• Acts 2:1-11. The awesome descent of the Spirit, so that all are caught up in wonder and hear the marvels of God spoken in their own tongues.
• 1 Corinthians 12: 3-7, 12-13. There are different gifts but the same Spirit. In the one Spirit all of us were baptized into one body [and] have been given to drink of the one Spirit.
• John 20: 19-23 Jesus breathed upon the disciples, gathered together in a locked room; he conferred the Holy Spirit and the power of forgiving sin.

Thoughts for your consideration: by John Gonzalez

The message of Pentecost Sunday offers us a curious lesson on the virtue of unity. Whoever attend the Pentecost vigil mass will hear the famous Hebrew account of Babel. In this account God is seemingly nervous of human ambition and He sows chaos by fragmenting the unified human community through the use of different languages. In the first reading for the Sunday Mass however we encounter God unifying the human community by the power of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Apostles. Language becomes the instrument that is used to sow division in Babel while for the Apostles language becomes the instrument of unity in preaching to the people of Jerusalem. How are we to understand God’s apparent contradiction during these two historical moments?

In the story of Babel the early Hebrew community tries to explain how the human community eventually migrated everywhere and became such a fragmented group. No social or ecological phenomenon could be explained without God’s intervention so of course in trying to respond to this reality they employed God’s divine intervention. Without taking this story as a literal historical account one can reflect on the spiritual lesson that is to be learned here. Of course God does not fear our human capabilities; instead we see what happens when the human community is organized on a project that goes against the will of God.

Babel may or may not have happened, but Babel like moments have happened in our human history where civilizations and societies have developed unifying agendas that goes against the will of God. For a time a particular culture or group may achieve great projects and pursue a policy of dominance based on the achievements. But such power that is wielded outside of the will of God or the Holy Spirit becomes corrupted and divisive. Consider for example the situations of the Athenians and the birth of democratic Greece. This was a noble and virtuous endeavor. The immediate result of this revolutionary achievement was that they were able to organize the Greek peninsula to defend themselves from the overpowering tyranny of the Persian Empire. Yet no sooner had they reached their own moment of power when they began to make plans to overpower others with their perceived supremacy. Their downfall came soon enough with the start of the Peloponnesian war.

St. Paul declares that all our gifts and talents are given to us by the one Spirit. These gifts are not given to us to serve our own interest but to serve the one Body. These gifts that we each have can certainly profit us and our own communities but they are not put to their authentic use if they do not serve the common good of the one Body. If we use these talents toward that purpose then we will achieve an authentic unity where our motivation is for the service of God and all of creation.

The Gospel passage tells us that an essential element of this authentic unity is a spirit of peace. As he shows the wound on his hands and side Jesus keeps offering the disciples this spirit of peace. If you had seen a friend inflicted with terrible and unjust wounds what feelings would surface? Possibly anger and revenge, a desire to see that justice is served perhaps. I would like to assume that is why Jesus keeps enforcing this call to peace. He wants his disciples to witness the truth but to do so through an attitude of peace and compassionate love. Only through a spirit of peace can the disciples begin to approach the wisdom and understanding of God’s plan through the Holy Spirit. In breathing the Holy Spirit to the disciples Jesus’ first instruction is to have them forgive others. In this way they truly become a witness to God’s love.

The readings for Pentecost Sunday invite us to adopt this spirit of peace and forgiveness and to contemplate the authentic unity of the human family. In order to be open to the wisdom of the Holy Spirit we need to recognize the power of that one Great Spirit within each and every one of us.

In offering a critique on the 1983 U.S. Bishop’s pastoral “The Challenge of Peace” former Passionist moral theologian Paul Wadell tells us that “A Christianity that no longer seems strange to us is a Christianity that has lost its nerve.[i]” Professor Wadell was very much impressed with the Bishop’s depiction of the non-violent Christ in Scripture and their acknowledgement of our call to follow the radical example set by Jesus. But then he is perplexed by what he considers the weak invitation by the Church to subscribe pacifism as merely an individual option of choice. Informed by his own Passionist spirituality where he meditates on the amazing non-violent response of the crucified Christ Professor Wadell suggest that discipleship does not simply invites us to consider the non-violent option but rather it obliges us to adopt this countercultural social stance:

Pacifism is a Christian’s obligation because discipleship is a Christian’s vocation. To refuse to be a pacifist is a sign that in a world torn apart by the violence of war we no longer believe God’s story can be told.[ii]

While I respect and agree with Professor Wadell’s critique I still admire the overall Catholic position on pursuing peace and limiting violence through the just war criteria. Vatican II set the tone for this development with the Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium Et Spes” when after assessing modern warfare, especially within the nuclear age, it declared that “all these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude.”[iii] It was with this document that while offering some general principles for avoiding war that it praised the non-violent response of others.

