Pictures from Washington D.C.

I've just returned from the annual March for Life in Washington D.C.  Powerful, awe-inspiring, uplifting, and positive.  These are the words fellow students at the St. Lawrence Center used to describe the experience.  We attended masses at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and St. Matthews Cathedral.  The March itself consisted of approximately 250,000 individuals all united for the common purpose of protesting abortion.  In between mass and the march, we had free time to explore our nation's capital.  I took the opportunity to visit the Holocaust Museum, the American History Museum, the Museum of Natural History, and the National Archives.   

St. Matthews Cathedral

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion." Mother Teresa

A timeline of natural history.  Near the very top is man.

Teddy Roosevelt's pants

Ronald Reagan campaign materials.

Bakery in international food court.

The Basilica

Tesla

Sign from the Holocaust Museum.

Tim Tebow

Anytime a public figure proudly expresses his or her Christian beliefs on a national stage, the criticisms will be bound to follow.  Since becoming the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos, Tim Tebow has been the first to recognize that God is the source of his success.  “Tebowing”--the act of placing one knee down and leaning one’s head on fist to thank God--has entered the American lexicon.  Tebow has received national attention this season for two reasons.  First, his fourth-quarter comebacks and 7-1 record as the starting QB for Denver.  The second reason is his strong religious beliefs.

The fundamental truth is that many individuals want Tebow to fail because he is so open about his Christianity.  I’d be curious to know why his repeated indication of faith is viewed as offensive and provocative.  Is it the same resentment that causes anger and outrage at, for instance, a moment of prayer or silence in the psyche of certain Americans?  

Personally, I find Tebow story to be an inspiring one, not just on the football field.  While pregnant with him, his mother suffered a life-threatening infection.  She immediately went on a variety of drugs to rouse her from her coma and treat her inflamed intestine.  Doctors expected Tim to be a stillbirth and recommended an abortion to save her life, but she ardently refused.  The result of her decision was a courageous young man in more ways than one.  In the first half of a high school football game at Nease High School in Florida, he suffered an injury to his right leg.  Initially, the Nease coaching staff believed Tebow had a bad cramp, so they left him in the game.  At one point, Tebow rushed for a 29 yard touchdown with what was later discovered to be a broken fibula.

You won’t find hypocrisy or arrogance in Tebow’s words or actions.  He will be the first to admit he is not perfect, but there is nothing to suggest his beliefs are less than genuine.  His brief kneel-down after touchdowns appears to be an authentic sign of respect towards God, yet two Riverhead High School football players were suspended for a day because they re-enacted the gesture in the hallway.  The school called this display of faith a potentially dangerous situation.  So why has this thankful gesture become polarizing and irritating?  Beats me.  

In Memoriam: John P. Foley and Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens

Cardinal Foley

Two individuals on the opposite ends of the religious spectrum died in the past week.  Cardinal John Patrick Foley and Christopher Hitchens are no longer with us as we enter the winter season.  

Cardinal Foley, best known for his role as the Vatican’s communications director for almost a quarter century, died from leukemia in Darby, Pennsylvania.  His voice was heard by millions throughout the world as he narrated in English the pope’s midnight Christmas Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica.  Foley was always quick to defend the Catholic Church.  He once referred to AIDS as a “natural sanction against certain types of activities” and opposed allowing women to become Roman Catholic priests.  However, Cardinal Foley consistently spoke out against the sexual abuse scandals by rogue individuals within the Church.

Born in Darby in 1935, he started writing radio plays about the lives of saints in seventh grade.  At the age of 14, he was the broadcaster for a Sunday morning radio show.  While at St. Joseph’s Preparatory School in Philadelphia, he said he heard “God’s little whisper” to enter the priesthood.  In 1957, he graduated summa cum laude from St. Joseph’s College and entered St. Charles Borromeo Seminary.  In 1962, he was ordained and assigned to a suburban parish.   

