Catholicism vs. Buddhism

Regarding “When Worlds That Should Collide, Don’t” (June 10):

Shortly after the time when the Beatles, the Moody Blues and other rock bands in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s were using mind-altering drugs and began to follow mystical ideas from the East, I took some hallucinogenic drugs on a Catholic high school retreat and learned that, with meditation and the proper states of drug intoxication, it is possible to simulate mystical states discussed in Eastern texts and proposed as enlightenment by Buddhists and others. My parents were extremely surprised at where this sudden interest in Eastern philosophy had come from.

As I had abandoned my Catholic faith at that time and was seeking permanently an experience of “oneness with the universe,” it was only by God’s infinite mercy and many prayers said that God brought me back to my Catholic faith. Following this, I have some comments on the relationship between Catholicism and Buddhism.

First, our ideas of salvation are completely different. We Catholics believe that salvation is granted by the atoning death of Jesus on the cross for our sins and our acceptance of the faith and our incorporation into the Body of Christ, being baptized in the faith and the sacraments etc. Buddhists, by contrast, believe it is necessary to attain a mystical state of enlightenment, which, although beyond verbal description, is a state of oneness with the universe. Until one attains this state fully, it will be necessary to be reincarnated into countless lifetimes. As the book of Hebrews teaches, by contrast, we have one lifetime to live before our judgment. Buddhism and Hinduism also, as taught in the West, are Gnostic religions in which salvation is attained by mystical experiences and not by the grace of God, with some self-effort, as in the laws of karma, thrown in.

As mentioned in the article, the experience of knowing a personal and loving God, which God may grant us a small taste of in this life, by his grace, is a prelude to the beatific vision we all hope to enjoy in heaven. Buddhism and many other Eastern religions, by contrast, seek an impersonal state of oneness not involving a personal relationship with the One True God.

In the last few years, the Church has started to respond to some of these ideas that have been entering our culture through what has been called the New Age Movement. See, for example, the Vatican document “Jesus the Bearer of the Waters of Life” as well as the Vatican document “Some Aspects of Christian Meditation” that discuss concerns about the integration of Eastern forms of meditation.

We should also remember that with God’s grace one lifetime is more than enough to receive God’s grace and to merit salvation by our response to that grace given. I have learned to stay close to the Church and to Jesus the Lamb of God in order to be protected from spiritual delusion.

Bob Gravlin

St. Louis, Missouri

Effective Oversight

After reading the article titled “Assessing Parish Safety,” (June 10) it continues to baffle me how the bishops’ safe-environment programs,  e.g. Good Touch/Bad Touch and Talking About Touching, will effectively thwart priestly sexual abuse.

If I’m not mistaken, it was the latter problem that gave rise to article 12 of the “Charter for the Protection of Children & Young People,” adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002. In any event, it’s hard to have any confidence in this effort when the Safe Environment Work Group’s sociologist, David Finkelhor (not Catholic), says that although evidence in favor of victimization prevention education for children is weak, the education is “a reasonable policy choice” for the Church in light of the fact that “empirical evidence” offers nothing better.

All I can say is thank God for the Catholic Medical Association’s critique of the bishops’ safe-environment programs, plus Bishop Robert Vasa’s efforts working with the association and others to create an adult-focused program that will strengthen families and give parents the support and understanding they need to teach their children themselves.

In the meantime, the bishops need to devote more time to effective oversight of priests, especially regarding the matter of sexual abuse of minors, while recognizing that parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children and seriously consider making those so-called safe-environment programs optional.

K. Dale Anderson
Randallstown, Maryland

Seek the Church’s Riches

Regarding “When Worlds That Should Collide, Don’t” (June 10):

In your article, there is a quote, “It’s the best tool to transform your life.” No, Jesus as a person, not a technique, is the best transforming force in our lives. His body instructs us to “lift our hearts to the Lord.” This is the finest way to meditate — community-wise, privately, when busy or quiet. It is the condition of the heart we raise to the Lord that is vital, not a technique.

Paul tells that people will seek “what their itching ears want to hear.” Those who seek into Buddhism are seeking rags rather than the riches of Jesus’ Church — writings of the saints and popes and further meditation before the Blessed Sacrament.

The Church is the fullness, lacking nothing. The Scriptures tell us, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.”

Invest your soul in the life-giving teachings of the body of Christ. 

Mary L. Gilbertson
Franklinville, New York 

Mishandled by the Media

Somehow the whole subject, “Gift or Gaffe” (June 24), has been handled by the media (even the Register!) in a petty and tasteless manner, and it really was not such a big deal.

