmed body will be displayed in a museum "eternally," much like the body of Lenin is still on display in Red Square in Moscow.

I have seen Lenin's body. I was alone in the mausoleum, and I am still deeply troubled by the veneration of this revolutionary almost a century after his death. This resembles the veneration of the relics of saints in Catholic churches, but in Lenin's case it was done by an officially atheistic state. Yet many Russians to this day refuse to permit Lenin to be buried beside his mother in a St. Petersburg cemetery, as was his own wish, since that would represent the burial of their beliefs. Reports from the time suggest that Lenin's death did not provoke the outpouring of grief that Chavez' passing did.

In the case of Chavez, who was estranged from the Catholic church for many years, such veneration would make him a secular saint. Is this a product of the Bolivarian cult that Chavez appropriated for his own use? Will such displays of grief form the beginnings of a new posthumous personality cult?

The Guardian newspaper wonders whether the photographer who took the photo of the two women, as well as those who have decided that Chavez should lie in state, were influenced by the rich visual heritage of the Catholic world as exemplified in numerous oil paintings such as that by Rafael not to mention countless postcards.

Or is Chavez to become more than just a venerated saint in the medieval style but now a Christ-like figure who is worshiped, as Venezuelans already seem to be doing? I hope not! That would be sacrilegious.

Amadinejab has already suggested that Chavez, like Christ, will be resurrected. Amadinejab, of course, is widely regarded as a fool, just as Chavez is. They make a good pair together.

Yet I very much doubt that Chavez, who after his illness became reconciled with the Catholic church, would appreciate the comparison with Christ. He did much to rescue many of his countrymen from poverty using the fabulous oil-wealth of his country, and he certainly did not want to die. Nevertheless, he did not regard himself as Christ, nor would he have wanted to be worshiped. Adulation is one thing, worship another.

Hugo Chavez was not a saint, nor was he a Christ-like figure. Instead, he was a man with many faults (as we all do), but he truly had a heart for the poor. He was indeed a dictator who sometimes played the fool on the world stage, yet he resolutely defended his country against all forms of imperialism, whether real or perceived. He was a socialist, but that does not make him as evil as many Americans suppose. He was a man of many paradoxes, but that is hardly surprising for someone who cut a larger-than-life figure not only in his own country but also in the rest of the world.

Now Venezuela has an opportunity to change. Venezuelans should not celebrate Chavez' death, but they can celebrate change. The whole world is watching eagerly to see what happens.
     

The pilgrim pope

What does one do with a retired pope? The Roman Catholic Church has not had to deal with this question for almost 600 years. Pope Gregory XII retired in 1415 in order to end the Western Schism. He did not stay in Rome, but spent the remaining two years of his life in peaceful obscurity in the town of Ancona in central Italy.

Will Pope Benedict XVI in his retirement also enjoy a life of peaceful obscurity? A few hours before his resignation went into effect, Benedict flew by helicopter to the papal summer home at Castel Gandolfo, about 25 kilometers south of Rome, where he will stay for only a few months while renovations are completed to a monastery inside the Vatican walls where he he intends to live upon his return to Rome.

When Benedict arrived at Castel Gandolfo, he thanked the crowd and told them that for the rest of his life, "I will simply be a pilgrim, who is starting the last phase of his pilgrimage on this Earth." 

Benedict at Castel Gandolfo, which overlooks Lake Albano

This pilgrim pope is expressing what is a reality for everyone else: all of us are pilgrims. Everyone of us is on a journey to a new and better life on a renewed Earth that is joined once again to heaven. I am sure this is what Benedict meant.

The scallop in Benedict's papal shield stands for pilgrimage. This apparently refers to a legend about St. Augustine, although I not sure about the details. The mussel is also found in the arms of Scots Monastery, Regensburg, where Benedict began his career as a priest.

I hope that this pilgrim pope will also act in a humble, self-effacing way that ought to characterize all pilgrims. Unfortunately, popes throughout history have not always been the humble men they should have been.

Even if a man is reticent by nature, as Benedict was, the papacy has a way of elevating him far above his brothers, since he is the successor to St. Peter, who Catholics claim was appointed by Christ to be the leader of the Church, and was thus the first pope.

St. Peter

The pope is Bishop of Rome, who from the time of the early church was widely regarded as having authority over the other churches. Even after the fall of Rome, the pope served as the source of unity in the Church. Such authority can give even the most humble man an aura of power and majesty that will change him, if only because of the way he is trreated by his fellow bishops and ordinary believers.