Motivated by this same spirit, we cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties too. (#78)[iv]

When the U.S. Bishops developed this peace tradition with the 1983 Peace Pastoral they described the theological principle at the heart of the Christian debate between active non-violence and the just war tradition. It boils down to an issue of discipleship based on Christian eschatology. Christ preached the coming of the Kingdom of God and in preaching its emergence Jesus himself would go back and forth in describing it as already present in what he is doing but awaiting its full emergence at some point in the imminent future. So while we are invited to be disciples of the Christ that we know through the history of our faith we are also awaiting the final revelation of Christ and his Kingdom in what we call the “Second Coming.” This is called the “already, not yet” dilemma of the Kingdom of God where we are invited to live like Christ as citizens of the Kingdom while acknowledging the ongoing presence of sin in our world and being forced to address the social realities of injustice and violence in a world that has not yet reached this state of perfection. This theological dilemma is at the heart of the Bishop’s Peace Pastoral whereby they praise the individual pursuit of radical discipleship while on the social level offer a just war approach that curtail the devastation of war especially on its effect on the civilian population. Nevertheless, in light of this tension, it is worthy to note the praise that the Pastoral offers non-violent activist in calling their witness that which “best reflects the call of Jesus both to love and to justice.”[v]

In the midst of this theological tension the Church appears to be offering a more prophetic stand that further critiques the possibility of a just war within our modern era while supporting non-violent actions and throwing its support on humanitarian intervention rather than war. In his treatment on the Catholic peace movement Marvin Krier Mich suggests that the Church is indeed moving further in this direction.

As the Catholic tradition continues to follow the advice of Vatican II – to have its moral reflection more clearly rooted in the Bible and be Christ-centered – I believe we will see a shift in the church’s understanding of pacifism. The official teaching is finding it harder and harder to justify war in the modern era. This means that the tradition of nonviolence will be recovered and receive greater emphasis in the future. The Catholic tradition is still working on this question.[vi]  

Krier Mich’s assessment on the Catholic peace position seems to be quite justified when taken into consideration with the emphasis on peace from our current pontiff. I for one was impressed with the reason that Pope Benedict XVI gave for choosing his Papal name in his very first World Day of Peace message.

The very name Benedict, which I chose on the day of my election to the Chair of Peter, is a sign of my personal commitment to peace. In taking this name, I wanted to evoke both the Patron Saint of Europe, who inspired a civilization of peace on the whole continent, and Pope Benedict XV, who condemned the First World War as a ”useless slaughter” and worked for a universal acknowledgment of the lofty demands of peace.[vii]

Pope Benedict XVI has struggle hard to emphasize one’s personal commitment to follow what he calls the “Gospel of Peace.” This invitation is again primarily offered at the individual level while offering broad social critiques on violent conflicts and supporting disarmament and development strategies. While it is of course imperative for us to push the pacifist and non-violent tradition as a point of personal conversion we still do not have a social mechanism for the international community to employ a broad based non-violent strategy for real local conflicts such as we have currently in Libya. Recently I offered a post that reflected on the “Spiral of Violence” theory by Archbishop Helder Camara of Brazil where he suggests that non-violence is not only an excellent moral position but that it is also a rational position for bringing to an effective halt the tendency of retaliating and counter-retaliating. I would think that the Christian community would do well to invest in a social mechanism that could offer a strategic non-violent option as part of an overall humanitarian intervention that is more consistent with Christian discipleship.     

The Christian Peacemaker Teams  is an organization that coordinates non-violent accompaniment to civilians who are either persecuted, marginalized or in the midst of conflict. This organization and this strategy of accompaniment would appear to me to offer a valuable non-violent option to humanitarian intervention in a place like Libya. At the very least it would be a good place to start contemplating this social response.

• Isaiah 60: 1-6. Gentiles come from distant lands, attracted by the splendor of Jerusalem, bringing gifts and the “wealth of nations.” They will be the sons and daughters of the Holy City.
• Ephesians 3:2-3, 5-6. Paul preaches the mystery, hidden from all eternity until now, that gentiles are co-heirs and “co-partners in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”
• Matthew 2:1-12. The Magi from the east come with gifts seeking the newborn King of the Jews. Herod and all Jerusalem are upset by this.

Thoughts for your Consideration:

This weekend we celebrate Epiphany. The story in the Gospel of Matthew where the wise Magi from the east follow the star that leads them to the King of the Jews. This is the scripture event from which the Christmas tradition of gift giving originates with. The gifts of the Magi is very much relevant and meaningful to us as we celebrate the Christmas season, but for the moment let us reflect on two aspects of this story: where the Magi came from, and how was their visit and offerings received by Herod and all of Jerusalem.

Our tradition of offering gifts is often times done within the association of our family, friends and associates, intimate members of our lives. But the Magi where neither family, friends nor associates. They did not even share the same religious faith as Mary and Joseph. They were complete strangers from distant lands that followed a cosmological and universal symbol which lead them to a foreign country in search of a great truth.

All three readings for this weekend testify to an amazing aspect of the Gospel: that the promise of Jesus Christ does not belong to any one group of people. While the first covenant was defined as a contract between God and a chosen people this new covenant that was sealed through Christ is one that is made with all people. Isaiah prophesies about this when he describes Jerusalem as a Holy City by virtue that it belongs to all and it will be enriched by foreign nations. Its sons and daughters will be heralded from distant lands. Paul goes even further by declaring that the Gentiles will not come into this new covenant relationship as second class citizens, instead they are to be seen as “co-heirs” and “co-partners” through Jesus Christ. The gospel story compliments Isaiah and Paul by testifying to the celebrated birth of Christ by foreign Magi in pursuit of a truth that was a much relevant to them as it was to all of Jerusalem.