Under the advice of Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia, Foley enrolled at Columbia Journalism School where he was the oldest student in his class.  In 1966, he earned a Master’s degree and was promptly sent to Rome for advanced studies.  While in Rome, he earned a doctorate from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas.  In 1979, he was appointed as the media liaison for Pope John Paul II’s first trip to the United States.  In 1984, he was named an archbishop and given the responsibilities of Vatican spokesman.  After retiring this year, Cardinal Foley returned to the Philadelphia area.

Foley loved to tell a story that illustrated his priestly and journalistic identities.  On a trip to Egypt in 1975, Cardinal Krol asked him whether he should take a camel ride.  Father Foley, ever the cautious man, said no, but Cardinal Krol ignored the advice and hopped on a camel.  As Cardinal Krol struggled to stay on the camel, Father Foley snapped a picture.  When asked why he had taken the picture after advising against the ride, Foley responded, “As your priest, I gave you my best advice.  As a journalist, I took your picture.”  

In addition to being an outspoken critic of religion, Chistopher Hitchens was a self-proclaimed socialist with Trotskyite roots.  Early in his writing career, he targeted Henry Kissinger and was staunch in his support for the Palestinian cause.  His interviews and writings often took the form of strong verbal or written attacks rather than objective analysis.  He even went so far as to call Mother Teresa a “thieving fanatical Albanian dwarf.”

As a young man, Hitchens traveled widely to Poland, Portugal, Czechoslovakia, and Argentina at crucial moments in their anti-totalitarian struggles.  After the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, Hitchens announced he was no longer on the political left, and “swore an oath to remain coldly furious” until “fascism with an Islamic face” was “brought to a most strict and merciless account.”  He surprised many when he visited George W. Bush at the White House and befriended Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.  Shortly after, he resigned from his journalist position at the Nation, one of America’s leading leftwing publications.  

Hitchen’s personal life was wrought with dualism and course behavior.  He was nearly expelled from boarding school for homosexuality and later boasted that at Oxford he slept with two future male members of the Margaret Thatcher cabinet.  Eventually, he became a dedicated heterosexual because he said his looks deteriorated to the point where no man was interested in him.  His love of alcohol and tobacco never wavered--he smoked heavily and drank enough “to kill or stun the average mule.”  Even when diagnosed with terminal cancer, he drank heavy amounts of whisky.  Years after his mother passed away, he learned through his brother that she came from a family of east European Jews.  Although he was only 1/32rd Jewish, Hitchens declared himself a Jew according to the custom of matrilineal descent.       

His most successful book is titled “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything”, and it is a mockery of religion that put him alongside Richard Dawkins as an enemy of believers.  Hitchens let everyone around him know there would be no deathbed conversion to religion.  When believers prayed for him, he declared himself as flattered, but was obstinate in his atheism.    

Jesuit Jokes

As some of you know, I attended a Jesuit college preparatory high school.  For the most part, my experiences there were superb.  I met some guys who I believe will be my friends for many years.  In addition, the Jesuit philosophy on education emphasizes things like the Magis (excellence in all things) and the grad-at-grad profile that you just don’t get at a public university.  I respect the Jesuits and their views on education, and today, I am posting some Jesuit jokes that we can all appreciate.

(1) One day a priest was visiting one of his parishioners, and, asking about her teenage son, discovered that she was worried about what career he would choose. The priest said he could tell by a simple test. He put on the coffee table a Bible, a wallet, and a bottle of scotch.

"If he chooses the Bible," the priest told her, "that's a sign he's destined for the priesthood. If he chooses the wallet, he's called to be a banker. And if he chooses the bottle of scotch, he's bound to become a bum."

The teenager came in and the priest told him he could have any object on the table. The boy picked up all three.

"Oh no!" the priest shouted. "He's going to be a Jesuit!"