Once someone has tasted the elixir of power and the adoration that sometimes accompanies it, it is not easy to remain humble, even after one retires. Retirement can be very difficult: one day one is still in charge, while the next day one has lost all authority. When one has lost power, one can easily be tempted to try to influence affairs and thus retain a modicum of one's former power.

Benedict will be living within the walls of the Vatican not far from the levers of power. The monastery is only a short distance from the papal apartments, which are the official residence of the pope. Benedict lived there for eight years, and now it will be occupied by his successors.

Mater Ecclesiae monastery, Benedict's retirement home

In addition to these apartments, he has lost his papal ring; his red shoes; the mozzetta, the short, elbow-length cape that covers the pope's shoulders, although he can still wear the white papal cassock; and even his papal twitter account, @pontifex, which is available for the next pope.

Benedict has said he plans to spend his retirement "hidden from the world" in a life of prayer. He is to be commended for that, but dangers lurk even then. His personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Gaenswein, is to continue to work for him in his retirement. But the Archbishop will also become the personal secretary to the new pontiff. Thus Benedict will have easy access to the new pope, without them having to meet in person.

Benedict has promised to render full obedience to the new pope, but what happens when a newly elected pontiff turns to his predecessor for advice? The newly emeritated pope has appointed a large majority of the cardinals who elect his successor. Many of them are his friends, while all of them are well-known to him.

He may not desire to influence his successor in any way, but such influence may happen regardless. That danger exists, especially when two popes live in close proximity. Six hundred years Pope Gregory XII moved almost 300 kilometers from Rome in order to reduce the change of influencing his successor. Benedict's problem is more acute.

Pope Gregory XII, the last pope to retire before Benedict XVI

Because of his frail health, Benedict could not become a pilgrim pope the way John Paul II was, who traveled to 129 countries, more than any other pope before him or since. Pope Paul VI was called the first pilgrim pope, since he was the first pontiff to fly in an airplane. 

The world needs more pilgrim popes in every sense of the phrase. Popes who are not only willing to travel all over the globe but realize that they are also on a much longer journey to a much better place. Above all, they must remain humble as they engage in their pilgrimage.

Pilgrim popes must be humble, since they know who is the Lord of the Church. Christ is the one whom they are serving. Such divine service should never be allowed to go to anyone's head, not even a pope who is responsible for more than one billion Catholics.

There is a story, which may be apocryphal, that Pope John-Paul II was asked one day, "How can you sleep at night with your enormous global responsibilities?" "Easy," said the pope, "I say to God., 'It is your Church, you take care of it!'"

That is the proper attitude for a pope. Humility is not valued greatly by the secular world, but in the world of faith it is one of the chief virtues. May there be many more pilgrim popes!

        

Oscars, history and faith

And the winning Oscar goes to . . . historical dramas. History won in several Oscar categories this year, but no historical film swept all categories, not even Argo, which is a dramatization of the rescue of six American diplomatic hostages from Tehran in 1980, which won the Best Picture award. Out of the nine films nominated for best picture, three were historical dramas.

Of the other two nominations in that category, Zero Dark Thirty won only one award for Sound Editing that it had to share since there was a tie vote, but Daniel Day-Lewis won the Best Actor award for his portrayal of the president in Lincoln. Thus many of the top Oscars went to historical films.

Even more important is the way that history was used in each of these films. In each case, the history was distorted, supposedly for dramatic or artistic effect. As someone for whom history is important, I find such distortions disturbing. These films are not truly history but only stories loosely based on historical events. If that is the case, then disclaimers should be made to that effect.

One commentator on the Oscars suggested that those who who are troubled by these distortions should "get a life." But some of the distortions in the three historical dramas involved more than just liberties that artistic freedom would explain. Some of the films, like Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, paint pictures that distort history so much that Iranians and others are understandably upset.

Argo purports to be a true story, according to the introductory spiel, but it distorts the role of Canada in the rescue, assigning only a minor role to Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor and his wife Pat. The key role is given to the CIA. Taylor was understandably miffed, so much so that the director, Ben Affleck, changed the blurb at the end, at great cost, to acknowledge the Canadian role, yet the film itself was not further modified.

However, this was not enough for former President Jimmy Carter, on whose watch the hostages were taken and held for 444 days, who felt compelled to apologize for this grievous distortion of what had happened. Initially, as Carter notes, the Canadians did receive all the public credit in order to protect Washington, but the film ignores this and credits the CIA with 90%.

The final chase scene at the airport in Tehran, which never happened,  may be justifiable as dramatic effect, but rest of the story is yet another example of a Hollywood movie made largely for American viewers. One could argue that Affleck's version is more exciting, but the real story might still have been told in as dramatic a fashion without offending many British, Canadian, and Iranian citizens, as this film managed to accomplish.

