This month in Ireland, for example, the Association of Catholic Priests sponsored a gathering of concerned folks to discuss the future of the church, expecting perhaps as many as 200 attendees. However, more than 1,000 priests, religious and laypeople showed up.

The National Catholic Reporter (NCR) of May 8, 2012 tells us “Dublin’s Regency Hotel was packed to capacity, with many at the event forced to stand. Speaker after speaker pleaded for a more open church centered around a spirit of dialogue. Redemptorist Fr. Tony Flannery, who was recently forbidden to write by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, maintained a discreet presence and was greeted by many well-wishers.”

About a fourth of Ireland’s priests in active ministry belong to this association that acknowledges many Irish Catholics hold views contrary to the teaching of the church and are itching for reform. Thus the association is calling for another look at the church’s teaching on sexuality and a “redesigning of ministry to incorporate the gifts, wisdom and expertise of the entire faith community, male and female.”

Another way to say it is that we are itching to get back to the teachings of Vatican II.

As we shared last week, the Vatican’s recent crackdown on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious and the thousands of sisters they represent is generating vigils, pot luck suppers, marches of protest, tributes and celebrations of dedicated nuns and their irreplaceable gifts of service in love throughout the world.

Local activities also received mention in the NCR. Excerpts: “Postcard writing to bishops and a scheduled movie spotlighting the sisters’ work are on the minds of the Emmaus Faith Community, an intentional eucharistic group that meets at St. Patrick’s Episcopal Church in Kenwood, Calif., near Santa Rosa.”

“Women & Spirit: Catholic Sisters in America,” a documentary produced by the LCWR, was attended and discussed by over 100 concerned Sonoma County residents.

NCR continues, “The Emmaus community has a worship community of 35 regular members with a mailing list of 100. Co-founder Cindy Vrooman, a former sister and retired teacher, said “We just pray, support each other and do good works. Emmaus is made up of members who welcomed the ecumenical council in the 1960s for its hope and promise. It was an exciting adventure that was too abruptly abandoned,”

At a rally in Kansas City, supporters signed a disputation on the power and efficacy of the Vatican’s statement.

In Louisville, KY, members of the Nun Justice Project planned a series of vigils to support Catholic sisters. At the first, 78 protesters observed an hour of silence in front of the Cathedral of the Assumption. We have room here for significant portions of the powerfulprayer read at the start of the vigil, written by organizer Helen Deines, a retired professor of social work:

We members of this Archdiocese of Louisville stand here on our cathedral steps today to express our solidarity with our sisters, the women religious of this archdiocese and our country. We do so in solidarity with other concerned citizens around the U.S., who are also gathered in prayer…Through the years – centuries, in fact – of their presence in this archdiocese, we have experienced these dedicated women as the founders of our Catholic schools and universities, and then as our teachers in them, and as scholars, women who lead the church to recognize the divine presence in our lives.

We have recognized women religious as the founders of our hospitals and hospices, and then as our doctors, our nurses, and our healers from all kinds of ailments of mind, body, and spirit. We saw them lead these institutions, serving rich and poor alike, unfailingly respecting life, long before federal funding made Catholic health care institutions wealthy.

We have watched them establish social agencies of all kinds—in the cities, in the country, in the hollows, in the deserts—and then serve the poorest and least valued of our community, offering clothing, food, warm places to stay, and most important—dignity and hope to all God’s children.

We have seen them serving as administrators and pastoral ministers in so many of our parishes, “keeping the place going” and being the personal “listening ear” of the church for us as we needed to talk over private concerns, family life issues, how to cope with a sick family member, losing a job or a house, or an empty nest, or a teenage daughter. “Sister” has always been there for us.

We have experienced women’s religious congregations demonstrate leadership in advocating for peace and justice, even facing arrest, harassment, and imprisonment while doing so.

We have seen them serve as lawyers representing migrant farm workers, as policy experts testifying about poverty and care of the planet in Frankfort and Washington, and as model caregivers for our elders and those with disabilities.

We have turned to them for guidance as spiritual directors, clinical psychologists, and theology professors.

We have honored them (or averted our eyes) as martyrs. They have fed our spirits and challenged us as artists, speaking of the divine without words.

We have watched them leave their convents and serve global missions for long periods of time, often returning with sisters from those countries to minister in new ways.

In whatever they do, the women religious of this country have worked with quiet humility, asking for little in return. These are the women who model what it means to live our faith!

So we ask you now to go deep into your own hearts, recalling the women religious who have drawn you here. Use this silence in your own way to lift up and support women religious. I will return at 10 minutes before 6 to send us forth. And remember, during these vigils our silence loudly proclaims again and again: In 2012, we are all nuns.

As Deines reflected on the vigil the following day, she described it as “an ever-widening circle of really building up the church in the way that the church needs to be built up.

“It wasn’t a vigil against something, it was a vigil for something,” she said, “a time of solidarity and to demonstrate our respect for women religious.”

The National Catholic Reporter elucidates:  “The doctrinal congregation’s document charged that ‘the current doctrinal and pastoral situation of LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern’ and criticized the organization – whose member congregations represent four of five U.S. women religious – for being mute on issues such as abortion and euthanasia and displaying ‘corporate dissent’ on topics including homosexuality and the ordination of women.

I’m outraged over the attack on courageous Catholic Sisters I’ve long admired. Read the letter below dated May 2, 2012 from Susie Leonard Wellerto the man charged with sorting things out to seek resolution, Archbishop J. Peter Sartain:

I’m thankful for the Vatican’s investigation into the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR),—but probably not for the reasons you might think.

