Ben-Hur

By 2026, the world hardly needed any convincing regarding the strident zeal for endless vengeance in the Middle East, given the genocide still occurring in Gaza against the Palestinian people. In 1945, the world had needed no convincing on just how severe, and at what tremendous scale, state-sponsored (and engineered) hatred against a people deemed “subhuman” could be. The 1959 film-version of Ben-Hur is saturated with the desire for vengeance, with the antipodal motive of forgiveness only being shown as a more powerful, and thus stronger, phenomenon at the end of the film when Judah Ben-Hur’s mother and sister are spontaneously cured of leprosy at the very moment in which Jesus dies on the Cross. Only in aiding Jesus with water on his arduous way to the Cross does the Jewish man, Judah, realize the value of the suffering man’s righteous, unmerited suffering, especially relative to the value of even satisfied vengeance. At the moment of his death, Jesus, freed of a mortal body, cures the two women as a result of Judah’s change of heart. The message is that forgiveness wins over resentment and vengeance from a spiritual standpoint.

The full essay is at "Ben-Hur."

Russian Patriarch Kirill: A Case of Religion Overreaching

The political separation of “Church and State” in U.S. constitutional law, a doctrine that is of jurisprudence (judicial decision) rather than theology and thus does not straddle and therefore demarcate the political and religious domains as qualitatively distinct from a neutral standpoint. Furthermore, the question of what makes the religious domain distinct (and unique) from all others is the pole from which a religious functionary’s (or religionist) leap into the political garden from the Garden of Eden can be detected. The trouble worsens if the criteria from one domain in imposed and overlaid in the overreaching into another domain, as if the criteria that is determinative in one domain were valid in another. In fact, the eclipsing itself of the other’s own criteria on their own “turf” is unethical. The legitimate sovereignty of a domain’s own criteria in that domain over criteria indigenous to other domains yet superimposed renders any supervening overreaching as both erroneous—as in going off-sides in football (soccer)—and unethical because the criteria indigenous to a given domain should not be disrespected within their own domain. In other words, encroaching is presumptuous. If these ideas strike the reader as novel, even strange perhaps, then I am keeping within the confines of my mission in writing, as I look to a new dawn in which the ideational tyranny of hitherto reigning yet questionable assumptions ist zerstört because they have been discredited, which is not to say that every extant assumption should be eviscerated and expunged for lack of substance. Unfortunately, Russia’s Patriarch Kirill, the head of Russia’s Orthodox Church, went out on a tree limb, far from his religious tree’s trunk, by formulating and spreading “revisionist propaganda to justify the war in Ukraine” while the invasion was underway.[1] The history and legitimacy of a bygone Russian empire (not the U.S.S.R.) properly belong to the political rather than to the religious domain. Being schooled in theology does not give even a high religious functionary the knowledge on which to presume to be an expert in political history and international relations. The resentment in the E.U. and U.S. at the patriarch’s intrusion into a domain that is not an extension of the religious domain was not merely from opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but also from an intuitive sense that the domains of religion/theology and politics/government are distinct and thus require different knowledge-sets and have their own respective criteria and distinctiveness.

In late June, 2026, agreement in the E.U. on “the 21^st package of European Union sanctions against Russia” remained “mired in difficult, with multiple obstacles and the public threat” of a veto by the E.U. state of Bulgaria in the European Council, where the proposed law had to pass unanimously or else fail to be enacted.[2] Bulgaria’s governor, Rumen Radev, “publicly announced his opposition to sanctioning Patriarch Kirill” with “a travel ban and an asset freeze.”[3] Both the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church “belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, share the same faith and dogma, and are bound by cultural and historical ties.”[4] Radev’s rational is political rather than theological, however, as would be the proposed sanctions against the patriarch, who had overstepped from the theological onto the political domain in justifying the Russian government’s war even if he drew on theological doctrines in making the political statement on the war. Had Kirill restrained himself to “coloring within the lines” of theology proper, he would not have been vulnerable in the political domain.

Especially in Christianity, where Christ’s preachment, give what is Caesar’s unto Caesar, is a salient reminder that distinctively religious transcendence does not bother with politics, Kirill’s political ideology can be likened in the Gospels to the Jewish Zealots whose cause Jesus does not take up because that political movement is antipodal to  the religious preachment to love thy enemy. It is fitting, therefore, that Pope Leo had recently been implicitly invalidated even Catholic just-war “theory” by stating that Jesus would not be in favor of fighting in any war. From the perspective of the political domain, Jesus of the Gospels may appear, at a distance, as a mystic whose teachings pertain to a kingdom not of this world. This is not to say that a distinctly religious message cannot have political implications, even dire ones, as per Jesus in the Gospel narratives, but to say that something that is in one distinct domain has an effect in another domain is not to say that the “something” is in the other domain. Kirill went into the political domain in formulating and spreading pro-war propaganda and thus lost hold of that which makes the religious domain unique and distinctive. In other words, he went too far out on a branch and fell into another property without bothering to acknowledge that he was then in another, qualitatively different domain with its own criteria.

