In the world? Of the world?

Living in South Korea for the past year, certain things have occured in my home town in Canada that I was unaware of. One is a contentious issue involving parishoners of a local church. An internal matter within the church has become very public when one parishoner chose to seek resolution through a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (HRT).

As I've already stated I was not present for the situation in question, nor was I a member of the church in question (my grandmother was but I was not). So what right do I have in commenting on something outside of my personal experience or participation? My primary concern and the reason for my comment is the chosen course of resolution taken by the apparently wronged party; the Human Rights Tribunal.

Now from what I understand the situation began when a group of congregants took issue with the Parish's new Priest over economic matters. It seems that this group of congregants were unable to reach satisfaction within the diocese concerning this matter and, according to the complaintant in the HRT case, chose to change tactics in their persecution of the Priest by attacking members of the Parish that supported the Priest. This led to the complaintant being asked to step down from his voluntary position as Altar Server by the Bishop.

In his description of the events leading up to his filing of his complaint with the HRT, the complaintant argues that the group of perishoners "felt that they were more qualified to run the church than the pastor, and ultimately more qualified to run the diocese than the Bishop. That is not the Catholic model." Now I have to assume that the Catholic model to which he is speaking is the one where the Church hierarchy is involved and the perishoners accept graciously the decision of the Church whether it agrees or disagrees with them. This however does not seem to be what happened as "in January, the Bishop decided to address the tactics of these parishioners in a letter to all parishioners that accompanied our year end financial report. The Bishop called upon this group to stop their malicious attack of Father Hood. The group was not persuaded by the Bishop's letter and they continued their campaign of slander and libel against Father Hood."

It does appear that despite the decision of the diocese against the group's actions against the Priest, the diocese did agree with the group in the matter of a homosexual person serving as an Altar Server. We are told that not only was the local Bishop involved but so too were the Arch-Bishop and the Papal Nuncio. It was after this that the complaintant was asked to step down from his voluntary position within the church.

The actions of the group against the Priest did not stop but expanded from involving 12 people to include 45 people. The Bishop was once again involved and told the party to cease and desisit from their actions against the Parish Priest as "the Bishop did respond with a very strongly worded letter to the 45, he told them that their accusations were unfounded, their actions were un-Christian, and their claims about the liturgy were not worthy of a response. His letter essentially ordered these people to stop attacking Father Hood and gave them the option of attending another church if they weren't happy."

It was at this point that the complaintant involved a lawyer and told that he "two options. One was to sue the 2 ringleaders of the group, the other was to file a human rights complaint. I opted for the human rights complaint. In my complaint, I have argued that this group of 12, by threatening the Bishop, have recklessly trampled on my rights as a human being, and my right to respond to my calling in the church. As such I have asked for the Bishop to reinstate me, and to preach a sermon on the ills of spreading rumour and innuendo. I have also asked each of the 12 parishioners to make a donation of $20,000 to a charity of my choosing. Finally, I have asked the diocese to cover my legal expenses, up to a maximum of $25,000."

This is my issue with this ongoing situation: the involvement of the secular authority (HRT) in the operation of the Church.

Now in Canada we don't have a clearly deliniated statement of the seperation of Church and State as our American neighbors do. However, it is accepted that the Church has no place to dictate to the State how it must operate just as the State has no right to dictate to the Church how it must operate. The actions of the complaintant work to end this and place the Church, its doctrines and actions under the control of the government. This is wrong.

Some might see this as a good thing. They might see this as a way of forcing the Church to 'evolve' so that it more clearly matches the current social positions of society. The function of the Church is not to mirror society. The function of the Church is speak truth to the world. It is able to do this because the Church is not of the world, it is of God. As Christ Jesus says: "I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it." (John 17:14-16)

The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 that "if any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers."

In my opinion (for what that matters) the complaintant should have followed his own advice and followed the Catholic way in Church matters. He can try and wrap his complaint in the notion of defending the Parish Priest but the fact is that his complaint before the HRT is solely about himself and not the Priest. He goes against his own counsel and his Church (his situation went as high as the Papal Nuncio) by not only refusing to accept the counsel and admonition of the Church but by taking the un-Catholic way and presenting an internal Church matter before the State. Something that both Christ and the Apostle Paul said we were not to do. The inclusion of money in the matter only serves to cheapen it.

Too often people argue that the Church should change in order to meet our perception of what the Church should be. Just as people argue that God should be what we want Him to be. Who are we to tell God who He should be? Who are we to tell the 2000 year old Church to blow with the wind of change in society? If that were the case the Church would be built on shifting sands and not on the rock upon which Christ Jesus founded it.