But Jerusalem, and Herod especially, was not at all thrilled with this outside exposure. As you can imagine, a chosen people were not too thrilled with the prospect of sharing their divine promise and hope with others. This was especially true for Herod and for those who ruled Jerusalem with him. Such external influences from the east was outside of Herod’s political power base (the Temple authority and of course, Rome) and as such they were a direct challenge to his political stability.         

It should be noted that this liturgical feast and these readings will be celebrated on the weekend of January 1^st which is observed as the World Day of Peace by the Catholic Church. This year’s World Day of Peace Message: “Religious Freedom, The Path to Peace,” is very much relevant to these three readings. With this message Pope Benedict XVI is again addressing a challenge from the East, although the challenge this time around is very different. The Magi symbolize strangers with different faith traditions who pursue the universal and divine truth, this pursuit leads them to a humble manger and the newborn savior of the world. In defending religious freedom Pope Benedict maintains that while the Church “is duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life … this in no way excludes dialogue and the common pursuit of the truth in different areas of life, since, as Saint Thomas Aquinas would say, “every truth, whoever utters it, comes from the Holy Spirit””.

The challenge from the east this time is religious fundamentalism. This challenge is seen very clearly in some of the atrocities in Iraq, the Middle East and Asia but the seeds of religious and anti-religious fundamentalism can also be found in the west. The goal of religion is to pursuit the universal truth and the common good and because of that Pope Benedict XVI is urging us all to pursue dialogue in hopes of coming to a common awareness our own truth and divine unity. According to the reading for this weekend the pursuit of the truth will result in unity and peace as it did with the Magi, not in division and conflict as it did with Herod.

Throughout this message the Pope is addressing two related issues. On the one hand, he is strongly condemning religious fundamentalism and any form of hostility to believers of any faith. These actions, whether done by individuals or by national juridical authorities, are an affront to religious freedom. At the same time the Pope also condemns what he calls secularism where a society’s actions reject any public form of religious expression. Our human dignity is grounded in God and our own American Declaration of Independence reminds us that our inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are endowed to us by our Creator. Thus for us to truly observe the fullest expression of our dignity society should safeguard our public right to express our religious convictions in a way that fully respects the religious or secular belief of others.

The call to religious freedom is a call towards mutual respect:

Freedom and respect are inseparable; indeed, “in exercising their rights, individuals and social groups are bound by the moral law to have regard for the rights of others, their own duties to others and the common good of all” -#3

In this message the Pope sees dialogue as a vehicle for us to promote a religious freedom through mutual respect. He suggests two forms of dialogue. First he suggests that civil institutions ought to engage in a healthy dialogue with religious institutions. Pope Benedict believes that “the great religions can serve as an important factor of unity and peace for the human family.” In a recent post I highlighted the current international movement to foster religious moral dialogue through the “Charter for Compassion.” This movement seeks to accomplish the very civil dialogue that Pope Benedict is promoting.

But he also suggest that “for the Church, dialogue between the followers of the different religions represent an important means of cooperating with all religious communities for the common good.” He reminds us of the famous 1986 World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi where Pope John Paul II gathered with the leaders of great world religions and prayed for unity and peace. The Pope urges us to follow this example and to engage in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue with our all our neighbors.

CBS Morning News aired an amazing program over Christmas weekend titled “Finding a Religious Common Ground.” In this program they talked with many amazing individuals who started “Faith Clubs” throughout the United States. These clubs are local dialogue between people of faith that have successfully broken down stereotypes and assumption between people of different faiths. In dismantling these stereotypes people effectively put a halt to hatred and prejudice that are often times born out of ignorance. This CBS show also promoted a current exhibit at the NY Public Library called “Three Faiths” which can help us understand the similarities between the three great monotheistic faiths from their own sacred texts.

I encourage the readers to visit these links and to consider being Christian peacemakers through dialogue with people of other faiths for the purpose of promoting mutual respect and religious freedom. As Pope Benedict tells us at the conclusion of his message: 

Peace is the result of a process of purification and of cultural, moral and spiritual elevation involving individuals and people, a process in which human dignity is fully respected. … May all men and women, and societies at every level and in every part of the earth, soon be able to experience religious freedom, the path to peace! -#15

• Isaiah 7:10-14. At a time when the Davidic dynasty was threatened severely, even with the loss of the throne, Isaiah promised survival but through God alone.
• Romans 1: 1-7. Paul has been designated to announce the Gospel – Jesus Christ, “descended from David according to the flesh but… Son of God… by his resurrection.”
• Matthew 1: 18-24. A tradition centering in Joseph recalls Jesus’ virginal conception as announced through the prophets.

Thoughts for Your Consideration: By John Gonzalez

We are coming towards the end of the Advent season. The readings call to mind the Divine plan which called for the birth of the savior. Isaiah offers his prophesy regarding the birth of Emmanuel to King Ahaz of Judah as a miraculous symbol of Divine hope for a period of great national stress. Paul describes the mystery of the incarnation as part of the gospel creed and the hope for the early Christian community in Rome. In the Gospel reading according to Matthew the miraculous circumstances regarding the birth of Jesus are narrated to us through the eyes of Joseph who is both righteous and compassionate. Joseph struggles with the social implications of this event but through the power of faith that graces his intuition he is able to identify the great salvific hope that will be born to them.