(2)The Franciscans, the Dominicans, and the Jesuits were having a meeting when suddenly all the lights went out. Without a moment's hesitation, the Franciscans all took out their guitars and began to sing. In the next moment, the Dominicans all stood up and began to preach. In the next moment, the Jesuits all sighed, then went to the basement and replaced the fuse.

(3)A Jesuit, a Franciscan, and a Dominican were playing golf, and got stuck behind a group of golfers who played extraordinarily slowly. A bit frustrated, they went up to the group in front asked why the group was moving so slowly.

"We are part of a program for golfers with visual impairments; they pair off with sighted golfers who help them line up the shot and keep track of where the ball is," said the leader of the group.

The Franciscan was touched to the heart by this, apologized for any rudeness, and declared that he would join up with the program at the next opportunity. The Dominican also apologized, and said that he would mention the program when next he preached.

The Jesuit also apologized, but took the leader aside and said, "You should keep up the excellent work. But don't you think it would make more sense for them to play at night?"

(4)A miser had three sons, one of whom became a Dominican, one of whom became a Franciscan, and one of whom became a Jesuit. On his deathbed he called them in and told them that he wanted each of them to place a thousand dollars in his casket to be buried with him.

At the service, the three went up and the Dominican said, "This is a waste of money, Dad, but since you are my father and I owe you your last wishes, I've gotten permission from my Order to fulfill them." And he place a thousand dollars in hundred-dollar bills in the casket.

The Franciscan said, "Dad, it eats me up inside, but there is so much good that could be done with that thousand for people who need it more that I just can't do it: I will not waste it on something so frivolous."

The Jesuit behind him clapped him on the back. "Don't worry, brother, I have you covered." Then he took the Dominican's thousand out of the casket, pocketed it, and replaced it with a check for three thousand dollars.

(5)A Jesuit and a Franciscan were involved in a car accident. Hurriedly they got out to make sure the other person was OK, each insisting that it was probably his own fault.

Then the Jesuit, very concerned for his fellow religious, said, "You look very badly shaken up. You could probably use a stiff drink." At that he produced a flask, and the Franciscan, who was indeed a bit shaken up, took it gratefully.

"One more and I'm sure you'll be feeling fine," the Jesuit said, and the Franciscan took another. Then the Jesuit took the flask and put it safely away.

"You look a bit shaken up yourself," the Franciscan said. "Are you sure you don't want to take a bit?"

The Jesuit replied, "Oh, I certainly will; but I think I'll wait until after the police arrive."

Movie Review: For The Bible Tells Me So

For The Bible Tell Me So is a documentary that takes on a controversial topic- Christianity and homosexuality.  When I watched the film, I was heartbroken at some of the persecution Christian homosexuals have endured, but I was also impressed with the scientific approach taken to persuade the audience that homosexuality is not a choice.

The documentary is a combination of theological interpretations of homosexuality in scripture and interviews with five Christian families about their gay children.  Film maker Dan Karslake clearly is advocating for acceptance and love towards gay people.  One especially sobering statistic shared with the audience is that gay and bisexual people are three to seven more times likely to commit suicide.

The Bible-study component includes interviews with members of clergy and religious scholars who calmly rebut literalist interpretations of Scripture passages.  The most notable among these individuals is Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa.  These scholars explain that the Bible must be read within the context of its original culture and customs.  One such scholars pointed out, “The Bible is an incredibly powerful weapon that can be used to justify violence and death.  We must be clear that the Bible’s message is about compassion and love.”  Archbishop Tutu adds, “I can’t for the life of me imagine that God sees these things as I will punish you because you are homosexual. You should have been heterosexual.”

The Rev. Dr. Laurence C. Keene- a wise, soft spoken theologian- calmly pointed out that there’s a difference between what the Bible reads and what it actually means.  The idea of reading the Bible at face value without considering the context is a surprising 20th Century phenomenon.  Before now, it was widely understood that the spirit and context of Biblical manuscripts were to be considered in addition to the actual words.