Crucially, the political domain is based on this realm, whereas, as Pseudo-Dionysius wrote, the divine transcends the limits of human cognition, perception, and sensibility (emotion). Whereas the political domain is compatible with humanism, religious transcendence, having a transcendent reference point (e.g., God), is not based in, and thus limited to our realm, which is in the principle of possibility within the limits of human conception, perception, and sensibility. The two domains—the political and the religious—are thus qualitatively different. To remake the latter too much of this realm is to deny the radical transcendence that renders the religious domain unique. In depicting the Kingdom of God in overt political terms wherein social, economic, and political inequalities are treated as the problem and the Kingdom as a particular political-economic system, or structure, Liberation Theology risks denying the distinctly religious transcendence that is in the kingdom preached by Jesus in the Gospels. No where in those stories does Jesus design an equitable economic system, for his Father’s kingdom is of the heart rather than political economy. Similarly, Jesus does not justify the Roman, or any other empire, for his orientation is to reverting hearts back to God. Kirill’s attempt to justify the Russian empire from a Christian standpoint can thus be regarded not only as dogmatic in the sense of being arbitrary, but also besides the point, lying in another domain of human experience.

At a basic level, the religious domain can be said to be unique, and thus distinct from other domains qualitatively rather than just by degrees of difference, because of the transcendent basis that is not based within our realm wherein we think, perceive, and feel. The experience of religious transcendence is thus unique. Kirill strayed from this by climbing so far out on a tree branch (limb) that he fell into someone else’s yard and started telling the people there how their game is properly to be played. Any player in the indigenous group there could not be blamed for exclaiming to the prelate, Excuse me? You don’t know how to play our game because it is taught only here, not where you come from. You are off-sides.

---

1. Jorge Liboreiro, “Oil, Cod, Kirill: Friction Points Emerge in New E.U. Sanctions Against Russia,” Euronews.com, 26 June, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

Magnifica Humanitas: On Leo the Lion-Hearted

Sometimes it pays to go behind a piece of writing to conduct a genealogy of the writer himself or herself, rather than to dive into the writing itself. On May 25, 2026, the fourteenth Pope Leo of the Roman Catholic Church spoke at the Vatican on his first “social” encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas (magnificent humanity), which he had signed ten days earlier. An encyclical is known as a teaching (magisterium) instrument used by the papacy to communicate the Church’s position on a topic. In presenting his encyclical, the pope “described the current technological revolution as an ‘epochal turning point’ comparable to the upheaval confronted by Pope Leo XIII during the industrial Revolution.”[1] That pope’s emphasis on the ethical dimension of an economy, especially with regard to inequality and the related marginalization, was the reason why Robert Prevost chose the name Leo when he accepted the vote in favor of him becoming the next pope after Francis, another social-justice-oriented pope. Lions may indeed come late in the summer, or, sadly, not at all (for even willful, bullying Leos can actually be cowardly, as in Oz), but Leo XIV was already charging voraciously ahead in May, consummating his nomenclature-rationale in words that ensconced his Church firmly in the twenty-first century (in utter contrast to Joe Ratzinger’s antiquarian corrupt administration). All of the media buzz aside, however, if the previous Pope Leo (XIII) actually had had little or no normative influence on what would be harsh (even child!) labor conditions later in the first half of the twentieth century in Europe and North America, then a clear-eyed observer in 2026 could already be skeptical as to the practical significance of Magnifica Humanitas on managers and programmers in Silicon Valley going forward. Moreover, the foray of religion onto AI technology, and even ethics, the latter of which is distinct from albeit related to religion, can be criticized as an instance of dogmatic over-reaching.

Already, U.S. President Trump had dismissed that pope’s disavowal of war in the context of the U.S. and Israel bombing Iran, saying that that pope knew nothing about foreign policy (and thus should have kept his mouth shut). The same could be said of the pope’s (or any religious cleric’s) knowledge of AI. Even though applied ethics is one of my academic fields, for example, I have not written on medical ethics because I do not have a bachelor’s degree (i.e., the MD) from a school of medicine; instead, I have written on political ethics because historical political theory is one of my doctoral fields, on business ethics because I have the MBA (and BS) degree, and on philosophy (and ethics) of religion because I have graduate degrees in religious studies and theology.  Having taken only one course in computer programming in college, I assiduously avoid getting “into the weeds” in applying historical ethical theories to AI, for overreaching into any domain beyond a person’s ken would render one susceptible to the hypertrophy of one’s own ideological opinion primped up as knowledge, or worse, truth.

Moreover, the pope unwittingly opened himself up to the charge of having overstepped the domain of religion by pontificating on AI ethics. Implying that the human-God relation, which transcends even existentialism, somehow translates into a particular ethical stance on something as secular as computer technology is arguably dogmatic in the sense of being arbitrary. In the thirst to be relevant on every contemporary issue, a religious functionary can easily lose sight of the big picture, and even his own ring.