These readings set up for us the exciting context for celebrating Christmas. They describe to us the foretold birth of Christ and we can get excited over the message in preparation for the festivities of the week. But if we take the time to contemplate each of these readings and appreciate the dire situation from which each of them where written in we will be feeling something other than excitement.  Instead we may end up with a healthy amount of anguish and trepidation for what is to come. In all three cases (King Ahaz, Joseph, and the early Christian community in Rome) each is being given a message of hope that can only be accepted in faith as they each are asked to take their first step into the deep unknown. At Christmas we celebrate the foretold gift of hope, a gift in the midst of a suffering world, a gift that will challenge all of us to have faith in a hope that is not of our own making and which places us in the midst of the social suffering of our world.

Let us explore the situation of King Ahaz. Ahaz, the King of Judah, reigned in the midst of social upheaval. The armies of Syria and Northern Israel formed an alliance against Assyria. Ahaz would not join the alliance and so the two armies strategized to take over Jerusalem and set up a puppet government which would concede to the alliance. Ahaz was rightfully concerned that a war against Assyria was folly. So instead of joining the alliance with Israel and Syria he contemplated forming a military alliance with Assyria. Here is where Isaiah comes in. He counsels Ahaz against forming an alliance that will eventually reduce Judah to rubble. Instead Isaiah’s advice to Ahaz is to wait out the crisis and “remain tranquil and do not fear.” Scripture Scholars suggest that Isaiah analyzed that Assyria would finish off with the two rebel states of Israel and Syria soon (which they did) and felt that it would be folly to place oneself into a relationship of submission to the Assyrians. In this situation Isaiah offers Ahaz a prophesy of hope regarding the birth of Emmanuel. This prophesy was to symbolize two things. For the interest of Ahaz it symbolized the preservation of the Davidic lineage. But it also signified hope in the midst of tribulation, new life in the midst of impending destruction. Ahaz does not concede to Isaiah  and engages the Assyrians. The Kingdom of Judah has lost faith, “unless your faith is firm you shall not be firm.” The birth of hope is instead brought to bear with the astounding faith of another member of the Davidic lineage, a lowly carpenter who faces a troubling pre-marital situation.

The central message of each of these readings is that hope is alive in the midst of our own social or personal tribulations. As the year 2010 draws to a close we face many social upheavals that can leave us without any faith for the future. Our global economy, domestic social welfare, political and military conflicts are all in turmoil. Where can we identify our hope in these times? Do we now compromise our faith with other organizations or ideologies out there that give us some semblance of comfort and stability? Like Ahaz, should we close in on ourselves with a narrow definition of community or nation and out of fear submit ourselves to the policies of those who appear economically and politically strong? No, Scripture has never presented that as a solution.  Our faith is in God, the God of the poor and the suffering, the God who promises justice, mercy and forgiveness time and time again. The non-violent prince of peace is our true hope, our way to address the violent and unjust challenges in our world. It is a path wrought with suffering as we promote policies of fairness; justice and compassion to all our brothers and sisters who need our help. It is a path that will bring us ridicule as we tirelessly advocate for peace and nonviolence to a world that is nurtured in conflict and violence. It is an unpopular path but according to the prophets it is the only sure path we have.

What Christian is not aware of the fact that they are called by Christ to be agents of peace in our world? It is one thing to recognize this principle, but it is quite another thing to actualize such a challenging call. Scripture offers us some guidance on this subject. During this liturgical season our first readings will come from the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah consults the court in Jerusalem during a time of great conflict and turmoil. His recommendation is fidelity and justice. The prophetic tradition of that time never saw any distinction between the earthly desire for peace, the pursuit of justice, and our fidelity to God. This was a one package deal. Fidelity to God offers a hope for peace (Is 2:2-4). Fidelity to God includes a commitment to social justice. Consider this passage from Isaiah and reflect on its relevance during our upcoming Christmas celebration.

Your new moons and festivals I detest; they weigh me down, I tire of the load. When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood! Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil; learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow.– Is. 1:14-17

Peace is found when we are fidelity to God is expressed in the works of justice. Pope Paul VI perhaps said it best in his 1972 World Day of Peace Message which was titled: “If You Want Peace, Work for Justice.” The Catholic church along with its social teachings have annually highlighted the Christian theology of peace with the annual World Day of Peace Message, a tradition that started with Pope Paul VI in 1968 and which continues to this day. The messages highlight a specific aspect of pursuing peace in the context of social or cultural concerns. The U.S. Bishops have a document written in 1983 but which is still very much relevant to those of us in this nation who would like to see the official Catholic positions in relation to aspects of violence and war that concern us. The document is called “The Challenge of Peace.”

True peace is a gift from God that will be given to us when we live our lives consistent to His vision of justice. Instead of debating the militaristic position of our nation as the policeman of the world and creating knee jerk military reactions whenever our perceived allies or even we feel threaten we should examine the reality of social and economic injustice from which violent conflicts are born. We need to cultivate a lifestyle that pursues justice and nonviolence. Once this is done we as a community can start becoming creative with alternative domestic and global policies that promote an environment of  justice and peace rather than raising our defenses and extending military contracts. In our global world the promotion of an authentic policy of disarmament coupled with a greater global partnership to address the issues of social and economic injustice will yield better results than economic isolation and militarization.