Interestingly enough, only 7 Bible verses cover the divisive topic of homosexuality.  The most often quoted one is Leviticus 20:13, which reads, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They are to be put to death; their blood with be on their own heads.”  Romans 1:26 also mentions homosexuality- “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged sexual relations for unnatural ones.”  A Jewish rabbi observed, “Just because its written in the Bible doesn’t mean thats the way we do it today.”

Although the interpretations and scholarly insights will cause a Biblical literalist to re-examine their beliefs, the true power of For The Bible Tells Me So lies in the interviews with real-life families.  Gene Robinson-the first openly gay Episcopalian bishop- shares the struggles he has faced as a homosexual, Christian man.  Robinson discussed the lack of integrity between what he was showing to the world and what he felt inside while he was still in the closet about his sexual orientation.  When he finally came out to his wife, they both decided to let each other go, give back their rings before God, and release their vows respectfully and peacefully.  However when Bishop Robinson came out to his parents, it made for an uncomfortable, secretive situation.  Eventually, his mother and father came to accept their son’s homosexuality, and when Gene was ordained as a Bishop in the Anglican Church, his parents were completely light-hearted, relieved, and proud.  

By contrast, the Poteat family from North Carolina was still working to accept their daughter Tonia’s homosexuality.  Both preachers, the parents are still uncertain, saying they cannot yet rejoice the fact that her daughter is in love with another woman.  Fortunately, Tonia went to Yale where she started a support group for fellow LGBT people, so she did not fight alone.  Mary Lou Wallner and her daughter Anna didn’t have a happy ending.  Anna committed suicide not long after Mary Lou wrote to her a strongly worded letter of disapproval.  Mary Lou is now an activist for acceptance of gay people within the Christian community, and she says, “I now have hundreds of surrogate gay and lesbian Annas, and I love and accept them just as they are.” 

Perhaps the most gripping story in For The Bible Tells Me So is that of the Reitans, a Lutheran family living in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.  When teenage son Jake told his parents he is gay, his traditional parents were shocked.  “It hit me so hard I felt like I had just had a death in the family or someone had kicked me in the stomach and it was that way for months,” his father recalls.  With time, Jake’s parents came to join him in his activism, horrified by the anti-homosexual stances of James Dobsen’s Focus on the Family.  Dr. Dobsen has taken an unquestionable stance against all forms of homosexuality, calling it a preventable disorder that must be eradicated from young men and women.  “My daughter is dead because of the mistruths taught by [James Dobsen’s] church, Mary Lou   In a peaceful protest outside of Dobsen’s organizational headquarters, Jake stands with his arms around his parents.  “This is what it means to be a family!,”, he shouted.  They were arrested for trespassing as they tried to deliver a letter to Dr. Dobsen. 

For The Bible Tells Me So avoids demonizing the religious right by simply presenting the families affecting by literalist interpretations of Scripture and letting them tell their story.  Karslake accomplishes two things with this film.  First, through theologians and everyday people, he reminds us that Scripture should never be used as an excuse to persecute human beings.  Second, it refutes the commonly held notion that you can either be gay or religious. 

Possibly Related Post

Movie Review: Blood Money

Ideological Turing Test

Alan Turing

Atheist blog Unequally Yoked has published an ideological Turing test to determine whether atheists can pretend to be Christians and vice versa.  The purpose of the test is to see how well the two groups understand each other. 

For those of you that don’t know, a Turing test is a exam to determine a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior.  A human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each emulating human responses.  If the judge cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test.  The test was first introduced by computer scientist and mathematician Alan Turing in a 1950 paper.  He opens the essay with the following quote- “I propose to consider the question, “Can machines think?”  

Can you see the connection between the Turing test and the Unequally Yoked version?  Atheists and Christians will answer both sets of questions, then a judge will try to determine who is a believer and who is not based on the responses to the questions.  Here are the questions...

For Christians...

-What’s your best reason for being a Christian?

-What evidence or experience (if any) would cause you to stop believing in God?

-Why do you believe Christianity has a stronger claim on the truth than other religions?  On what basis do you reject the truth claims of other traditions and denominations but accept your own?

-How do you read the Bible?  Do you study the history of its translations?  How do you decide which translations are the true Bible?  How does it guide you if you have a moral or theological dilemma?

For Atheists...

-What’s your best reasons for being an atheist?

-What evidence or experience (if any) would cause you to believe in God?  If you believed in some kind of God, what kind of evidence would be necessary to convince you to join a particular religion?

-When you have ethical and moral disputes with other people, what do you appeal to?  What metric do you use to examine your moral intuitions?

-Why is religion so persistent?  We have had political revolutions, artistic revolutions, an industrial revolution, and also religious reformations of several kinds, but religions endures.  Does this not suggest its basic truth?

Governor Perry's Fundamentalist Christian Event

With the Fourth of July coming up soon, violations of the separation of church and state are setting off some fireworks in Texas, where Governor Rick Perry is sponsoring a fundamentalist Christian prayer rally at Reliant Stadium in Houston.  He has proclaimed Aug. 6 to be an official day of prayer and fasting.  

While most might not realize the implications of such an event, it is important to remind ourselves this Independence Day that in America, it doesn’t matter what faith (or lack of) that you hold, you are still granted the same rights as everybody else.  Our government has remained neutral on religion, and people of all faiths are welcomed in this country.  The constitution ensures the separation of church and state so that decisions impacting every American will not be influenced by personal belief systems.  

The prayer rally in Houston is organized by the American Family Association, and Perry has invited governors from every state to join him in promoting “The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis”.  Initially, I thought the rally was an evangelical tool to convert non-Christians.  However, rally organizers have issued a statement indicating that only Christians will be permitted to speak at the event.  The Response says that if representatives from other faiths were included, that would promote “idolatry”.  

Alan Parker, one of Perry’s organizers, writes, “This is an explicitly Christian event because we are going to be praying to the one true God through His son, Jesus Christ. It would be idolatry of the worst sort for Christians to gather and invite false gods like Allah and Buddha and their false prophets to be with us at that time. Because we have religious liberty in this country, they are free to have events and pray to Buddha and Allah on their own. But this is time of prayer to the One True God through His son, Jesus Christ, who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.”

The Constitution has no problem with fundamentalists gathering for an exclusively Christian event, but things get thorny when a government official specifically promotes one faith over another.  If this were a Muslim event, I venture to say that many Americans would be uncomfortable with a governor sponsoring it.  The Constitution does not give Governor Perry the right to exclude people of certain faiths because they worship “false gods”.  On the contrary, the Constitution forbids public officials from favoring one religion over another or religion over non-religion.  This kind of behavior needs to be called out and stopped.

Possibly Related Posts

Vouchers for Religious Schools

Religion In The United States

Admirable Behavior by A Muslim Man

On September 21, 2001, Rais Bhuiyan was working at a gas station in Dallas when he was shot in the face by a man named Mark Stroman.  Stroman was an unstable man on a shooting spree, targeting people who appeared to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent.  For his actions, Stroman is scheduled to be executed on July 20.  Meanwhile, Rais required medical attention years after the attack.  The bullet hit him on the right side of the face, leaving severe injuries.  When his family discovered what had happened, his father suffered a stroke- another trauma.     

Despite all the pain and suffering endured, Rais, the only survivor of the attacks is fighting to save Stroman’s life.  “According to my faith in Islam, there is no hate, no killing.  It doesn’t allow anything like that,” Rais says.  “Yes, Mark Stroman did a horrible thing, and he brought a lot of pain and disaster, sufferings in my life.  But in return I never hated him.  I strongly believe executing him is not a solution.  We will just simply lose a human life without dealing with the root cause, which is hate crime.  In Islam, it says that saving one human life is the same as saving the entire mankind.  Since I forgave him, all those principles encouraged me to go even further, and stop his execution and save another human life.”