In Lincoln, the delegates from Connecticut are shown voting no on the 13th Amendment that would abolish slavery in the US when they actually voted yes. Again, this embellishment was for dramatic purposes, but it casts the people of Connecticut in a bad light as seeming to support slavery. A film like this may prompt viewers to brush up on their American history for the real story, but that should not be necessary.

Zero Dark Thirty received so much criticism from the US Congress for its depiction of torture that it was snubbed for the Best Picture award at this year's Oscars. It has also been criticized for revealing national security secrets. The film distorts history even aside from the controversy it raised about the role that torture played in the death of Osama bin Laden.

There is no objective historiography, but something that purports to be history must stick a little closer to what actually happened. These three historical dramas embellished the historical events to such a degree that it was hard to determine what really occurred. If it were just a story, that might not matter, but it does if it presents itself as something that is true.

I am not opposed to embellishment as such, but I do draw the line when people or groups are hurt by the revised story as happened with Argo, where several nationalities were hurt. In Zero Dark Thirty not only were some members of Congress upset but the relatives of a flight attendant who died on 9/11 and whose recording of her last call before her American plane struck the North Tower was used in the film.

I also want to criticize the way faith is portrayed in Argo, which has not only been labelled anti-Iranian but, more seriously, also anti-Islamic through the way it shows Iranian Muslims as a bunch of religious fanatics who are unalterably opposed to everything associated with the West.

This is a typical Hollywood avoidance of complex issues; instead it reduces everything to black and white. When I was a boy the American West was populated by cowboys and Indians, according to this reading of history. There are no extra points for guessing who the good guys were and who the bad.

Argo feeds the anti-Muslim feelings that already prevail among many Americans. This film does not properly differentiate between ordinary Iranians and their government, nor does it inform its viewers that Iranians have not controlled their own government since 1950's and that the Shah's government was put into place with US help. The offense is not felt not only by Iranians but all Muslims as well, since they ascribe films like this to the Islamophobia of many people in the West after 9/11, which depicts all Muslims as terrorists

Lincoln did not offend as many people perhaps, but it did manage to offend the good people of Connecticut. That should be enough to cause people to question the motives of those who produced and directed this film. In the case of Zero Dark Thirty, the people who are hurt especially are those Americans who are not fully aware of the extent of the use of torture by their own government.

Filmmakers should not needlessly offend religious people. In these films, the producers may not even have been conscious of the offense that was taken by so many Muslims all over the world, but especially in the Middle East.

The Oscars are not as important as they were some years ago. There are now many more award programs, but the Oscars are still the highlight for many in the film world. History indeed won in several categories, but these wins need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. The members of the Academy select the winners, but do not determine what are truly the best films. That is something that we, the public, ultimately do.

These historical dramas may be judged by many as among the best films this year, but all of them are flawed in some, some more seriously than others. Yet it is good for us to review them in order to determine not only their merits but also their weaknesses. That I have tried to do. I hope you appreciate my effort.

If you have any comments, please send them to me. I appreciate the dialogue.
 

Canada's Office of Religious Freedom finally unveiled

The unveiling of Canada's new Office of Religious Freedom along with the first Ambassador of Religious Freedom fulfills a promise that was first made by the Conservatives in the 2011 election campaign.  If the slow unveiling was meant to tantalize the Canadian public and make it more appealing, it failed miserably.

Most Canadians had forgotten about this promise, and even Prime Minister Harper's Conservative base, who are the primary reason for establishing this office, must have thought that it would never materialize.

The new Ambassador, Andrew Bennett, is a 40-year old former civil servant, who is now dean of Augustine College in Ottawa. He holds a PhD in political science from the University of Edinburgh, an MA in history from McGill University, and a BA from Dalhousie University. He is a Roman Catholic.

In announcing the appointment, the prime minister introduced him: "Dr. Bennett is a man of principle and deep convictions and he will encourage the protection of religious minorities around the world so all can practice their faith without fear of violence and repression."

The unveiling was done at an Ahmadiyyah mosque in Vaughan, just north of Toronto. This was done in order to lessen the appearance that this new office would be Christian- and Euro-centric. But that perception is difficult to dismiss entirely with the appointment of a Christian as its head. Two other people turned down this position, when it was offered to them. Perhaps no other choice was possible, but the optics are not good.

In a news conference, Bennett emphasized that the office would defend everyone, even those who have no religion: "All people of faith and, again, those who choose not to have faith, need to be protected, their rights need to be respected. That's what this office is about."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper shakes hands with Dr. Andrew Bennett

as he is named Ambassador to the Office of Religious Freedom

According to the website of Foreign Affairs and International Trade the office's mandate is three-fold:

• protect, and advocate on behalf of, religious minorities under threat;
• oppose religious hatred and intolerance; and
• promote Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad.