For too long, the larger body of the church has been silent. Pope Benedict’s recent indictment of Roman Catholic sisters within the United States is a welcome wake-up call.  It’s time we had a wider discussion about the Vatican’s concerns:

1.      What is the core of the Gospel message?

2.      What does it mean to be a Catholic Christian?

3.      To what degree does the hierarchy of the church understand the different schools of thought regarding feminism?

This current controversy reminds me of a similar debate within the early church about whether or not believers had to follow the strict rules of Mosaic Law (i.e. circumcision and dietary restrictions) prior to becoming Christians. As you know, Paul advocated for a wider interpretation of who would be welcome to be included within the church.  He refused to limit the faith to only those raised in a Jewish tradition.

I take St. Paul’s words to heart from Galatians 3: 26-29: “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female; for we are all one in Christ Jesus.” Although it took a long time for the church to condemn slavery, the church has yet to include women in any major decision-making or positions of authority within the church. Despite women being recognized as leaders within the early church (quite a radical inclusion for their time in history) the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church remains clerical and male-dominated. Is this really in keeping with Jesus’ vision?

We’re at a similar crossroads of what it means to be a member of the Catholic community.

In the 21st Century, which vision of the church will inspire unbelievers to see us as witnesses who know, love and serve God, as well as love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:38-40)?  Today’s debate is about whether a person of faith needs to be a Catholic, or even a Christian, to fully love God and others.  Instead of focusing on only one particular form of faith, Roman Catholicism, I hope you’ll emphasize the universal message of being catholic—God’s love includes all people.

Today, we’re faced with important choices:

· Will the institutional Roman Catholic Church be internationally known as a leader that lives and challenges us to respect all of humanity and the environment?

· Or, will it focus on maintaining order, control and purity of doctrine within the organization?

· Will it emphasize respect for the beginnings of life, but neglect advocating services for the most vulnerable once a child is born?

·  When will the lived experiences of Catholic married couples be respected to guide church policies about contraception? What will it take to shift the focus to a common concern of preventing unwanted pregnancies by using birth control and avoid using abortions as a remedy?

Before I became confirmed as a Roman Catholic, I studied the Council Documents of Vatican II. I felt inspired to join a faith community that celebrated Baptism as our entrance into the “priesthood of all believers” and re-affirmed the primacy of conscience. However, during the last 25 years my heart continues to ache as I’ve observed many clerical leaders consistently thwarting this visionary message. Instead of affirming the principles of Vatican II, I’ve noticed a retreat to defend the views of Vatican I.

Archbishop Sartain, as the Pope’s Delegate, you and your advisory committee, are in a tough position. You will face challenges on all sides as you choose how to respond.

1.      Will you follow the primacy of your conscience and truly listen to the leaders within the LCWR?  Will your advisory committee include representatives from the LCWR communities, as well as clergy and bishops who support them?  Or, will you avoid a genuine dialogue and patronize the sisters and other lay leaders with platitudes?

2.      Will you consider how the Spirit often speaks in non-traditional ways and through those often considered as “outcasts”? Or, will you reject their message because it’s uncomfortable to hear?

3.      Will you respect the gifts and accumulated wisdom of 57,000 women religious leaders? Or, will you discount their perspective due to their role and gender?

4.      Will you encourage the Roman Catholic Hierarchy to make decisions as enlightened leaders or misuse power to “get those nuns (and others) back in line.”

I predict that how YOU and other institutional church leaders choose to handle these important issues will literally make or break the future of the Roman Catholic Church within the United States. Many life-long, actively involved Catholics that I know have already left the Church (including their children) or are barely hanging in there with one foot out the door. In my opinion, the hierarchy has demonstrated a very poor track record of leadership—especially during the last 10-15 years in how they’ve handled cases involving clergy sexual abuse.

In contrast, the women religious have been exemplary leaders within their communities. They’ve consistently lived (not just preached) the gospel message within the trenches to serve ALL of God’s people—including gays and lesbians. Like other spiritual leaders, they are not afraid to speak truth to power and are willing to pay the price. Frankly, if you choose to dismiss their message and visionary leadership there will be grave consequences.

Pope John XXIII prayed for a new Pentecost and an outpouring of the Spirit to give us guidance. I, too, am praying for you and ALL members of the church to seek a wisdom that embraces courage and respect for diverse points of view during this season of Pentecost.

Warmly,

Susie Leonard Weller,

M.A. in Pastoral Ministry, Seattle University

A few random papers made their way to the surface to inspire this column. I’m intrigued by the styles of prose and character of reporting that comes through in different eras. Except for introduction of modern elements, the humor doesn’t seem to change much.

I read that a certain film star was famous for keeping an old yellowed piece of paper. In fact he hung it in a frame over his fireplace for all to see. Dated 1933, the MGM interoffice memo issued after this wannabe star’s first screen test reads, “Fred Astaire. Can’t act. Slightly bald. Can dance a little.”

One clip recalls how short a time ago the strategy for making a spontaneous phone call while away from home was to find a pay phone and drop coins into the slot. I remember when it cost only a dime to make a local call. Could it be that the rise to 25 cents helped motivate the development of cellular phones.

California raconteur Jerry Parker, now deceased, sometimes wrote of watching costs rise throughout his lifetime. New York City provided an abundance of odd jobs to an industrious youngster in the 1930s, even in the heart of the Great Depression. From the age of 12, when he entered high school, Parker worked continuously. One example of how he was employed as an ambitious little kid was delivering merchandise. A New York tailor employed him to deliver suits after school on weekdays and all day Saturdays for a sum total of $2 for the week. He figured that was all of seven cents per hour.

When Parker became a full-time errand boy, he earned $1 a day six days a week and in his spare time studied typing and shorthand on his own. Thus when The New York Times advertised in 1939 for an office boy, he nailed the position. With only one cent per hour for Social Security deducted from his $15 weekly salary, he proclaimed, “I was affluent!”