Even after he had recovered somewhat, Rais was unable to fly home to Bangladesh to see his parents out of fear that the pressure changes in the plane might have caused his injured eye to explode.  Almost 10 years later, the only visible signs of his shooting are a sagging eye and a slight stiffness in his face when he speaks.  “My mother taught me that if people hurt you, don’t hurt them back.  Today or tomorrow, they will ask you for forgiveness.”

Roman Catholic Church and Transubstantiation

Last night, I got together with a couple of friends for a movie night.  One friend is very devout and never questions the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter referred to as the Church).  The other is a strong Roman Catholic, but is willing to ask questions to gain an understanding of the Church’s doctrine.  

In addition to other things, the topic of transubstantiation came up in conversation between movies.  As you might know, in Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation means the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood (respectively) of Jesus.  The Church teaches the change is not a physical change, but a transformation of the thing in itself.  In other words, the chemistry of the bread and wine does not change, but the substances do.  In appearance, the bread and wine remain the same, but the Church teaches there is a change that is not perceptible to the senses.  The “Real Presence” is the term that refers to Jesus’ actual presence in the elements of the bread and wine.

In metaphysics, philosophers distinguish between the qualities an item has and the thing in itself.  In the case of the bread, it has the qualities of being white, round, and soft.  The whiteness is not the bread, but it is a quality the bread has- the same is true of the roundness and softness.  The senses can perceive these qualities, but they cannot perceive substance (the thing in itself).  Through Jesus’ presence, the Church teaches that during the mass, the substance has been changed to his body and his blood.  This begs the question- how can the Church know there is a change in substance when the senses cannot perceive such things?  The Church responds by quoting scripture, particularly John 6: 53-57.  “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him...so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”  The Church interprets this passage literally and applies its message to the Eucharist.  Those who reject the doctrine of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 symbolically.  

As a whole, Protestant denominations have not believed in transubstantiation.  Instead, they view the bread and wine as a symbol of Jesus’ body and blood. During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther turned the doctrine of transubstantiation into a a controversial subject.  He said, “It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ is really present at the Eucharist.”  Protestants use John 6:63 as evidence against transubstantiation.  In that passage, Jesus says, “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.  The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”  Using this passage and others, Protestants argue that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial to his body and blood, not the actual consumption of Jesus.  Because the Church views transubstantiation as a “re-sacrifice” of Jesus, Protestants argue this is a contradiction to what Scripture says, that Jesus died “once for all” and does not need to be sacrificed again. Hebrews 7: 27 declares, “Unlike the other high priests, Jesus does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.  He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when he offered himself.”

Guest Post: An Airport Encounter by Archbishop Dolan

Today's post was written by Archbishop Timothy Dolan.  Timothy Michael Dolan was named Archbishop of New York by Pope Benedict XVI on February 23, 2009.  Previously, he had served as the Archbishop of Milwaukee.  He has been a priest for 35 happy years.


This post is always timely given the ongoing child abuse accusations leveled against Catholic priests.  Sadly, the view of the Catholic Church has become jaded in the eyes of many Americans due to the isolated instances of child abuse and pedophilia.  

An Airport Encounter

It was only the third time it had happened to me in my nearly thirty-five happy years as a priest, all three times over the last nine-and-a-half years.

Other priests tell me it has happened to them a lot more.

Three is enough.  Each time has left me so shaken I was near nausea.

It happened last Friday . . .

I had just arrived at the Denver Airport, there to speak at their popular annual “Living Our Catholic Faith” conference.

As I was waiting with the others for the electronic train to take me to the terminal, a man, maybe in his mid-forties, waiting as well, came closer to me.

“Are you a Catholic priest?” he kindly asked.

