The Tacoma, Washington News Tribune today carries an interesting article about a 63-year old Catholic prison chaplain who is distressed over the Washington Department of Corrections new policy that allows prisoners to practice dual faiths. The policy change came in the settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit brought by a prisoner who insisted that he be permitted to worship as both a Native American practitioner and as a Seventh-Day Adventist. The prison chaplain, Tom Suss, who is also a Catholic priest, has taken a voluntary leave of absence from his job after an inmate, under the new policy, requested to be classified as both Catholic, and as a member of the pagan Asatru movement. Suss says he cannot, as the new state policy requires, endorse a person being a Catholic and a pagan at the same time.
State Senator Mike Carrell is introducing an amendment to an existing prison bill to protect the jobs of prison chaplains whose duties conflict with their religious beliefs. Carrell argues that inmates will chose multiple religions in order to exploit the system and get various advantages. Department of Corrections policy already excuses chaplains from performing ecclesiastical duties that conflict with their religious tenets. Suss' problem however is with chaplains' nonreligious duties, such as giving prisoners access to religious items.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Chaplain Objects To Policy Allowing Prisoner to Choose Multiple Faiths
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
7 comments:
In practical terms, isn't it the job of a chaplain to supply religious content on the premises to those who cannot go out and get it for themselves? And is the chaplain not obligated to provide that religious content, even when it does not conform to his own personal religious structure? I know that military chaplains are able to perfom duties outside their own particular sects (a Catholic chaplain, for example, knows how to perform a rabbi's rituals, and sometimes can be called upon to form a minyan). Why would a prison chaplain's job differ from his military counterpart?
And as for one person being both Cathoic and Pagan, well, why not? Perhaps his parents had a mixed marriage...one of them Catholic and one of them Asatru...and he was raised with both? Who passed a law that says you can only have one religion?
Chimera, I won't presume to speak for other faiths, but as a Catholic catechist I know that it is simply not possible to honestly profess to be both a pagan and Catholic simultaneously. To be a Catholic isn't simply a matter of having had one Catholic parent. It means that you subcribe to the core precepts of the Catholic faith, the most quintessential being the mystery of the Trinity. One cannot believe simultaneously in the the Trinity and in pagan gods; the concepts are antithetical. It would be akin to saying that you believed simultaneously both in the existence of heaven, and that there was no such thing as afterlife. Either the prisoner is very confused (a possibility I presume the priest ruled out), or being dishonest (a possibility enhanced by the fact that he is in jail for illicit behavior).
Dear Gregory, I have to disagree with you. Catholic, etc. are just labels we apply to ourselves. No one, not you and not even Joseph Ratzinger, gets to decide who is Catholic. You may choose not to associate with someone or deny them entry to your particular club (church building) if you think they're not Catholic "enough" but you cannot decide how others choose to label themselves. I, for example, choose to call myself a Republican to honor the memories of Abraham Lincoln and Col. Robert Ingersoll but I am a liberal atheist; not what we think of when we say Republican.
Two other things:
1) It seems the problem Fr. Suss has is with censorship. It says he has a problem giving prisoners access to religious items that offend his personal tastes.
2) Why the hell are we paying for ANY religious service with my tax dollars to begin with?
Actually, besides the silly as bs of using state funds to run religion programs (which the fools that keep pushing for them have yet proven do anything other than muddy issues and, more often than not, fail), what I found absurd was the notion that handing out religious items is "not" a religious duty. So, if a doctor hands out pills, its not really a medical act? If someone works in a slaughter house, their job *isn't* in any way associated with the food industry? If I hand out copies of biology text books at a school, while ***working*** there as a teacher, I am not *actually* teaching?
I know these people have an entirely delusional and half witted take on reality, but claiming that handing out "religious items" is *not* a religious duty, is just... completely fracking nuts. But then, to quote Dr. Gregory House, "That's kind of the point. If logic worked on religious people, there wouldn't be any religious people."
"...it is simply not possible to honestly profess to be both a Pagan and Catholic simultaneously."
Of course it's possible. Historically speaking, the Catholic gods (yes, plural) are Pagan in origin. I live in that world, and I know very well of which I speak. Saying that one cannot "believe in" certain gods because one "believes in" certain other gods is placing undue limitations of qualifications for membership in the club.
No one has the kind of authority to make that decision on behalf of anyone but himself.
Chimera, I have to whole heartedly disagree with you and find any source with which you get your historical facts of Catholic "gods" highly suspect. To say you are something, i.e. Catholic, is to say that you agree with Catholic teachings and doctrines. And the most basic of teachings is the 10 Commandments which says that there is but one God and to worship others is a sin. I don't say I'm a vegetarian and then eat meat. They contradict each other.
Justin: You may disagree with me on the basis that what is written is not that which is in practise. I said that I live in that world -- where people who come from mixed marriages do, indeed, practise widely divergent religions simultaneously in order to satisfy their antecedents' customs and cultures. The whole concept of "sin" is passe, and is being ignored more and more, in an effort to integrate better cultural interchanges and to honor one's ancestors. Especially one's parents. That, too, is a commandment among Christians, no?
You could eat vegan meals when served by a vegan, and alternatively eat meat when served by a non-vegan. I do. There is no need for conflict, unless you are a committed vegan. And in that case, simply ignore the meat and eat the vegetables without giving undue insult to the cook.
It's simply a matter of idealism versus realism and practicality.
Post a Comment