The conclusion of this autobiographical essay published in The Sonoma Index-Tribune exactly some 20 years ago tells us, “I eventually became an editorial assistant at The Times and went on for another four decades working for magazines and newspapers.

“But best of all about my getting on at The Times was that my real education had begun. And what tutors I had – some of the most brilliant newspaper people in America. I began to develop that luxury one cannot buy – free thought.”

In a newsletter I’ve saved from the 1970s, a quote from Abraham Lincoln precedes a pair of jokes typical of the era you may or may not enjoy. The famous president’s quote: “I don’t know who my grandfather was; I’m much more concerned to know what his grandson will be.”

And the jokes: 1. A professor wanting to demonstrate harmful effects of a popular substance dropped worms into two glasses, one filled with pure water and the other pure whiskey. As his students watched one worm squirming with the spark of life, the other writhing in agony toward death, the teacher asked, “What is the moral of this story?” One kid’s ready answer, “If you don’t want worms, drink alcohol.”

2. A very nervous passenger on a cross-country flight appealed to her seatmate as the plane jerked and bounced around in a thunderstorm.

“You’re a clergyman,” she wailed. “Do something.”

“Sorry, madam,” came the reply. “I’m in sales, not management.”

During my own turbulent years of the 1970s, I made a list on New Year’s day I’ve kept all this time. That was a period of upheaval as my 28-year marriage disintegrated and broke while my teen-aged sons still at home and I negotiated the challenges of fluctuating emotions and losses along with financial concerns. Among the five of them, as you might suspect, a range of responses to the difficult circumstances kept me on my toes and them on their guard.

I decided on that New Year’s day, to make a list of dreams, not resolutions. These dreams remain spelled out on a fading 3-by-5 inch card: 1. To acquire and maintain a strong, sustaining faith in God, 2. To help my family do the same, 3. To have basic harmony in my home among all family members, 4. To satisfy my creative urges in many ways, 5. To take an active part in community affairs and work for programs I consider important.

Number 6 is revelatory and amazing to just joan as I read it decades later: I aspired “to be well-read, well-informed and to have carefully formed opinions.” The words amaze me today because at the time I was a woman who’d quite completely submerged her sense of self-worth and mouthed only her husband’s sentiments on important matters.

From a copy store’s monthly newsletter in 1981, a piece entitled “Remember Me?” reminds us of a completely different era of customer service when you’d never think of pumping your own gas or helping yourself to merchandise to take to a check-out counter.

“I’m the fellow who goes into a restaurant, sits down and patiently waits while the waitresses finish their visiting before taking my order.

“I’m the fellow who goes into a department store and stands quietly while the clerks finish their little chit-chat.

“I’m the fellow who drives into a service station and never blows his horn, but lets the attendant take his time.

“You might say I’m the good guy. But do you know who else I am? I’m the fellow who never comes back. It amuses me to see businesses spending so much money each year to get me back – when I was there in the first place. All they needed to do was give me some service and extend a little courtesy.”

So many hats on one little head

“You’re always writing about other people, Joan. We’d like you to write more about you!”

This quote comes from a recent gathering in a Santa Rosa living room where hostess Tess Hagemann had just defined several of the “hats” she had known me to wear at various phases of my life. So, picking up on that theme, I’ll herewith place a few of my toppers on this “literary hat-rack” for your observation.

We could start with poet, as a stranger had come to my elementary school in search of one. I suppose it could be said the $5 I was paid to write several verses in celebration of the 80th birthday of the woman’s brother launched my literary career. However it would be decades before any of my writings generated additional income.

The fact that I still have in my hands the tattered file with the poem clipped inside qualifies me as both packrat and organizer.

Being a packrat has brought challenges and uncounted joys. Without hundreds of letters, notes, bits of memorabilia, even copies of letters I myself had written, I could never have become the author of “Embracing the Yes; A Life Recycled” published in 1999. Feedback has been utterly astounding. A South Carolinian woman wrote, “I don’t know how the author did it, but she wrote my own life story.” A Texan interviewer commented on his radio show, “I like that this book is down-to-earth-sitting-across-the-coffee-table kind of wisdom I can put to practical use.”

After reading, a Sonoma woman immediately ordered copies for each of her six grown daughters! What surprised me was the universality of the message. After a Sunday Mass in Tryon, North Carolina where I’d done a book reading earlier in the week, a gentleman in his seventies approached me to say, “Joan, my wife bought your book and as I read about myself, I feel quite sad and ashamed.” I trust he kept reading past the second chapter, finding, as the late Dr. Jeanne Simons, professor at SRJC, reported, “It was like reading a suspense novel, full of conflicts and good humor. I had a rollicking good time and got inspired in the bargain.”

The organizer in me revealed itself early as I filed my collections of paper dolls in stacked flat boxes neatly labeled with their contents. In raising my own family, I typically limited the toys and games to which my daughter and seven sons had access so they wouldn’t be overwhelmed by the entire collection. Once I wept bitter tears upon discovering a visiting family’s children had dumped and scrambled on the playroom floor the contents of every neatly labeled box from an adjacent storage area.

The organizer in me leapt with joy when this single mother was hired in the 1970s as a professional records management consultant. I sought opportunities to examine filing systems within a company; to interview staff, exploring problems with the current system; to propose new systems with workable solutions and then to convince powers-that-be to discard every filing cabinet and every folder and purchase new ones from me while saving lots of money and enormous amounts of valuable office space in the bargain. I was hugely successful, even sometimes employing my own children along with other folks in turnkey operations; we began on Friday evening and had the new system entirely in place on Monday morning when I trained the awe-struck staff in their newly efficient and pleasurable process of records management.