“Sure am.  Nice to meet you,” says I, as I offered my hand.

He ignored it.  “I was raised a Catholic,” he replied, almost always a hint of a cut to come, but I was not prepared for the razor sharpness of the stiletto, as he went on, “and now, as a father of two boys, I can’t look at you or any other priest without thinking of a sexual abuser.”

What to respond?  Yell at him?  Cuss him out?  Apologize?  Deck him?  Express understanding?  I must admit all such reactions came to mind as I staggered with shame and anger from the damage of the wound he had inflicted with those stinging words.

“Well,” I recovered enough to remark, “I’m sure sorry you feel that way.  But, let me ask you, do you automatically presume a sexual abuser when you see a Rabbi or Protestant minister?”

“Not at all,” he came back through gritted teeth as we both boarded the train.

“How about when you see a coach, or a boy scout leader, or a foster parent, or a counsellor, or physician?”  I continued.

“Of course not!” he came back.  “What’s all that got to do with it?”

“A lot,” I stayed with him, “because each of those professions have as high a percentage of sexual abuse, if not even higher, than that of priests.”

“Well, that may be,” he retorted.  “But the Church is the only group that knew it was going on, did nothing about it, and kept transferring the perverts around.”

“You obviously never heard the stats on public school teachers,” I observed.  “In my home town of New York City alone, experts say the rate of sexual abuse among public school teachers is ten times higher than that of priests, and these abusers just get transferred around.”  (Had I known at that time the news in in last Sunday’s New York Times about the high rate of abuse of the most helpless in state supervised homes, with reported abusers simply transferred to another home, I would have mentioned that, too.)

To that he said nothing, so I went in for a further charge.

“Pardon me for being so blunt, but you sure were with me, so, let me ask:  when you look at yourself in a mirror, do you see a sex abuser?”

Now he was as taken aback as I had been two-minutes before.  “What the hell are you talking about?”

“Sadly,” I answered, “studies tell us that most children sexually abused are victims of their own fathers or other family members.”

Enough of the debate, I concluded, as I saw him dazed.  So I tried to calm it down.

“So, I tell you what:  when I look at you, I won’t see a sex abuser, and I would appreciate the same consideration from you.”

The train had arrived at baggage claim, and we both exited together.

“Well then, why do we only hear this garbage about you priests,” he inquired, as he got a bit more pensive.

“We priests wonder the same thing.  I’ve got a few reasons if you’re interested.”

He nodded his head as we slowly walked to the carousel.

“For one,” I continued, “we priests deserve the more intense scrutiny, because people trust us more as we dare claim to represent God, so, when on of us do it – even if only a tiny minority of us ever have — it is more disgusting.”

“Two, I’m afraid there are many out there who have no love for the Church, and are itching to ruin us.  This is the issue they love to endlessly scourge us with.”

“And, three, I hate to say it,” as I wrapped it up, “there’s a lot of money to be made in suing the Catholic Church, while it’s hardly worth suing any of the other groups I mentioned before.”

We both by then had our luggage, and headed for the door.  He then put his hand out, the hand he had not extended five minutes earlier when I had put mine out to him.  We shook.

“Thanks.  Glad I met you.”

He halted a minute.  “You know, I think of the great priests I knew when I was a kid.  And now, because I work in IT at Regis University, I know some devoted Jesuits.  Shouldn’t judge all you guys because of the horrible sins of a few.”

“Thanks!,” I smiled.

I guess things were patched-up, because, as he walked away, he added, “At least I owe you a joke:  What happens when you can’t pay your exorcist?”

“Got me,” I answered.

“You get ‘re-possessed’!”

We both laughed and separated.

Notwithstanding the happy ending, I was still trembling . . . and almost felt like I needed an exorcism to expel my shattered soul, as I had to confront again the horror this whole mess has been to victims and their families, our Catholic people like the man I had just met . . . and to us priests.