There is a prominent historical myth that I continue to question. It is suggested that it was World War II and not the New Deal that got our nation out of the Great Depression. This myth is used to debunk the pursuit of social justice in favor of a military based economy. I tend the argue that the result of the rapid new industrialization of this nation which World War II brought on was made possible by the financial security, social stability and domestic infrastructure created during the New Deal. But one aspect of this position doesn’t quite add up. During the New Deal it was the government, in pursuit of justice, that became the spender of these social improvements. During World War II it was again the government, in pursuit of war, that purchased military goods and services. So in the end the argument is not for or against Government spending, it is an argument for the object of Government spending. Why is it that we are more comfortable with Government spending for war versus spending on social justice? How can we hope to achieve our Christian pursuit of peace if we as a nation are ready to economically rationalize our pursuit for war?

(this article was just featured in the September edition of ”110 degrees”, a local California magazine.)

My own involvement with the Interfaith Peace Project began three days before 9/11 at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania’s Carlow University. We subsequently used the fallen towers as a grim case study to explore how things can go so wrong with religion. Now located around the San Francisco Bay area, the Interfaith Peace Project is committed to the cause of creating attitudes and environments that will foster the development of peace among adherents of various religious traditions

We are confronting the disturbing reality of people using their particular faith position as justification for criticizing, condemning, and even violently opposing people with whom they disagree. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize-winning American physicist, made the uncomfortable observation that…

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

We have come to realize that the people who identify too tightly with their particular faith traditions become the source of religious warfare. Such people take it personally when anyone attacks or even fails to embrace the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, or whichever prophet they’ve committed themselves to. Any sign of disrespect for their particular prophet leads to feelings ranging from disdain to murderous rage.

On the other hand, the majority of members in each of the faith communities may be devout, but they are living in the real world and value peace above any dogma. They are willing to approach religious issues with an attitude of cooperation rather than confrontation towards those who disagree with their religious convictions. At the extremes, it’s the difference between someone like Osama bin Laden and Mahatma Gandhi.

Understanding that Leads to Peace
We are convinced that there can be no world peace without religious peace, and that religious peace will only be possible when religious people learn to appreciate views from other traditions than their own. The walls of distrust and hatred, that members of various religious traditions erect against each other, are always founded upon ignorance. If we only will take the time to learn about each other’s faith — read the scriptures and examine the religious symbols belonging to traditions outside our own — then our emerging understanding will inevitably bring the walls of that ignorance tumbling down. 

Therefore, the mission of the Interfaith Peace Project is to provide cross-religious experiences, learning opportunities, and interpersonal encounters that will bring about the kind of appreciation that otherwise would remain restricted mostly to people with the time and energy to attend formal classes in the comparative religion department of some institution of higher learning.

The learning and change, that we are working to create, only takes place on a personal level. The fact is that Catholicism will never interact with Judaism; Catholics must learn to fellowship with Jews. Islam will never achieve rapprochement with Christianity; Muslims and Christians need to be able to sit down together. We’re bringing individuals together from various faith traditions, providing opportunities for them to learn from and about each other’s faith, thus creating understandings that lead to mutual acceptance.

The Peace Project does not attempt to create a common faith; we believe that each religious community has traditions that anybody of good will can honor. We attempt, rather, to raise interfaith consciousness — not seeking to identify doctrines or traditions that various religions hold in common, but instead to learn about distinctive teachings without feeling the need to oppose them, to regard them as being unworthy, or in need of being corrected. We can learn from each other without feeling any need either to judge or to imitate one another. At the very least people can learn to say, “I don’t agree with your religious convictions, but I acknowledge that your beliefs are as important to you as mine are to me.” Any rational human being should easily attain to this minimal level of tolerance, but the ideal is to come to a point where we come to respect and appreciate those differences — like the various ingredients and spices in a cake, each contributing its own taste to the whole.

A Day for Peace
The Interfaith Peace Project has sponsored various activities commemorating The United Nations International Day of Peace, which has been celebrated every September 21 since 1981. The underlying vision is to encourage people to spend 24 hours during which they might practice serenity in everything they do or think. Each of us on that day seeks to have peace, to practice peace, and to remain peaceful. The founder of the International Day of Peace, George De Angelo, spoke a word of hope that we all echo: “If we can keep peace for twenty-four hours, we can be peaceful for a lifetime!”

We don’t intend to focus upon programs, but some religious and even secular programming will take place that day — all of them seeking to create peace by encouraging justice. In these ways we are joining with hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are promoting festivals, programs, seminars, and other activities in order to bring peace to the forefront of our consciousness on September 21.

The actual date falls on Tuesday this year so we will move the observances and celebrations to the preceding Sunday, September 19, at which time we will provide people with messages, materials, and attitudes that will equip them to then spend the 21st in genuine peaceful attitudes, actions, and reflections. This year we will gather at the local parish of St. Ignatius Church, beginning on Saturday the 18th. Attendees will be able to visit tables displaying sacred scriptures and religious symbols from various faith traditions. Sufi, Sik, Jewish, Islam, Latter Day Saints, United Church of Christ, and Seventh Day Adventist groups will be cooperating in this. We’re also hoping to be joined by Hindus and Native Americans.