The organizer in me served well at age 50 when I resigned this lucrative position to don the hat of returning undergraduate at Marquette University in Milwaukee and then, after graduation, consciously adopted a nomadic lifestyle in search of opportunities to give service to God’s people in need. Transformations of cluttered homes and problem-laden office systems by a professional organizer and member of NAPO (National Association of Professional Organizers) generated revenue to support my consciously chosen frugal lifestyle.

All sorts of hats have rested on this head for varying lengths of time. I’ve been advertising sales representative, sales manager, food demonstrator in supermarkets, free-agent business writer, sought-after public speaker on a variety of topics, companion, house- and/or pet-sitter, business consultant, case manager for elderly with various difficulties, consultant in overcoming panic attacks, organizer of Indiana’s first and ultimately the country’s most comprehensive all-volunteer recycling center in 1971.

I spent a summer in the beautiful Catskill Mountains as chaplain-in-residence for a YMCA camp accommodating weekly 500 boys and girls from both wealth and poverty – some on dialysis or with other health challenges, scholarship kids from drastic inner-city habitats and fantastic staff from all around the world. Preparing participatory chapel services each week was rewarding, but I have the sweetest memories of being there at just the right moment for campers, counselors, even a visiting television and movie star going through a rough time.

As performing artist and Biblical scholar I have presented my one-person dramatization of first century life in Palestine or an authentic first-century Hebrew celebration dinner in several countries and around the U.S.

A few additional topics I’m passionate about for which I’ve served as facilitator or teacher are Compassionate Communication, Mahatma Gandhi and his principles of living, and JustFAITH, an inimitable process of social justice education and involvement.

I’ve become an intrepid international traveler teaching English in mainland China; studying and teaching in Palestine/Israel; administering a solidarity and assistance program in Haiti; speaking, learning and following in the footsteps of Gandhi in India and gaining a great deal in shorter study trips to El Salvador, Italy, Singapore, Egypt, Ireland, Venezuela and Japan.

My recent clinic as Scrabble expert led to weekly Scrabble fun for experts and beginners.

One more new hat last Saturday in that living room in Santa Rosa – center of attention. The comment quoted in my opening paragraph emboldened me to write a column like this in celebration of my 80th. Happy Birthday to me as I make plans for three months teaching orphans in Namibia later this year.

2012 addendum: I’ll celebrate my 81st this week in my current city of residence, Owasso, Oklahoma, fast-growing suburb north of Tulsa.

The whole story of Muslims, Jews and Christians

Last month, via the New York Times, the renowned American journalist Robert Wright threw out a challenge to test readers’ “religious literacy.”

He began with a multiple choice: “Which sacred text says that Jesus is the ‘word’ of God? a) the Gospel of John; b.) the Book of Isaiah; or c.) the Koran.

“The correct answer is the Koran. But if you guessed the Gospel of John you get partial credit because its opening passage — ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God’ — is an implicit reference to Jesus. In fact, when Muhammad described Jesus as God’s word, he was no doubt aware that he was affirming Christian teaching.”

Wright, whose most recent book, “The Evolution of God,” has stirred up both great critical acclaim and heavy controversy, continues:

“Extra-credit question: Which sacred text has this to say about the Hebrews: God, in his ‘prescience,’ chose ‘the children of Israel … above all peoples’? I won’t bother to list the choices, since you’ve probably caught onto my game by now; that line, too, is in the Koran.”

To save you the trouble, dear readers, I bring you an official definition: according to Random House, “prescience” means “knowledge of things before they exist or happen.”

Wright tells us he highlighted these passages partly so “self-appointed guardians of Judeo-Christian civilization” would “be aware of everything that would go up in smoke” in any kind of Koran burning activities.

It took the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, the White House and the State Department, and a host of religious leaders to convince the Rev. Terry Jones to cancel the Koran-burning event he had planned for Gainesville, Florida on September 11, 2010. However, the expansion of anti-Islam sentiment in our nation goes unabated.

As Robert Wright’s article continues, he concedes that he hadn’t told the whole story. “Even while calling Jesus the word of God — and ‘the Messiah’ — the Koran denies that he was the son of God or was himself divine. And, though the Koran does call the Jews God’s chosen people, and sings the praises of Moses, and says that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, it also has anti-Jewish, and for that matter anti-Christian, passages.”

The author contends the regrettable parts of any religious scripture don’t have to matter. What matters is that people know the whole story, that people know both sides of the Bible, the Torah and the Koran.

“It’s characteristic of contemporary political discourse,” Wright contends, “that the whole story doesn’t come to the attention of many people. Thus, there are liberals who say that ‘jihad’ refers to a person’s internal struggle to do what is right. And that’s true. There are conservatives who say ‘jihad’ refers to military struggle. That’s true, too.”

But neither is the whole picture. Expounding on that one word, Wright tells us, “The Koran’s exhortations to jihad in the military sense are sometimes brutal in tone but are so hedged by qualifiers that Muhammad clearly doesn’t espouse perpetual war against unbelievers, and is open to peace with them. The formal doctrine of military jihad — which isn’t found in the Koran, and evolved only after Muhammad’s death — does seem to have initially been about endless conquest, but was then subject to so much amendment and re-interpretation as to render it compatible with world peace. Meanwhile, in the hadith — the non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet — the tradition arose that Muhammad had called holy war the ‘lesser jihad’ and said that the ‘greater jihad’ was the struggle against animal impulses within each Muslim’s soul.”

In pondering why people tend to hear only one side of the story, the author suggests “adherents of a given religion, like everyone else, focus on things that confirm their attitudes and ignore things that don’t. And they carry that tunnel vision into their own scripture; if there is hatred in their hearts, they’ll fasten onto the hateful parts of scripture, but if there’s not, they won’t. That’s why American Muslims of good will can describe Islam simply as a religion of love. They see the good parts of scripture, and either don’t see the bad or have ways of minimizing it.

