peace

How does a Catholic teacher deal with students who have different moral perspectives or come from different religious backgrounds?

Deacon Douglas McManaman

There is no other way to deal with such students than to welcome them, accept them, and love them. If they chose to attend a Catholic school, it would appear that they want what the school has to offer, and what we have to offer–or should have to offer–is a learning space that is rooted in genuine listening and dialogue, not to mention a community that prays. And so, it is very important not to get flustered by a highly diverse classroom. My last 20 years of my teaching career took place in a very diversified religious environment. We had a rather significant percentage of Muslim and Hindu students, some Sikh students, Buddhists and even atheists, not to mention a good percentage of Catholics. In the end, they made me a better Catholic, a more ecumenically minded one, and the study of the gospels, according to these students, made them better Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. The teaching of religion and school wide masses was clearly not a source of contention for these students. In fact, the devout Muslim, Hindu and Sikh students were my biggest cheerleaders. Moreover, the Muslim students typically had a much better understanding of the Catholic faith than did most of the Catholic students. 

C. S. Lewis made the point that when we study various cultures throughout history, specifically their understanding of morality, what is striking is not how radically different their moral systems are to our own, but how similar their moralities are to ours in the Western world: for example, no culture honours those who run away in battle, or the liar or thief, etc. The reason is that there is one universal moral law, just various degrees of understanding of those principles and their application, which is where conflict typically arises in the world. 

As for the variety of religions, it is very important that we understand one another if we are ever going to be able to live together in peace with one another. But better still, it is more important that we learn from one another, that is, allow other religions to make us more deeply and completely religious; for Western Christianity certainly does not have a monopoly on God. In fact, it can be argued that the Catholicism of the Latin West has allowed itself to be far too influenced by Neo-Platonism, and so although Greek thought has brought a great deal to Christian culture, a perspective is always limited and open to further expansion. Indigenous spirituality, for example, can do much to help us cultivate a deeper reverence for the earth as well as a more consistent appreciation of the sacramental character of creation. Eastern thought can help enrich the mystical aspects of the Catholic faith. In fact, we can look at the various religions of the world as an upside down pyramid, with the wider base at the top and the single point of convergence at the bottom. On the top surface we can place the various religions of the world in chronological order, from the left to the right. But as we enter more and more deeply into the mystical branches of these religions, such as Sufism, or Taoism, Zen, or Hasidism, the more we converge towards one another, and soon it becomes very difficult if not impossible to distinguish between them–at some point they all begin to speak the same language. This suggests a common origin. In other words, on a very profound level, we really are brothers and sisters.

To discover this, however, requires an ability to listen. A religiously diversified classroom is a perfect space in which to learn to listen to one another. For centuries now, religious people, Catholics included of course, have been more or less sectarian. Some people are so entrenched within a tribal “us and them” mindset that they are scandalized when a Catholic preacher quotes the Hadith (Sayings of Muhammed), or repeats a Hasidic tale, or cites a Protestant scripture scholar.

Granted, some Muslim parents were very nervous about the prospects of their child taking a religion course in a Catholic school for fear that their child would be pressured to convert. Hence, it is important to distinguish between proselytizing and evangelization, a distinction that many are still unclear about.[1] Pope Francis addressed this distinction. He wrote:  

Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,‘ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing.”

Evangelization is neither apologetics nor an attempt to convert others to our religion. It is the proclamation of the good news (evangelion) of the risen Christ, and we do that first and foremost by living in the joy of Easter and loving others as another self (Mt 22, 39).

The wonderful thing about an interreligious environment is that students eventually realize that the Hindu or Muslim girl sitting next to me, the Sikh boy behind me, and the Catholic teacher in front of me, etc., are not the “infidels” or “lost souls” that I might have been led to believe they were, but really are my brothers/sisters. The classroom is meant to be a learning space, and genuine learning can only take place in an environment in which everyone has learned how to listen (synodality), because listening gives rise to intelligent discourse. Nancy Kline writes: 

Attention, the act of listening with palatable respect and fascination, is the key to a Thinking Environment. Listening of this calibre is enzymatic. When you are listening to someone, much of the quality of what you are hearing is your effect on them. Giving good attention to people makes them more intelligent. Poor attention makes them stumble over their words and seem stupid. Your attention, your listening is that important. We think we listen, but we don’t. We finish each other’s sentences, we interrupt each other, we moan together, we fill in the pauses with our own stories, we look at our watches, we sigh, frown, tap our finger, read the newspaper, or walk away. We give advice, give advice, give advice. Even professional listeners listen poorly much of the time. They come in too soon with their own ideas. They equate talking with looking professional. …Listening to each other, if you want to think for yourselves, requires discipline and the most profound attention for each other.[2] 


Notes

 

  1. “If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing. It is the cause of much avoidable conflict between classes and unnecessary heart-burning. But I should welcome people of any nationality if they came to serve here for the sake of service. In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink.” Mahatma Gandhi, originally published in his weekly journal, Harijan, on November 5, 1935.
  2. Nancy Kline. Time to Think: Listening to Ignite the Human Mind (pp. 37-38). (Function). Kindle Edition.