Exposure to these various religions will help people to understand, and even to savor the religious devotion of each of the particular traditions. The events of the day will center on a gentle interfaith service culminating in our planting of a peace pole that will be dedicated to all the people, to all the world, and to all of us. People will be able to touch the pole symbolically connecting themselves to the prayer for peace. A candlelight ceremony will focus attention on the tables. People will be given time to browse the tables at leisure. Throughout the night, they will be able to spend quiet time among the scriptures, books, and symbols of religious faith. The contact will develop internal awareness of the power and significance of various religious traditions, promoting peace through understanding.

We are planning an interfaith prayer vigil that weekend, inviting people to spend a half-hour praying for peace. The official prayer time will begin following the Saturday evening service, ending with the first service on Sunday. These prayer vigils are weather proof. During inclement weather, people experience the romantic transition of coming out of the rain into the dry, warm place of prayer; during clear weather they can pray for peace under the stars of heaven, if they wish.

Local religious communities will provide examples of traditional music including singing, drumming, and dancing. We hope to have a Native American dance group begin the celebration. The purpose of the music is not to entertain, but to inspire listeners to worship. During the night watches, members of the Taizé community will lead in a particular form of musical chants that employs repetition punctuated by lengthy periods of silence. The Latter-Day Saints will have musical groups, and the Seventh Day Adventists will sponsor a praise group. The Walnut Creek Sufi Reoriented group will bring an interactive dancing and singing celebration. Sufi Reoriented has as its mission the renewal of the heart and turning away from all else but God. Sufi Reoriented music is reported to be an unforgettable experience as the singers create a sense of the divine both through their music and appearance.

Our approach to peace appeals to an area of interfaith spirituality that lies within each of us — an innate surmise lurking at the depth of our being that the Universe has a friendly face, which is the face of God according to whatever particular theology we use to embody that understanding. The “friendliness” of the universe becomes more obvious as we grow to accept C.S. Lewis’ bold assertion:

More and more clearly one sees how much of ones’ philosophy and religion are mere talk: the boldest hope is that concealed somewhere within it there is some seed however small of the real thing.

• Amos 8:4-7. Condemnations of social injustices which trample upon the needy.
• 1 Timothy 2:1-8. Prayers are requested for peace, peace with those in authority, between races and nations, among the disciples of Jesus, just as there is peace between God the Father, the mediator Jesus and the entire human family.
• Luke 16:1-13. The parable of the dishonest steward, more ingenious about worldly goods than the other-worldly, is about spiritual concerns. A number of proverbs about wealth and stewardship are added.

Thoughts for your consideration: By John Gonzalez

Often times the three lectionary readings have a common thread that connects all of them. That way a theme is apparent from which a preacher can go ahead and compose his sermon. But in this case the theme does not seem altogether apparent.  As we consider these readings further and suggest an overall theme of economic injustice we are still caught off guard by what seems like a conflicting message between the first reading and the Gospel. The challenge that we are given with this week’s readings is this: be ingenious, prayerful (and perhaps a little crafty) when serving the Gospel message of bringing the love of God to all of His people.

The first reading comes to us from the fiery prophet Amos. Amos and Micah are my two favorite prophets of the Old Testament. They are tactless, uncompromising and bold. The Prophet Amos employs an amazing form of rhetoric. And they both preach truth to power with an unswerving allegiance to justice for the poor. Amos offers a clear description of economic injustice. He is addressing the dishonest and unjust people of Judah who look for every opportunity to cheat the poor and lowly. Their great lament is that they are not given more natural time to cheat these people (new moon, Sabbath). This is a grave sin and God will not forget these acts of economic self-interest nor will the earth itself which will naturally react from such oppression.

Now let us consider the Gospel. Here again we are faced with economic dishonesty, but this time Jesus seems to be rewarding such an act. How can this be? The beauty of this is that we are forced to reflect on an apparent challenge. Our first instinct of course would be to say that either Jesus or Amos is wrong, but we know that is not possible since they preach the same Word. To comprehend this we need to unmask the context for Jesus’ parable. Amos is prophesying to the public so he is speaking with uncompromising clarity. In the Gospel Jesus turns to a different audience. Having just spoken to the Pharisees and scribes about the value of the repentant sinner Jesus now turns to his disciples to offer practical instruction. It is amazing how pragmatic Jesus can be. To the broader public he may seem idealistic and utopian in his parables like the one we just heard this past weekend about the prodigal son. But when he directs his attention to his disciples he demonstrates how much he is aware of “what makes the world go round.”