“So too with people who see in the Bible a loving and infinitely good God. They can maintain that view only by ignoring or downplaying parts of their scripture. For example, there are those passages where God hands out the death sentence to infidels. In Deuteronomy, the Israelites are told to commit genocide — to destroy nearby peoples who worship the wrong Gods, and to make sure to kill all men, women and children.”

If we are honest, we have to admit that the Holy Scriptures of all three Abrahamic religions contain meanings to which followers tenaciously cling and meanings with which followers cannot be comfortable. So we put to good use the tunnel vision Wright says is part of human nature. Much depends on the attitude we bring to the reading of scripture.

Robert Wright closes his thoughtful piece with an appeal for the different cultures to reach out and get to know each other. Well, guess what, Sonoma. Over a year ago, a small group of Sonoma Valley Jews, Christians, non-believers and Muslims began meeting monthly to do just as Robert Wright suggests. Month after month the Sonoma Middle East Study Group gets together to talk candidly, openly and respectfully about topics regarding the Middle East with a special emphasis on the Palestinian/Israeli situation.

Now The Study Group is planning a series of outstanding films and events to raise greater awareness among residents of Sonoma Valley. Just 10 days from today, on Sunday, April 29, you’ll have an opportunity to meet an amazing individual I saw in action the last time I was in the Holy Land. As I now live out of state, I’ll miss out, but you’ll meet the amazing former college professor and biologist who left his career behind to focus his creative energies with youngsters living in Aida Refugee Camp at the edge of Bethlehem in the West Bank.  He operates out of a belief that…children living in the awkward circumstances of a refugee camp could thrive if their energy could be focused on any and everything beautiful they could find. This, of course, included especially their own inner beauty brought forth theough a variety of expressions.

Abdelfatteh Abusrour, founder of the al-Rowwad Cultural and Theatre Center will inspire and delight you, I’m certain. Please go to Vintage House at 264 First Street East in Sonoma on Sunday, April 29, 3 to 5:30 pm and I’m hoping you’ll be inclined to donate at least $10-15 to support this hugely important work. Thanks.

For the third year in a row our wonderful Valley is joining the annual world-wide CROP Hunger Walk (Communities Responding to Overcome Poverty) on Sunday, April 29, 2012. The enthusiasm of previous years’ walkers and supporters is contagious and all those feet can hardly wait to get walking again for the benefit of thousands of hungry people around the world and right here in our own community.

Some folks contend we don’t have homeless and hungry people in this beautiful valley, but we most assuredly do. Just ask the many Brown Baggers how many free lunches they prepare and pass out to grateful receivers regularly. And lest you equate homeless with transient, you’d be amazed to know how very many of the homeless in our valley are graduates of Sonoma Valley High School.

At any rate, the international CROP Walk was created to raise funds for folks who would otherwise go hungry. One beauty of the movement is that it is designed for active participation in every kind of community to the benefit of the poor in that community as well as in hard-luck nations, villages and neighborhoods all over the planet.

A local interfaith group has been joyously busy organizing in happy anticipation of seeing hundreds and hundreds of Sonoma’s great-hearted folks walking together for such a worthy cause.

Rich Hacker, this year’s Chair of the Sonoma Crop Hunger Walk provides the following summary of the 2012 challenge:

“Last year Sonoma had over 200 walkers who raised more than $10,500. This year Sonoma plans to double both the number of CROP Hunger Walkers and the amount raised.

“In addition, this year’s WALK in Sonoma coincides with an estimated 4000 walkers from ten other Bay Area Communities who are walking on the same weekend. The Bay Area goal this year is $300,000.”

Seventy-five percent of the funds raised each year support the work of Church World Service fighting hunger globally by supporting sustainable self-help development projects (digging wells, providing tools and seeds etc), meeting emergency needs in the wake of natural and national disasters, aiding refugees throughout the world and in the US.

The 25 percent remaining in the Sonoma Valley will this year support Friends in Sonoma Overnight Support (SOS) and Meals on Wheels Sonoma.”

Nearly 2,000 other communities in the U.S. are participating in the 2012 Crop Walk as well. Why? The answer is two-fold, as the Walk has two primary purposes: (1) to raise awareness about people around the world who must walk to find food, water, firewood, freedom and other necessities of life; and (2) to raise funds to help stop hunger wherever it exists.

Now those are two ambitions I can stand firmly behind. And whether or not you join some 400 Sonoma walkers, you’re cordially invited to become a sponsor. You can pick up a pledge envelope at Pharmaca.

Please consider walking yourself on routes through downtown Sonoma approved by the city. Also, coach all your friends and neighbors to become sponsors or even to become CROP walkers along with you. You’ll each have your choice of a 3-mile walk or the slower and shorter route of just one mile.

Let’s hear from a couple of veteran CROP Walkers. Amy Seyms reports, “I have been participating in CROP Hunger Walks since I was a 10-month-old baby in a stroller being pushed by my parents. I began in Corning, New York when the walk was 10 miles. I remember vividly the first walk I did all on my own. I must have been 5-years-old. I didn’t think I could make it to the end, even though I could see the church in plain sight. I remember my Mom gave me a piggy ride the rest of the way and I was so grateful. She told me that the women we were helping by doing this walk would carry the same amount of weight to and from their homes just to get clean water to drink. That made a huge impact on my life.

“When we moved to Long Beach, California the walk was 10K, or 6.2 miles. I continued to walk and have only missed a couple walks in my lifetime. I am so happy that Sonoma has continued the tradition of the CROP Walk.  This year will be especially special as I will be pushing my own daughter, who will be 4 months, in a stroller to stop hunger. The cycle continues! I am sure in a few years she’ll be asking for a piggy back ride, too. Looking forward to the walk!”