 

Perfect Victory

Homily for the 2nd Sunday of Advent
https://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/mcm_437perfectvictory.html
Deacon Douglas McManaman

Anyone who uses social media and follows American politics is acutely aware of how divided we have become as a nation. This division is also evident in a number of Catholic journals, especially those that allow comments. YouTube videos often bear the legend “so and so gets humiliated”, or “____________ gets schooled by __________”, or crushed, demolished, destroyed, and so on. Such videos are not about listening to the finer points of an issue in order to inch our way closer to the truth; rather, the attitude is so often “demolish the enemy”, and the enemy, needless to say, are those who disagree with us. In the end, victory leaves us with one apparent winner and one loser; the winner gloats, and the loser is humiliated and goes off with his proverbial tail between his legs. Moreover, there is a tremendous lack of civility today on social media, especially when it comes to politics. 

However, the first reading for the 2nd Sunday of Advent provides a very different vision of what a genuine victory is. I’m referring specifically to the last section of the first reading from Isaiah (11, 6-8):  

The wolf shall live with the lamb,
the leopard shall lie down with the baby goat,
the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze,
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put its hand on the den of the venomous snake.

In short, no harm shall come from those who were at one time the enemy to be feared. This reading from Isaiah is a vision of the eschatological harmony that we can look forward to. And it is an entirely different vision of victory than what we typically understand by that word. There will not be one winner standing over the defeated enemy; rather, the enemies have been changed, that is, completely transformed. In short, there will be no more enemies; for they will have ceased to be such. That’s precisely what Christ’s victory is, which is the greatest possible victory. 

I debated a lot when I was younger, and at times those debates got very heated. Back then, I was quite convinced that I won those debates, but my opponents were equally certain they did. In formal debates, it is the audience that decides the winner. If you came to the debate favoring a particular side, but the other side changed your mind, you indicate that at the end and the one who turned more people around to their side is the winner–and there is only one winner and one loser. 

But is it possible to have two winners? Most people would say no, but it is possible. I know that in my case, on a number of occasions in my late 50s and especially in recent years, after reflecting upon certain issues for decades, I have said to myself more than once: “Gosh, so and so was right 35 years ago when I argued with him on this issue”, and “I think that person was right 20 years ago when we debated that issue”. This has happened many times in recent years, only because I still study. And it’s a marvelous experience to be sure, not unpleasant in any way, but there’s no way of getting in contact with these people to tell them: “Hey, remember the debate we had 35 years ago. You were right all along. It just took me 35 years to see it.” 

In this case, we have two winners. And why did it take so long? Because human knowing is very limited; human intelligence is sluggish, and we depend so much on experience (empirical data), which takes time. Certain epistemic conditions were not in place at a specific point in our personal history, but after three decades, if and when those conditions are established, we see what we could not see earlier. That’s a true victory, when two opposing parties finally see eye to eye. And again, that’s why synodal listening is so important. Pope Francis understood something of the fundamentals of a sound theory of knowledge, and Pope Leo XIV continues to emphasize this essential aspect of the Church as “listening Church”. If Christ is victorious, it can only be a perfect victory, one that in the end leaves no enemies, a victory in which the enemy is entirely transformed: “Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2, 9-11).

The book of Revelation also envisions the same thing. The kings of the earth are depicted as opponents of God, for they side with the beast and wage war against Christ at Armageddon (Rev 16, 16), but in chapter 21, verse 24, we read: “The city had no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gave it light, and its lamp was the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and to it the kings of the earth will bring their treasure.” Christ’s victory involves the transformation of the kings of the earth, from enemies to worshippers who adore the Lamb–a perfect victory.

And we have a role to play in this eschatological state of affairs. Christ does not usher in the kingdom of God without us. We have to do our part and work for peace. We can move this world forward or we can hold things back. It all depends on the attitude we adopt. And it begins in the ordinary ways we relate to people who do not think like we do, whether they are on the right or the left, inside the Church or on the outside. How we talk and how we listen is important. People throw around the word “truth” rather loosely, but knowledge is very hard to achieve, and “truth” is for the most part truth as we currently see it, which implies that “truth” is, for the most part, tentative. The ones who  seem to appreciate this fact are scientists who must always test their hypotheses. Outside of that circle, people tend to speak with a rhetoric of certainty. 

In my last 20 years of teaching, close to 40% of my students were Muslim. Around 2013, I started to show the film Dancing in Jaffa–it was a Muslim girl who urged me to purchase the film and show it. The film is about a world champion ballroom dancer, Pierre Dulaine, who returns to Jaffa, Israel, where he grew up 30 years earlier, and his goal was to teach ballroom dancing to Jewish and Palestinian kids, and then to have them dance together, boy with girl, but one must be Jewish and the other Palestinian. He thought this was going to be a cakewalk, but it proved to be much more challenging than he realized–he was ready to quit on a number of occasions; many kids simply refused to dance with a Jew, or dance with a Palestinian. They just would not have it; the prejudice was deep and ingrained. But some were willing to try it, and the film has a beautiful ending, with the 11 year old Jewish and Palestinian dance couples in a competition between schools. It’s a very moving and hopeful film. 

But it does give us a glimpse of how difficult it is to overcome deep-seated prejudice, in particular prejudice that has been picked up from parents and religious communities. And that prejudice is not only there in the Middle East, it is here too in North America. The way some Catholics still talk about Protestants and the way some Protestants still talk about Catholics, or Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs, and of course the way Liberals talk about Conservatives and Conservatives talk about Liberals strongly suggests that we really have a long way to go and that we are probably many centuries away from true and lasting peace. But that is our task, and we especially are responsible for taking the lead since we claim to worship the Prince of Peace, who was victorious over sin and death not through any kind of aggression, military or otherwise, but through the divine weakness, Christ’s birth in poverty and his death on the cross.