When it comes to finance and worldly goods people are almost naturally shrewd and ingenious. Jesus offers his disciples a lesson on being shrewd in worldly manners as an image for being equally shrewd in promoting the Kingdom of God. What is important to know (and what is not evident on the parable) is the actual victim of this act of dishonesty. The victim is the steward himself. If he was dishonest with his master’s property he would have incurred a harsh punishment but instead he eliminates his own “cut” of the debt and we can assume that he probably employed a no interest policy that is part of the Law of Moses. The Steward eliminates his own short term financial gain to the benefit of his master’s debtors in return for their long term gratitude and friendship. Jesus reminds his disciples of their allegiance to God over money. Money is a means to an end and never an end in itself. The disciples are allowed to be financially shrewd so long they eliminate their own financial self-interest for the benefit of bringing people into the Kingdom of God. At minimum Amos reminds us that we are never allowed to cheat or exploit others for our own self interest. Jesus goes further and challenges us as disciples to sacrifice even our own financial interest for the benefit of developing powerful and lasting relationships for the sake of creating a just and peaceful society which St. Paul describes for us in his second reading.

This is a great and daunting challenge indeed. St. Paul envisions a society where “we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.” He is offering a formula for building a society that is at peace, enjoying freedom and employing the common good. We cannot do this alone and so Paul comes in and reminds us of the power of prayer. The sacrifices that we do are not for own benefit. It is not simply for a one way ticket to paradise. The kingdom of God is a community; it is a family of creation. We sacrifice for others because our own dignity is reflected in the dignity of others. We do what we can through our own actions and our own sacrifice but we pray that God can touch the heart of all creation but most especially we pray for those who have been given secular or political authority. God “wills everyone to be saved.” At the center of our faith is “One God” and “one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus.” As disciples we are called to the service of all. Our prayers and actions must reflect our Christian hope and aspiration that we share with God and Christ; to bring all people together under the banner of God’s love. We must be a witness to all by sacrificing our own financial self interest as a people and as a society for the good of others. But along with this witness we also must pray that through our own actions and through God’s grace the hearts of all people may be moved towards the building of a just and peaceful society that observes the dignity of all creation.

September 21 is the International Day of Peace that is observed throughout the world. Let us join in unity with our human family and follow the request that St. Paul makes on us to pray for all our leaders in promoting this Christian vision for a peaceful and just global society.

Times have moved on but the Passionist community has never lost sight of this noble cause to unify the human community through the strategies employed by Bl. Domenic Berberi, CP. Our Church continues to be engaged in further developing its Ecumenical dialogues. But in these days of globalization we have moved further in approaching our relationships with people outside of our Christian faith. Through Pope John Paul II our Catholic Church has officially engaged in interfaith dialogues to bring the truth of unity too all of God’s people.

The Passionists serves the Church in this purpose as well. Today we have the wonderful ministries of Fr. Thomas P. Bonacci, C.P. who is the Interfaith Peace Project’s Executive Director. Tom offers friendly and hospitable programs to help participants cope with inherited stereotypes, innocent misunderstandings, embarrassing questions or general knowledge of the many faith traditions of humankind.

The Interfaith Peace Project seeks to strengthen the community’s religious and spiritual life, and encourage spiritual values and ethical principles. They reach out to all religions of the community, and embrace the American tradition of religious diversity that creates a fertile opportunity for dialogue, understanding, cooperation and peace. The intended outcome is to encourage understanding, respect and connection for participants in all our projects, therefore advancing peace. Respect for differences begins with dialogue, promotes understanding and cooperation, and leads to peaceful co-existence.

The Interfaith Peace Project is helping our world find peace in the midst of conflict and division through prayer, study and reflection. In these days we recognize division and conflict with respect to our Catholic/Christian relationship with the Islamic community. Fr. Tom offers the following insights with respect to our approach in having fruitful and much needed dialogue with the members of the Muslim faith and the question of Park51 Islamic Cultural Center.

DIALOGUE WITH MUSLIMS: A reflection by Fr. Tom Bonacci, CP

The events of the past several days and weeks are no less than heartbreaking and alarming.  The association of Islam with violence and human insensitivity is both dangerous and insensitive.  It is quite important for reasonable people to understand religions as such are abstractions.  What we meet in the religious “other” be they Muslim or Christian is not a religion but a “person” of faith, a particular, living human being.  We cannot meet one another if we label one another with labels based on fears, stereotypes, and prejudices.

We must realize, in the current situation, it is almost impossible to engage Muslims in dialogue without the great question looming in the background, “Is Islam a religion of violence?”  Participants in this dialogue should be aware of what motivates the dialogue.  Participants must be open to hearing the other person without defensive or offensive postures.

The “violent verses” found in the Qur’an invite Christians to examine in a fair and honest way the “violent texts” in the Bible.  Together participants in dialogue might explore how violent attitudes can corrupt authentic readings and understandings of their respective Scriptures, beliefs, and teachings.

Participants in the dialogue must examine their own hearts to discover whether or not they harbor unfair attitudes, hostilities, or fears.  If so, one should engage in educational opportunities, personal spiritual direction, sincere reflection, and honest research before engaging in deeper dialogue.

Finally, Muslims, like peoples of other faith traditions, are human beings worthy of respect whose dignity must be recognized.

This is a tragic moment in our histories as religious peoples.  It is also a great opportunity to move forward as the virtues found in our Sacred Writings, the examples found in our great leaders, and the wisdom found in our peoples can contribute to the well-being of all peoples.  Muslims and Christians must be aware of their mutual responsibility to foster peace in the world.  Each must claim the authenticity of their respective traditions as they serve the family of humankind.  These troubled times call for remarkable courage and courageous example so our words of peace may become deeds of justice in the world.