Another veteran walker, Judy Landa, has been participating in CROP Walks since the 1980s. Her reflections include, “The CROP Hunger Walk became part of my life while raising my family in Westport, Connecticut. What I loved about it was that the community came together to fight hunger not only in Westport but hunger around the world through Church World Service, and it was being repeated in communities throughout the United States. The Walk continues as such bringing us together as one family. I truly appreciate the fact that Sonoma has come together to join this Family.”

Organizers are eager for employer/corporation sponsors as well and will happily accept matching gifts, in-kind donations, and sponsor donations.

So here’s how it works. Registration begins at 12 noon on Sunday April 29 at Burlingame Hall, 252 W. Spain Street, Sonoma. The walk will begin at 1 p.m. Walkers will gather at the end (expected to be by 2 or 2:30) for a celebration in Burlingame Hall where awards will be presented to CROP Hunger Walkers who had generated the highest financial support.

For further information, go to BayAreaHungerWalk.org or telephone  Rich Hacker 326.4742 or Dick Ridenour  933.8594.

We walk because they walk! How about you?

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don’t harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Liberty is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of free markets, civil liberties, and self-ownership.

Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

We hope you will join us in embracing this ideal – and in taking a stand to personally bring about a world of liberty, abundance and peace.

Now for the reflections of Andrew Paras in the Readers Forum of the Tulsa World published March 15, 2012 under this headline “Self-interest disguised as libertarianism:”

I used to be a libertarian but am no longer. I have always prized my right to speak my mind, watch and read what I want, and keep my body and property private from the intrusions of a society with different moral viewpoints.

I don’t want my kids to live with a government that practices an alien faith in the name of all citizens. And, yes, I want to keep as much of my money as possible.

In this country, we start from the presumption that we are completely free. But we elect government by majority to do things that we believe are important and cannot do ourselves. (The majority is limited by elections and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.)

My wife and I work hard to succeed, earning money, caring for our children and house, volunteering at the school. But we cannot keep the air and water clean, test the drugs we use or the food we eat, police our streets, or defend the country in a dynamic and fast-moving world.

We don’t have time to research the best education and health insurance standards, or to stake our basic retirement or medical care in old age on our ability to beat the market.

In these complicated times, it is simply fantasy to think that individual families can take care of everything without the help of the government. And yes, we have to pay taxes for that.

Today’s libertarians argue that we don’t need the government to do this for us, but history shows otherwise. Left unregulated, companies will mislead consumers and stockholders, take undue risks, pollute the environment, build trusts and work their unskilled workers to death. We know this; it’s just been so long since we didn’t have regulations that we don’t remember it. And the consequences of disregarding these risks can be devastating for each one of us.

Government cannot simply be replaced by private companies or lawsuits. Private companies cannot set and enforce environmental and fair financial disclosure standards, defend the country, and police our streets. Even if they could obtain the confidential information necessary to test food and drugs and research health-care quality, they wouldn’t make it available to those without the means to pay.

Nor could we use lawsuits to effectively address corporate recklessness. The individual cost would be overwhelming, and the action will be opposed every step of the way by well-funded corporate lawyers while the individuals suffered or died in the meantime.

This is not some theoretical outcome; rather, it’s an unnecessary result of organizing government on ideological principles without considering the real effect on people.

Finally, today’s libertarians (like Republicans) attack government by focusing on a single instance of failed regulation, even where the regulation usually works as designed. I agree that the government doesn’t always act efficiently and effectively. Sometimes the government administers regulations that are no longer necessary or retains people who don’t pull their weight. Even so, the answer is not to eliminate regulation but rather to continuously review regulations to make sure they are necessary and administered effectively and efficiently.

I prize my liberty, especially that guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But I live near neighbors, both residential and corporate, and their freedom (and mine) is not absolute. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” Reasonable regulation of corporate behavior is as necessary to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as are limits on government power.

Many of today’s libertarians are drawn to the theory due to wasteful government spending on wars, the intrusive Patriot Act and a desire for “social” freedom. I get that. But they lose me to the extent they have become influenced by interests who think short-term or are less motivated by framing a workable society than by simply keeping all their money while enjoying the benefits of our society.

Finally, I offer the comments of just one Tulsa World reader, identified as Pale Rider: “Mr. Paras, wow. Well done. Thank you for your sane comments. People regularly vent about, ‘What do we get for our tax dollars? – NOTHING,’ as they drive down public streets protected by police and listen on NPR to stories about the wars we fight around the world. Great work Mr. Paras, and thank you. Very well written and well said. Keep it up!”

Last week we began the story of a boy who was wastefully extravagant, squandered his inheritance in a “distant” country and ended up feeding pigs, thus jeopardizing his Jewish standing. We suggested he likely was emaciated and delusional from gnawing starvation as he headed for the farm that had been his home, mumbling the words he would say to his father.

Meantime, the father had never lost hope that his son might one day return.  Never lost hope though his life had changed completely on the day his world disintegrated. Now he was penniless and dependent, since he had given everything he had to his sons when the younger son requested his inheritance while the father was still alive.

Oh, the father did remain patriarch of the family. But it was never the same. Now he spent all his days watching. Watching and anxiously waiting.

One day as he continued his daily vigil, he spotted his son while he was still a long way off. The father was alarmed to see the scrawny lad stagger and struggle, making his way toward the family farm. The father was moved with compassion.

You probably know this story. Maybe you’ve read or heard it dozens of times. Do you remember the next line of the story? Do you remember what the father did? Well, the answer is he ran to his son. Ran? This distinguished patriarch ran? Oh, my goodness! Did you ever see Queen Elizabeth running?