It further explains: "[F]reedom of religion or belief, including the ability to worship in peace and security, is a universal human right. Through the Office of Religious Freedom, Canada will continue to work with like-minded partners to speak out against egregious violations of freedom of religion, denounce violence against human-rights defenders and condemn attacks on worshippers and places of worship around the world."

In his statement opening this new office, Harper noted that the establishment of this office was motivated especially by the assassination of Shahbaz Bahti, the Minister of Minorities of Pakistan, who had worked tirelessly to defend the rights not only of his fellow Christians but also of Sikhs, Hindus, and other minorities. This office is his legacy, and a legacy of hope also for those who unlike him remain nameless.

Yet these noble words are not enough. The new Office of Religious Freedom has an impressive name and a huge mandate, but the staff is minimal -- only four or five people -- and the funding is minuscule -- only $5 million, which amounts to 0.002 per cent of the budget of $2.5 billion for the entire Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, of which it is now a part.

Canada is only the second country to establish such an office. The United States.Office of International Religious Freedom was set up under the wing of the State Department. The mandate of this office is similar to the Canadian one, which is not surprising since it was modeled on its American counterpart. 

• promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries;
• assist emerging democracies in implementing freedom of religion and conscience;
• assist religious and human rights NGOs in promoting religious freedom;
• identify and denounce regimes that are severe persecutors on the basis of religious belief.

In addition to this office, there is also the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, which is an independent, bipartisan US federal government commission that monitors the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad.

The US Office of International Religious Freedom has attracted much criticism for being Christian-centric. The Canadian government clearly wants to avoid that criticism, but whether it will be successful in that remains to be seen.

What can the new ambassador and his staff achieve with its very limited resources,especially since religious persecution is on the rise around the world? According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in 2010, 75 per cent of the world's population lived in countries with high government restrictions on religion or high social hostilities involving religion, which is up from 70 per cent in 2007.

I have previously outlined the problems that I perceive in understanding religious freedom when viewed from an international perspective, thus I won't repeat them now, except to note especially the conflict that exists between the largely Western individual and the communal interpretations of human rights that the rest of the world has. The latter is expressed in the African word ubuntu, which declares that my humanity and that of everyone else are inextricably bound together. That is also a biblical idea, since God created us to live in community.

The next week I asked the question that is still pertinent today: Does Canada need an Office of Religious Freedom? Then I again raised the issue of individual and communal rights. These are not absolute rights but are limited. Moreover, human rights can never be separated from their corresponding duties. 

Such an office should also be careful not to prefer one religion over others, which it was already accused of doing even before it was officially established. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions were ignored when the principles that would govern this office were formulated.

The prime minister in his speech stressed the idea of pluralism, but that idea sounds hollow as long as these other religions are not fully involved in the functioning of that office. Religious freedom.does not belong to any one religious group. If it did, religious freedom would be a contradiction in terms. All religions must enjoy the same rights, if this term is to have any meaning whatsoever. Religious freedom belongs to all of us or to none. The Harper government has not yet assured me and others its sincerity in establishing this office. 

Unfortunately, there is too much politics involved whenever this government takes any initiative, whether in dealing with climate change (ignore it), crime (build more prisons), or religious freedom (establish an office). In every case, it caters largely to its Conservative base.

For the Conservatives, the Office of Religious Freedom is also an appeal to the ethnic vote. In his speech, Harper went out of his way to speak of the many religious communities that suffer at the hands of intolerant governments; it is not just Christians who are persecuted, as many people in Canada and elsewhere believe.

To the extent that this new office is genuinely concerned with religious freedom, I applaud this effort, but it will take more than I have seen and heard thus far to convince me that that will indeed be the case. With its limited staffing and funding, this office is only a tiny religious island in a largely secularized departmental ocean where religion can be conveniently shunted aside and ignored.

In addition, only a token acknowledgment of religious freedom can be made by a department that is focused on international trade. When this new office complains about the treatment of Falun Gong by the Chinese government will the Canadian government be willing to jeopardize its trading relations with China to protect the religious freedom of this highly controversial group? Economics will once again trump human rights.

Perhaps I am too skeptical about the current government, but it has disappointed me immensely in the past, and thus I have not been reassured by the speeches that I heard when this office was officially established. Yet I do want to take this opportunity to wish Ambassador Bennett and his staff well as they begin their task. It will not be easy, and they need the prayers of all people of faith in Canada. May God richly bless them!