It is my opinion, and I suggest it cautiously, the killing fields must become centers of interfaith justice and peace.  We need to stand together as people of faith exemplifying the power of faith as an important catalyst for forging peace.

For 101 years Passionists have lived in Jerusalem, ‘City of Peace.’ Perched on the back of the Mount of Olives, where those great friends of Jesus–Mary, Martha and Lazarus — offered him hospitality and a home, is the Passionist Retreat of St. Martha.

A gaping hole now tears apart the stone wall round St. Martha’s and a much higher wall is poised to cut through the quiet grounds.

On June 16th, 2002 Israel began building the wall to protect its citizens against suicide attacks. It will be 750 kilometers when finished and enclose almost 400,000 Palestinians. It symbolizes the deepening division between Israelis and Palestinians and makes peace more elusive.

Both peoples have suffered too much from dispossession and pain. A new word –genocide– had to be minted to name the extermination of Jewish people in the madness of the Nazi Holocaust. To create a refuge for the Jewish people, another people was dispossessed of homes and lands in Palestine.

The past four years have seen the needless deaths of hundreds of Israeli Jews (975) and thousands of Palestinians (3,086). Too many were children and innocent bystanders going about their lives.

At the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a dispute over borders. Two peoples with too much history and too little geography.

Without reservation I support Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state and for its citizens to live in peace, free from fear of violence or terror. I support, with equal strength, the Palestinian people’s right to a viable and sovereign state where they can live in peace, without fearing destruction of their homes. I am for both peoples; I am also for that justice of right relationships whence peace springs; facts cannot be sacrificed to rhetoric by either side of the conflict.

If the wall were completed, Palestinians would lose more than 900 square kilometres of their land between the Green Line and the wall. In one town close to Jerusalem, 30,000 people cannot enter the city. In four villages, the source of the people’s income–olive, almond and fig trees–have been torn up. They can no longer reach their land farmed for hundreds of years.

If the wall were truly about security, it would have been built on Israel’s internationally recognized 1967 pre-occupation border (Green Line). But the wall does not follow the Green Line–it cuts deep into Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Concerns about the wall’s impact on peace and human rights, led the UN General Assembly to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the wall. The Court presented that Opinion on July 9, 2004. As this was happening in The Hague, the Supreme Court of Israel had been asked to give a ruling on the legality of the Separation Barrier.

Both Courts have rejected the present path of the wall. Both courts have ruled the present path violates international law and imposes immense and unnecessary suffering on the Palestinian population. The International Court of Justice advised that if Israel wants to build a wall, it should do so on the pre-1967 Green Line. The Israeli Supreme Court decided to reject most of the present path and to bring the wall much closer to the Green Line. The Israeli government says it will ignore the ICJ’S advice. Perhaps it will listen to the decision of its own Supreme Court.

On July 20th the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to require Israel to comply with the ICJ’s advisory opinion that declared the construction of the separation barrier in violation of international law.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 150 to 6 with 10 abstentions. It calls on UN Member States to fulfill their obligations by not recognizing “the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.”

The Resolution also calls both parties to the conflict to immediately fulfill their obligations to the Road Map for peace. The resolution calls Israel to heed the Court and calls the Palestinian Authority to show clear signs of its efforts to restrain and arrest individuals or groups planning or carrying out violent attacks.

In the early morning of December 6th, 2003, Father Claudio Ghilardi, a Italian Passionist priest living at St. Martha’s monastery near Jerusalem, was awakened by Israeli military bulldozers breaking through the ancient monastery’s stone walls to prepare for a thirty-foot high concrete security wall. Plans are for the wall, estimated to cost over a billion dollars, to wind 450 miles through the West Bank. Running to the site, honored by Christians as “Bethany,” where Jesus found hospitality in the home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus,

Father Claudio (right) protested that this was Vatican property protected by a 1997 agreement between the State of Israel and the Vatican. The construction, temporarily stopped, threatens to split not only the monastery property, but also a Catholic complex of orphanage, school and rest home run by other Catholic religious orders.

The Israelis claim the wall is meant to separate Israelis from Palestinians. Clearly, here, deep in the West Bank it will separate Palestinian from Palestinian, and Christian from Christian. “This is not a barrier,” Father Claudio told Larry Fata, from the World Council of Churches, “this is a border. Why don’t they speak the truth? This wall is scandalous.”

Now, Father Claudio offers the monastery property, once a peaceful spread of olive and pine trees, as a thoroughfare for his Palestinian neighbors: men, women and children desperately trying to avoid an Israeli checkpoint in order to get to work in Jerusalem, or visit family, or seek medical attention at clinics. Along with Ecumenical Accompaniers from the World Council, Father Claudio facilitates their passage against the wishes of the Border Police. The Palestinians call him “Abuna” (“Father”).

“They are my guests and this is my house,” the priest says. Fitting words from a spot where the gracious Martha once welcomed her Guest.

Pope John Paul offered a wise reminder that we need to build bridges, not barriers to peace in this place so many of us call the Holy Land. What can each of us do, in the spirit of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, to help create an atmosphere of hospitality once again? What could we do to melt the bitterness and point to a shared way forward for two peoples who in the depth of their hearts want only peace? Oppressed and oppressor are both victims of too much violence!