By running, he surely exposed his ankles, perhaps even his knees if he ran fast enough. Unheard of! Jewish men wore long robes and beards to keep their skin covered. Why then would this Jewish patriarch, who had always conducted his life with dignity and decorum, run?.

Yes, it’s true that he was thrilled to see his lost son and eager to welcome him home. But there’s a much more important reason. The clue to the father’s running is in the activity of the younger son when he first received his inheritance. Think back to that part of the story for a clue as to why the father ran.

He ran to protect junior. He could see that the villagers were already leaving their homes and heading toward his son. He knew that if he didn’t get there first, the boy would never make it home alive. There was in the community, after all, a code of honor.

So he ran. This prodigal father, this wastefully generous and loving father was not concerned about his reputation; he was concerned about his son. He ran to his son, clasped him in his arms and kissed him tenderly. He didn’t even hear his son’s carefully rehearsed speech. Instead, looking over his shoulder, he spoke to his servants.

“Quick! Quick!” he shouted. “Bring out the best robe and put it on him.” Not just any robe, the best robe. Dad wanted it clearly established that this boy was a member in full standing of this family.

“Put a ring on his finger!” this assures the son’s “credit-card-ability.” Wearing his father’s ring, the lad can once again walk into any shop in the village and purchase what he needs.

“And put sandals on his feet!” Only slaves didn’t wear shoes. As a son, he must be shod.

One more thing he ordered. “Bring the fatted calf and kill it. We are going to have a party!” Well, now, whose fatted calf was it? Um, hum. And it’s quite likely that the older son, anticipating his own impending wedding feast, had been watching that calf get fattened, smacking his lips and rubbing his hands together with glee. But the father ordered the fatted calf to be killed immediately to be served at a party.

Who will be invited to this celebration? Everybody in town, that’s who! This (as with every meal mentioned in the Holy Bible) will be a reconciliation meal. Anyone of the village who comes and shares this table with the father and his returned son is making a statement. Their very presence at the table says, “I accept this boy as a member in full standing of your family and of our community.” Their presence at that table further makes the statement, “I will never again bring up the subject of your son’s misdeeds. It’s over. It’s forgotten. It’s reconciled. It’s forgiven.

One person was reluctant to make such a statement. The older son hung around outside, sulking, bitter, angry as could be. Another lost son. Now for the elder son to refuse to attend his father’s party, to refuse to perform the duties of every eldest son at such an affair, was another insult. Really, almost as bad as asking for one’s inheritance when your father’s still alive! Again, the father had every right to banish this son who so disgraced him and the family and the village.

But what did this father do? This prodigal father, this paradigm of a loving father? He went out to his son to encourage him to be a part of the reconciliation. He went out to him! To turn his back on his guests and go out to his wayward son was an affront to those guests. Totally against protocol. Once again, the father was not concerned about his reputation; he was concerned about his son.

Typical of the stories Jesus told, this story is left open-ended. What did the older son finally decide? I really don’t know, do you?

Comments or challenges always welcome. Write to joan@justjoanonline.com.

Credits for this understanding of the Gospel of Luke 15:11-32 include Catherine Fay, BVM, coordinator of Adult Instruction for Little Flower Parish in South Bend, Indiana during the 1970s; to the Theology Department of Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1981-1983; to the Biblical Resources Study Center in Jerusalem 1987 and subsequently to the Explorations in Antiquity Museum in LaGrange, Georgia.

Once upon a time there was a man who had been quite successful in the field of agriculture. He managed a large staff of workers and was highly respected in his community. He and his good wife had raised a couple of sons, and this gentleman had become very content with his life and his lot.

Until, quite unexpectedly, one day his world was shattered. That was the day his younger son asked for his share of the inheritance. How could this happy, successful and contented community dignitary accept this insult? Such a request was the equivalent of saying, “Dad, you’re living way too long. I wish you were dead already.”

Now, in the culture in which our story takes place, the father had every right to banish such a rotten kid from his life forever. But this loving father responded to his unloving son in a most amazing way; he actually granted the request! In order to do so, he had to divest himself of all his possessions so he could share them out between his sons. The older boy received two-thirds of the estate, while the younger greedily accepted his third and immediately set off for the village to liquidate his new assets.

Afterwards, the people of the village compared notes, as they were wont to do, and realized the boy had sold them parcels of land, flocks of animals, and other goods that had belonged to the boy’s father. They figured out exactly what the lad had done. And they were furious. The disgrace was not limited to the immediate family; in this culture, the entire village bore the shame.

Next the boy hastened off to a distant country. Now please understand this distance was not measured in miles, but in cultures. As scrupulous followers of the Jewish law, no member of this family had ever before set foot in a gentile city. The boy with bulging pockets was quickly swept up into the excitement of such a city. He attended the theater, visited the forum, enjoyed the races in the hippodrome, and loved the baths. He rubbed shoulders with the wealthiest of gentiles, always had women at his side, ate rich foods never before tasted, danced and sang to wild notes, and lavished his money on everyone and everything.

Until, quite unexpectedly, one day he found his pockets empty. What? How could such a fortune so quickly be gone? At the very same time, a severe famine hit the land, so he couldn’t even beg a scrap of food. This young man was frightened and hungry. However, this young man was also very clever. He thought things through and came up with what seemed like a very workable plan.

A certain man he had rubbed elbows with in his spendthrift days seemed so rich he could never run out of money. The boy decided to attach himself to this man. If he fawned over him enough, and held his cloak or cleared his path often enough, maybe the man might some day give him employment.

So he fawned and he pandered day after day after day, making a total nuisance of himself.

