Jun. 4th, 2012

fidesquaerens: (Default)
I was reminded this morning of an old song common in Christian youth groups, "They'll Know We Are Christians." We actually sung it every week at a nice Presbyterian church I attended there on Sunday nights (The Church of the Covenant) that I remember mainly for being truly inclusive of the homeless living in the area; they found a good mix of reaching out to them and not making them feel like a project cor other people to help, I thought. But it wasn't unique to Covenant; in fact, it's kind of a Christian "kumbayah" and was really popular in the Jesus Movement, which Wikipedia describes as "the major Christian element within the hippie counterculture, or, conversely, the major hippie element within some strands of Protestantism" (that earned a chuckle, because it's just so true).

Anyway, the song. If you haven't heard it, YouTube has the Jars of Clay version available. I was actually reminded of the second verse:

We will work with each other, we will work side by side
We will work with each other, we will work side by side
And we'll guard each one's dignity and save each one's pride
And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love.


I couldn't help thinking about this in light of the news story I heard last night. Note, this is to an activism site rather than to a regular news site, so the usual caveats apply. But here's the gist of the situation as relayed by the patient.

Mr. Joao Simoes was in the mental health wing of Trinitas Regional Medical Center, a Catholic hospital. While there he communicated to a psychologist that he had HIV contracted from unprotected sex, and said shrink asked if it was sex with another man. Mr. Simoes confirmed that, and the psychiatrist literally walked out of the room. And no one came back - not that shrink or any other doctor, or even a nurse. It was three days later before Mr. Simoes finally got his medicine for HIV (which the hospital knew he needed). In the time period Dr. Borga - the therapist - also contacted his normal medical doctor and accused him of being gay himself and also asked if he needed a translator because he spoke with an accent. According to Mr. Simoes, she actually told his doctor that "This is what [Mr. Simoes] gets for going against God's will," when the medical doctor informed the psychologist about the medicine.

To be fair, two things need to be emphasized. First, this is all preliminary and it's possible that Dr. Borga didn't act in the way described here. Also, it isn't clear to what extent Trinitas RMC was complicit in all this. I'm fairly confident that Catholic doctrine doesn't forbid treating people who contracted diseases in ways you disapprove of morally. I mean, yeah, Catholics are going to oppose certain medical procedures that they consider sinful or harmful themselves (like with abortion), but that's not an issue here. I did three years in a Catholic parochial school and am currently studying in a Jesuit university, and I've never heard of anything that would require a doctor to act the way Dr. Borga did.

If anything it's directly against the way Jesus healed the sick. I always loved his response to Zacchaeus, the epitome of a corrupt government agent: get on down out of that tree, come as you are because you're having lunch with me today. He went into the homes of Roman centurions just because they asked him to, and he healed people without sorting out whether they deserved it in almost every case. Sometimes Jesus moved beyond that, to figure out what sin in the person's life needed addressing in the longterm, but that always came later. Jesus didn't berate the adulteress and refuse to help her because she'd screwed up too badly. Dr. Borga's actions here, if accurately reported, are despicable and not at all what Christianity should be about.

There's a bigger problem here, though. The article's unclear about how much the hospital was involved beyond just that one doctor. But walk it through - either they let someone like this into a posiiton of authority where she could keep life-sustaining medication away from a patient for three days... or they didn't. In the second case the institution had to be involved beyond just this one person. But even if it's the first case, that's a massive institutional failure. If the woman really said half the things she's accused of, that's a pretty clear indication that she needs some serious time on the shrink's couch herself. I mean, she's berating doctors, questioning their sexuality because they dare to treat a gay man to say nothing of their perceived ethnicity. This is not a woman who needs to be in charge of emotionally vulnerable patients.

I'm trying to avoid beating up on the RCC based on one case where the details are still iffy. The problem is that this fits so well into the pattern we've seen time and time again with the pedophilia scandles. I love my Catholic colleagues at Fordham, and my Catholic family, in whom I sense a real spirit of Christian love. But increasingly - speaking of the church as a whole - I see an institution that cares more about dogma and rights than about people. When people cross the line (as will always happen in a large institution) I see the church covering it up and enabling them. Granted, I don't know if that's what happened in this case but it's hard to imagine that this is the first time Dr. Borga said comments like this. If she did, then why is she in authority? My guess - completely unsubstantiated though it may be - is that it's more or less the same reason that kept pedophile priests shuffling between parishes and ending up in charge of youth choirs (and to be fair, kept Jerry Sandusky in his job for several decades as well).

The song I quoted above requires a bit more than that, even. It requires us to "guard each other's dignity" even when that person doesn't look, act or believe precisely like me. Protestants are hardly blameless on this count (there's precious little room for an evangelical to say she doesn't think homosexuality is a sin or that abortion is murder, without being told she's rewriting the word of God), but lately I've seen the RCC in particular doubling down. I'm thinking particularly of the investigation into the Girl Scouts, who as far as I can tell are only really connected to the RCC because they sometimes meet in the churches. Or the new oath affecting theology professors at Catholic universities, or the Vatican's recent crackdown on several orders of American nuns for not being vocal enough in their criticism of abortion, gay marriage, etc. These moves may actually be reasonable, individually; I don't have the time to look at the pros and cons of each of these news items like I'd like to. But taken as a group they do tend drive home the point that to be a good Catholic you can't have much variation from the official position.

As I read the Bible, that's not God's way. Even in the New Testament, great heroes of Peter and Paul express positions, they debate, they come at things from different perspectives. They don't always agree. And as for the Man himself, when the Pharisees asked them for the greatest commandment, He gave them not one but two and then (this was the brilliant part) tacked on the claim that "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." I can just see him saying in modern jargon, "You want an executive summary, a few bullet points you can meet and know you're in the club? Tough cookies. What we're talking about here simply doesn't work that way."

It breaks my heart that so few Christians today seem to get that. Or at least the ones in power don't. This isn't a uniquely Catholic problem, though I've picked on the RCC a fair bit here; it's a Christian problem, and even more than that a human problem. What happened at that hospital was disgusting in so many ways, and I hate that Mr. Simoes had to go through that. But I also hate that religion so often seems to let the Dr. Borgas of the world, so long as they snipe at the right kind of people. I just wish I could do more than apologize. When I call myself a Christian, this isn't what I mean.

(Originally posted at LJ; please comment there.)
fidesquaerens: (Default)
A few days ago I heard that Desperate Housewives star Kathryn Joosten had died in her seventies, after a battle with lung cancer. This was a bit sad (it always is when a famous person dies) but not particularly noteworthy, as I hadn't ever watched that particular show.

I knew I recognized the name, though, and finally placed it. Joosten also starred as Dolores Landingham, the president's secretary in the first two seasons of West Wing. I loved her character and hated it when she left the show, because she was such a sense of strength and brought so much subtlety to her performance. So as a rather belated memorial, here are two clips from her.

First, a clip from just after her funeral when she talks to Jed about running for reelectiong. Quintessential Landingham.

Read more... )

And then the scene from "In Excelsis Deo" when Mrs. Landingham tells Charlie about her sons. This is a masterpiece in powerfully understated emotion.

Read more... )

What a class act, and what a great actress. RIP, Kathryn.

(Originally posted at LJ; please comment there.)
fidesquaerens: (Default)
Apparently, in France even the kitties are existentialists.

Read more... )

(Originally posted at LJ; please comment there.)

Profile

fidesquaerens: (Default)
fidesquaerens

August 2012

S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4
56 7891011
12131415161718
1920212223 2425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 17th, 2017 11:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios