Religion and the news

I wonder when there will be a similar look at the connection between Catholicism and organized crime, especially those organizations traditionally associated with the Italian-American community in this country.

It s not self-evident to people outside Christianity that ours is a religion of love and peace. I was watching an interesting panel discussion of James Carroll s Constantine s Sword. Cynthia Ozick was part of the panel and read a personal memoir of her childhood introduction to Christianity. She described being taken on a school visit to a Catholic church, and her terror at the crucifixes everywhere. She was afraid of the black-clad nuns, literally afraid for her life, because she knew that Christians killed Jews. What the cross meant to her was that Christians believed Jews had killed Jesus and thus deserved death. She read with deep feeling the words, How could Jesus be a lord of love? Jesus was the lord of murder, the murder of Jews.
That s not an isolated story. I ve heard the same thing from other Jews. A friend told me of a relative, a young Jewish boy who had been taken to visit a Catholic church and screamed in terror at the sight of the huge, naked, mutilated, bloody male body nailed up at the front of the church. He thought that he d be nailed to a cross too, if he stayed in this place. Two of my siblings left the Catholic church, and one of the reasons they gave was their childhood impression of having images of suffering and mutilation constantly presented to them for adoration. It didn t have that effect on me, but on reflection, I can see why they interpreted things that way. The Catholic religion did not shine by comparison with every indigenous religion it encountered. Here s a quote from The Last of the Incas, by Edward Hyams and George Ordish. Whereas the Inca Church was relatively humane in its practices, forcing no conversions, absorbing rather than suppressing alien cults, and practicing human sacrifice, if at all, then with such moderation that it certainly sacrificed fewer victims in a year than did the Church of England under the first Elizabeth, the Spanish Church was horrifyingly different. It forced conversions by torture and death, it suppressed alien cults with ruthlessness, and, in its numerous autos-da-fe, it practiced human sacrifice by means of burning, the most painful of deaths, on a vast scale. . . . [The Peruvians] were enslaved, tortured, and worked to death to provide the Europeans with gold. They were infected by the newcomers with tuberculosis, measles and smallpox. It must have seemed to these wretched people that they had fallen into the hands of all-powerful devils . . . . Which religious practice seems mild and benevolent, and which seems the work of devils can depend on where you re sitting. Nobody condones human sacrifice, yet where is the religion that hasn t practiced it at some time, in some form?

Marian, I hope you return to see this. I offer this as food for thought, as opposed to a direct rebuttal. In my experience, Christians' attitude to prayer is impersonal: they pray to God (in whatever form they find appropriate or needed) to intercede or grant, to bring solace or ease pain. The intended recipient of the results is not part of the prayer process itself, and does not even need to be aware of the prayer. In my experience, the Pagan (modern) equivalent -- sending good thoughts, performing rituals with intent (like lighting candles), solo and group meditations or healing circles -- almost never occurs without some form of request or consent from the intended recipient. It is the epitome of personal; it is akin to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. We (being a Pagan myself) take it very seriously at all levels. I cannot, ethically or morally, accept a societal attitude that permits the death of an innocent person in the process of protecting me from criminal predators. I know this may seem easy to say, never having been in a life-threatening situation to match it, but I'd rather die at the hands of a person who law enforcement failed to put away than be responsible for the wrongful punishment of anyone. I not only not give my consent to such a "sacrifice", I actively oppose it. I recently sat on a jury for a rape trial. We were forced (I write deliberately) to find the defendant not guilty. We all knew he did something to that girl, in our hearts, but none of us could justify lying about reasonable doubt just to satisfy our hearts. Our only solace was in being able to label him not guilty instead of innocent, and of knowing that the girl's mother had long since barred him from any contact with any of her children. He is the mother's uncle. If we look at him as a statistic, then we are forced to recognize that I and my fellow jurors released soemone to free society who might harm another girl. Then again, he might not. If innocent until proven guilty is to have any meaning, then I did my duty as a juror, and I have the right to feel proud of that. It doesn't help me not feel like shit, but that's another subject altogether.