And that’s exactly what the rich man found him to be, a total nuisance. Now this man had seen the lad in the baths a number of times, so he knew him to be a Jew. One day he was the one to conjure up a scheme, a deliciously wicked kind of a scheme. “I know how to fix this Hebrew toady,” he mused. “I’ll set him to tending my pigs!”

The rich man chuckled until his sides hurt and then he chuckled some more, knowing perfectly well that if a Jew so much as touches a pig, he so defiles himself that he won’t again be accepted in a Jewish community. So, with malice of forethought, he gave the assignment.

Now our young man went through a very dark night as he made his way to the wealthy man’s pigs. He knew what it meant to accept this assignment. And he knew what it meant to refuse — almost certain starvation. Already he had experienced pangs as his body had begun to feed on itself for lack of food over a very long time.

And his last ounce of self-respect dissolved in the pig slop as he took up his duties. But then, to his great astonishment and dismay, no one brought him anything to eat! Not even the smallest crust of barley bread. With his stomach writhing, he wistfully remembered. “I never went hungry in my father’s house. No one, not even the servants, ever went hungry in my father’s house.”

Languishing in these haunting memories, the young Jew slipped into delirium. Don’t you agree he must have been delirious to think for a moment there was the slightest possibility his father could ever take him back, even as his lowliest servant?

Emaciated and delusional, he began to make his way toward the farm that had been his home, mumbling the words he would say to his father.

To be continued next week…

Comments or challenges always welcome.

An important stepping stone into any discussion of Middle East conflict, it seems to me, is clear definitions of terms. In first-time conversations about the Holy Land, I often ask, “When you think about the situation in Israel, how do you picture a settlement? What does a settlement look like?” The most frequent answers I get back are, “Well, a settlement is kind of a campground,” or “It’s a bunch of trailers.”

My view of settlements is quite different. My view comes from being there on the ground, from climbing from Jerusalem several times each week into the settlement of Gilo while I lived nearby throughout the year of 1997. I retrieved mail for myself and my co-workers at the Gilo Post Office and while up there on the top of the hillside, I sometimes shopped a bit as well. As I walked the streets, I observed the sturdy, well-built structures within gated communities with manicured lawns and gardens, and many swimming pools.

At the time, I had no idea that Gilo was a settlement or that it was built on Palestinian land. I was in the Holy Land to study and teach about life in Biblical times and knew little about the occupation and oppression. I became very aware, however, of the continual harassment my Palestinian co-workers endured daily.

I was back in the U.S. for over a year before I heard a news report mention the “settlement” of Gilo. Gilo a settlement? The idea hit me harder than that proverbial ton of bricks. This was the beginning of my new understanding of facts that most Americans know nothing about. Even folks who’ve been to the land themselves.

What might a dictionary have to say about the word “settlement”?

From Random House–SETTLEMENT: 7. a colony, esp. in its early stages. 8. a small community, village or group of houses in a thinly populated area. 9. a community formed and populated by members of a particular religious or ideological group.

This number 9 definition, except for the matter of size, could appropriately be applied to those West Bank settlements occupied by Orthodox Jews who continuously threaten and abuse Palestinian neighbors out of an unyielding conviction that all the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people.

In December of 2008, I visited some men living in such a settlement and asked if I would be welcome to live there. “Oh yes!” was the enthusiastic response, followed by, “And when you have been here a short time you will come to know that ours is the one true religion and you will join us.”

The number 9 definition does not fit the vast majority of West Bank settlements, whose residents are living in the occupied territories only because they receive huge financial benefits from the Israeli government for living there.

In my MacBook’s built-in dictionarym I read: –SETTLEMENT: 1. an official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict.

The examples provided: “unions succeeded in reaching a pay settlement” and “the settlement of the Palestinian problem.”

2. a place, typically one that has hitherto been uninhabited, where people establish a community. The action of allowing or helping people to do this.

The example: “Israel’s settlement of immigrants in the occupied territories.”

This example is exactly the subject of a report issued in April of 2010 by The Macro Center for Political Economics, located in Tel Aviv. Dr. Robi Nathanson, Director General, spent years mapping every home and structure built in the settlements, using satellite imagery and other technology, in an effort to “gauge the total value of the Jewish settlement enterprise in the West Bank.” Israeli building in East Jerusalem was not included in this study.

The 128 Israeli settlements in the West Bank, says the report, encompass 12 million square meters of roads, homes and factories that cost more than $17 billion to build. These cities, commonly referred to as settlements, include 211 schools, 344 kindergartens, 68 yeshivas, 127 synagogues, 96 ritual baths, 321 sports facilities and 21 libraries.

Private homes – numbering 22,997 – are spread over 5.74 million square meters while 32,711 apartments cover approximately 3.27 million square meters.

Hardly campgrounds or tent cities or small village communities.

There are 187 shopping centers, 15 banquet halls and 717 industrial structures and more than a million square meters of paved roads – available to only Israelis.

I’ve been on those paved Israeli roads forbidden to Palestinians and on the unpaved roads for Palestinians cluttered with numerous checkpoints where long delays are usual. I waited at a checkpoint as soldiers boarded our mini-bus with menacing looks and frightening guns. And I groaned when we were denied passage and had to drive around the city to take another route to our destination, adding an hour to our travel time. As it was a Sunday morning, not a weekday, we didn’t wait at the checkpoint for hours among hundreds of Palestinians trying to get children to school and themselves to work.

The Macro Center study also details square miles covered and construction costs for each category mentioned here. What is not included is Palestinian land used for lawns, gardens and parks or for accommodating farm animals, trees and crops for Israel’s vast agricultural industry.

They also don’t happen to mention that no sewage treatment plants are built among the settlements and raw sewage is simply dumped on Palestinian lands.

Now that you have just a few of these facts on the ground, do you think “settlement” might be a misnomer?