Unlike the media, I’m sure the Pope himself was humble enough and “Christian” enough to have graciously accepted the gift in the kindly, fraternal spirit with which it was given.

Forgive my presumption, but I don’t think Jesus would be hindered by adhering to hypocritical diplomatic or politically correct ceremonies!

Frank Diani

Goleta, California

Misplaced Criticism

I was disappointed in your article titled “Gift or Gaffe?” (June 24). You seemed to be critical of the fact that President Bush gave the Pope a walking stick and referred to him as “Sir.” For one thing, the walking stick was made by a former homeless man, which made it a unique gift from the United States. Since Mr. Wilkerson is probably a Protestant, he puts the Protestant version of the Ten Commandants on the walking stick. But that doesn’t make the Ten Commandants any less significant in religious history, and I am sure the Holy Father realizes that.

As far as President Bush calling the Pope “Sir,” sir is a title of respect, and he probably uses that term to address other heads of state. So there was no disrespect intended by the president referring to him as “Sir” rather than “Your Holiness.” And since President Bush is not a Catholic, I am not sure that he is obligated to call the Pope “Your Holiness” anyway.

The Pope seemed to be delighted with the gift, and the president was filled with awe at their visit, so I thought it was a very successful and cordial visit. That was pointed out in your earlier article, “The Pope and the President,” which appeared June 17.

I think there are many things that we can criticize President Bush for, but this is not one of them.

Karl M. Welsbacher, Jr.
Lodi, California

Editor’s note: We thank all the readers who contacted us about Wayne Laugesen’s article “Gift or Gaffe?” Please note, the Register published a news report, not a commentary article, about the gift of the walking stick to Pope Benedict XVI. We passed no judgment on the matter, and provided more details about the appropriateness of the gift than were previously available.

Maladay of Disunity

Relevant to the Holy Father’s Wednesday audience, “St. Cyprian of Carthage,” in the June 17 issue:

I’ve become especially aware of a malady that is afflicting the Church; that is, disunity. There is the disunity that proceeds from Catholics accepting only elements of the magisterium. The other disunity is where people are rejected or scorned or labeled “bad Catholics” because their devotions and beliefs are not identical to mine. There are even faithful Catholics who heap opprobrium on other faithful Catholics. Sorry to say, this makes us look foolish and unattractive to those who otherwise might be open to conversion.

While there are serious concerns with views that individual Catholics hold on important moral issues and with respect to how the Mass and the sacraments are being celebrated, the resulting disunity we witness today between Catholic enclaves is damaging the evangelical message.

John Paul the Great was no syncretist or relativist, but his message frequently emphasized solidarity. Did anything the Holy Father said or wrote suggest that a fully formed Christian conscience must be a prerequisite for solidarity?

We should recognize that there is a difference between accepting erroneous or muddled beliefs and accepting an individual as a soul on a journey, confused though they may be.

Would the Church have been richer if the evangelist Paul or Mary Magdalene or Dorothy Day had been turned away before their faith was fully formed?

 Thomas M. Doran

Plymouth, Michigan

Don’t Blame Capitalism

Regarding a June 10 Editor’s Note after the letter “No Fleeting Fad”:

The note quotes Pope Benedict’s remarks to Latin American bishops on “the great error” of Marxist and capitalist systems, namely, that reality is entirely material or non-spiritual.

In this, the Holy Father reveals what I think is a conceptual economic error; the belief that Marxism and capitalism are polar opposites. In many ways they are, but I think the Pope’s point that both systems reject God and promote a communal morality is incorrect.

The charge against Marxism is valid, as Marx’s own writings will attest: morality per se is unnecessary under socialism, and thus unwelcome in the quest to achieve that utopia. Religion, and thus God, is the “opiate of the masses.”

But the same critique cannot be leveled against capitalism. Capitalism does not, nor does it claim to, promote a particular morality. There is a division of labor: Capitalism sticks to what it does best (promote material prosperity), and lets other entities do what it cannot (promote morality). Like autarkic societies that quickly stagnate, Marxism tries to do both and succeeds at neither, to the detriment of everyone living under it.

Blaming capitalism for immoral economic behavior skips a step: What responsibility do we bear as Christians in forming the conscience of buyers or sellers? Behavior is behavior, whether economic or not. Should we search for an alternative to American democracy because Rudy Giuliani, Nancy Pelosi and other Catholics vote pro-abortion, or should we seek to inform their consciences?

Marxism requires amorality of its citizens for the economic good of society (as bad as that ends up being); capitalism is amoral so as not to interfere with its participants’ search for morality and economic well-being. The latter is demonstrably successful, but it is our role as Christians to ensure success of the former.

Tim Shaughnessy

Bossier City, Louisiana