|
By: Paul S Cilwa |
Posted: 11/27/2007 |
|
Page Views: 4,889 |
| Hashtags: #Humor #OrganizedReligion |
| Didn't like the sermon? Sue! |
| Estimated reading time: 5 minute(s) (1106 words) |
Oh, wait. Some Muslims do become suicide bombers. Hindus do
have a caste system. Christians do sue their leaders, and not just for
serious offenses like pedophilia. In October, one Chicago area Catholic has just
sued his parish priest over a sermon he didn't like.
It all started a year ago September, when parishioner and religion teacher
Angel Llavana took exception to the Sunday sermon delivered by Father Luis Alfredo Rios, an associate pastor at
St. Thomas the Apostle Church
in Crystal Lake. Now, we've all heard sermons that put us to sleep or were
unable to keep us from thinking of the lyrics to all our favorite Guns & Roses
songs. I had to stop attending Mass with my Mom because the sermons always made
me angry: They were either enthusiastically against something I was for, or for
something I was against. But it never occurred to me to call the priest and
complain about it! I figured, he was entitled to his opinion and I was entitled
to not listen to it.
Not our friend Angel. He tried calling Father Luis and, when there was no
answer, left a caustic voice message. "I attended Mass on Sunday and I have seen
poor homilies, but yesterday broke all records," Llavano said, according to the
lawsuit. Apparently Llavano, who is also a high school teacher in Des Plaines,
is unclear on whether one sees or hears a sermon. Still upset,
three days later, Llavano accused the priest, who had refused to talk to him in
person, of "running away" from criticism.
Okay, so at this point we have a marginally competent teacher who has for
some reason found it necessary to hammer his view on what constitutes a riveting
sermon into the priest who professionally delivers them. No big deal, right?
Just leave it alone, and Angel will eventually cool down, won't he?
We'll never know, because Father Luis didn't leave it alone. He also didn't
leave it private. On the following Sunday, he not only used his sermon as a
bully pulpit for lambasting Angel—by name!—he also
played the answering machine tape as part of his sermon, so everyone
could hear the inspiration for the day's homily.
According to the lawsuit, Rios told the congregation, "What should we do?
Should we send him to hell or to another parish?"
Okay, so plus two points for introducing multimedia sermons to the
parishioners of St. Thomas, and maybe two more for definitely keeping them awake
for that sermon—but minus several thousand for common sense. Plus, the
obvious question: Are both these guys twelve? What's next, shoving each
other in the lunchroom?
Uh, no. What's next is that Llavano, who says he was "humiliated" by Rios,
decided to take his humiliation up a notch and go public with it by suing Rios,
his monsignor, and the parish for $50,000. Hey, I guess it's okay to be humiliated if
you've got 50 bills with which to console oneself.
Rios had continued in his sermon, "This is the person in charge of religious
education here last year. That's why it is no surprise to me we had the kind of
religious education we had. That's why we didn't get altar boys." Uh, I think
the reason they didn't get altar boys is that the kids were more mature than the
priest. That's just a guess, of course.
The comments, Llavano claims, caused emotional distress, damaged his
reputation as a Catholic and unfairly questioned his skills as a teacher. The
case is scheduled to make its first appearance in court February 11.
But seriously. What is it about religions that they seem unable to produce
adherents who actually follow their own precepts?
I'm not talking about dogmatic controversies like whether Mohammed or his
brother is the more pure source of Islam, or whether Brahma is really superior
to Vishnu, or whether Mary was really a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.
Believe what you will; it might affect where you send your tithes but not the
way you live your life.
I'm talking about basic morality, the purported reason for organized
religion in the first place. Christ taught that there was never a reason for
killing other humans. (He ate fish and lamb, so apparently he didn't mind
killing other species.) He was absolutely clear on this subject. "Turn the other
cheek," he said, if anyone struck you. The early Christians were noted for
passively allowing themselves to be thrown to the lions rather than organize and
fight back. (Perhaps if they'd been thrown to the fish things would have been
different.)
So, how has that teaching, that precept, that very most basic premise of
Christ's morality produced a generation of American Christians that apparently
can't kill Muslims fast enough? (Certainly not all Christians feel this
way; and it's unfortunate that their shared name causes them all to be painted
with the same brush. But certainly the Christian "right", the most vocal of the
bunch, the "base" of the Republican party, constitutes the 24% who still support
Bush's invasion of Iraq—a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the
9/11 attacks and posed less threat to us before the invasion than it does now.)
These are the same people who used the 9/11 attacks to justify hating the
same Muslims, who by and large are peaceful people (though no less prone to
ignoring their religion's do-not-kill restrictions).
These are the people who hear Jesus telling them to not judge others' faults
before eliminating their own, just before condemning homosexuals (easy to do
when you're not one) and claiming to "hate the sin, love the sinner." If you
aren't judging, how can you even claim to know what the sin, or who the sinner,
is? To the pure, all things are pure. To the impure, anything is reason enough to
condemn.
And so, instead of turning the other cheek, today's Christian turns to the
other's checkbook as a way of dealing with blows. Instead of allowing themselves
to be martyred, today's Christian can't even bear to be outed as an asshole.
I suggest that Father Luis' next homily be entitled "The Sermon on the
Mounting Litigiousness of Parishioners".