Rubbing Obama's belly

Given the past week or so of violence and protest in Iran following a rather questionable election pressure is mounting on Obama to step up and put the Iranian leadership in its place by openly supporting the protesters in Iran.

I can sympathize with this position to a certain extent. A people are standing up against oppression and one would like to support that but on the other hand is it any of our business?

Would we listen in Canada if Iran's leader stood up and told us what we should do?

People are looking to Obama to lead and that's fine, but I can't help but get the sense that there are a large group of people out there that think Obama is some miracle worker with the answers to all of life's and the world's problems. It's a rather absurd notion to be sure.

First why should anyone listen to the US?

Really.

Why?

The obvious argument is that the US has discredited itself through the unilateral invasion of Iraq, the unlawful detention of foreign citizens in Guantanamo Bay, the use of torture on same prisoners and the questionable legal practices used to strip civil rights away from their own citizens. So why should anyone listen to the US when they speak of truth, justice and the American way?

The counter arguement to this is now: Obama! Like his name alone will ward off the encroaching darkness. All of what was previously argued happened under the hated W, but now Obama is in power and that creates a clear line of demarcation between what the US has done and what they will do.

I guess that that is plausible except for the fact that Guantanamo is still in operation. People are still being held by American authorities without charge or representation. Obama went to Egypt, itself a repressive regime and said nothing. He says nothing about the situation in Darfur or Somalia. Continues to do business with repressive regimes such as China and Pakistan.

Usually when such stuff is brought up people argue that it isn't POTUS's responsibility to police the world but rather to look after his own people. And in this they are correct, except when it suits their own sense of inflated ego, then the world should snap to and listen to what comes from the the White House podium and do as they are told. They want their cake and eat it to.

Clinton lost a lot of respect when he said nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. He had gone into Somalia and left with his tail between his legs. Then refused to send US troops into harms way to help end the genocide in Kosovo, utilizing only air power. Then Rwanda came about and it was argued that the US had no right to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations.

Well what has changed?

Nothing. America still acts when and where it wants and refuses to act where and when it wants. I guess that that is their right. Unless of course they taking advantage of or invading a foreign people, but some of the time that simply doesn't matter.

So I'm left with the question of why should Iran or anyone else for that matter listen to what the US has to say about their internal policies or actions?

Well Obama has played this situation rather circumspectly, issuing statments but not giving them himself. Not lending his teleprompter presence to the words. He's not getting directly involved and trying to be seen as not meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. Which of course would be a foolish thing to do after his Cairo speach.

The thing I have to wonder about Obama is that he seems to believe that it is the responsibility of the POTUS to defend Islam to the world and that the notions of free speach and assembly are inaliable rights given to all mankind. I have no idea where he came up with such ludicrous notions but he seems to believe them.

***

On a more facetious note if we want all these problems to go away (Darfur, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, China, North Korea, etc.) we need only send in the Scientologists.

Don't believe me?

Ask Tom Cruise.

Video.

Cultural imperialism

When I first came to Korea I was readily aware of the fact that I was a stranger and visitor to a foreign culture and society. As a westerner living in a non-western country I was very aware of my culture's history of cultural imperialism. As a good westerner I knew that our way isn't the only way, that there are a varied multitude of ways to live life and to order society and that it was not my right or place to try to change the cultural values and practices of my new home.

The the thing I find ironic is that this modern western mentality is prevalent when we talk about foreign cultures or about nice neat things at home, but they don't extend to those things that our western ideas deem to be less than ideal.

So while its not my place to tell Koreans to not eat dogs (based on the notion that simply because westerners place a different set of values on dogs does not mean that that is the value set that everyone, everywhere must hold to; just like I eat beef despite cows being sacred in India) it is apparently the modern westerner's place to tell the Inuit what they can and can't do with seals. This despite the fact that the Inuit were hunting and eating seals long before Europeans came to the New World.

As such I have nothing but praise for the recent actions of Michelle Jean, Governor General of Canada.

From the CBC:

Earlier this week in the central Nunavut community of Rankin Inlet, Jean used a traditional Inuit knife to cut into the flesh of a seal and slice off a part of its heart. She then swallowed it raw. Jean said she was informed the heart is the most coveted part of the meal.

The incident sparked national headlines and protests from animal welfare groups, but also earned her praise from sealers, Canadian Inuit leaders and politicians like Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who described Jean as "Canada's new Braveheart."

"The heart is a delicacy," Jean said. "It is the best you can offer to your guest. It is the best that is offered to the elders.

"So, do you say no to that? You engage, and at the same time you are learning about a way of life, a civilization, a tradition."

I have a hard time seeing people opposed to this aspect of Inuit life as little more than sanctimonious pricks.