It is significant that Pope Francis chastised bishops in the U.S. for their obsession on two social issues, as if religious faith were an ideological prejudice. The opportunity cost of such a normative orientation lies in the distinctly theological alternative focus on soteriology (and Christology). In the Gospels, Jesus is silent on abortion and homosexuality, so it is strange (at best) that some Roman Catholic bishops have made those issues definitive for church memberships being in good standing (e.g., receiving the Eucharist).

What is the soteriology of AI? Even were AI computers sentient (i.e., self-aware, as to themselves as entities, and with their own motives that involve beliefs and even feelings), what would that have to do with a human being’s salvation before God? That there are threats facing us in our lives in this world is just part of the human condition, even biologically. Even were war and poverty eliminated by enlightened public governance, soteriology would remain as an issue as long as an abyss separates us from God. Put another way, even were there no threats to us in life, it would still be difficult to follow in Christ’s footsteps in responding compassionately even (and especially!) to people we detest. A cowardly lion would have utter disdain for such “weakness,” and would thus remain adamant in refusing to forgive. But as Esther, Ben Hur’s eventual love-interest, remarks in the film, Ben-Hur (1959), when Ben Hur tells her of his thirst for revenge against Messala, a young rabbi has been preaching, “forgiveness is greater, and love is more powerful than hatred.” The opposite of love is not hate, but, rather, indifference, so the seemingly solid fortification of hatred can indeed be dissipated if there is the will, and love. Even without the threat of AI, letting go of one’s hatred as well as the default assumption that making the first move at reconciliation is humiliating rather than a manifestation of strength is difficult.

Although Nietzsche claims that forgetfulness in place of memory is essential in forgiving other people, I submit that even forgetting what a past argument was about is not sufficient for a person to overcome the instinctual assumption and habit of avoidance once that is well-grooved. A few months before writing this essay, I made the first move in restoring a friendship, and having forgotten what we had argued about two years earlier was not sufficient for me to use free-will to stop when passing him to say hello, to which he reciprocated, which led to subsequent socializing. We both subsequently related this to the forgiveness, and the related “peace be with you,” which are so very salient in the Gospels. Interestingly, the experience itself of reproachment led me to consider the guy a long-standing, good friend to whom I could open up about myself even though he and I had not been on speaking terms since arguing about who-knows-what.

In this essay winding up here, have you noticed that I have not analyzed, pro or con, the pope’s teachings on AI? Besides, I am not competent to pontificate on computer technology—which I both enjoy and am frustrated by (the compound, uneasy feeling of which may be what prompts exogenous pontificating on AI by some), and I am probably going to hell anyway to be devoured by angry lions for having criticized a pope Leo who pounced on a reticent Silicon Valley in May. Lions don’t come in late summer in California, after all.

---

1, Linda Bordoni, “Pope Leo Presents ‘Magnifica Humanitas’ Calling for Disarmament of AI,” Vatican News, 25 May, 2026.

Religion and Politics: On the Catholic Church’s Just War Theory

In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as an idealist, even other-worldly, from the standpoint of the political domain. To be sure, he knows how to alienate the Temple hierarchy enough to be put to death, but he stays clear of the Zealots in their militaristic rebelliousness against the Roman occupation. Give what it Caesar’s unto Caesar. The just-war theory developed by Augustine and Aquinas seeks to bring that gap—to make the idealist of the Gospels more relevant practically to the politics of international relations. To be sure, Jesus’s refusal to join the Zealots—symbolized by Jesus including Romans among those whom he heals—could be used to argue convincingly that attention to compassion for one’s enemy makes impossible even any just war. Jesus is just as idealistic in the story of the rich man who will not give up his wealth to follow Jesus—it is harder for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man (who will not give up his wealth to follow God) to enter the Kingdom of God, whose very substance spiritually is epitomized by compassion to one’s enemies, according to the American theologian, Samuel Hopkins. So, Pope Leo was on solid ground in April, 2026 in the midst of the U.S.-Iran War when he emphatically insisted that Jesus would oppose any war—not just any unjust one—but where does that leave the Catholic Church’s just war theory as promulgated by two theological giants, Augustine and Aquinas?

The just war theory “sets out strict conditions for the moral use of military force. The threat must be lasting, grave and certain, and success must be realistically achievable. Most importantly, all other means of resolution must be genuinely exhausted, and the harm caused must not exceed the harm it seeks to prevent.”[1] World War II against Nazi Germany would certainly qualify, given the severity of the Nazi threat in Europe both within and outside of that empire, and the force of the Allies combined as against that of Germany. Nevertheless, the Catholic doctrine can be viewed in relation to Gandhi’s prescription of moral rather than military force set against the Nazis should they have invaded India. Jesus in the Gospels furnishes yet another alternative: reaching out to be compassionate even to Nazi soldiers in response to the humane needs even while voicing opposition to the Nazi regime. In these terms, the Catholic just war theory looks rather militaristic, although clearly not in terms of “anything goes.” Israel’s holocaustic genocide of the people of Gaza would obviously fly in the face of even just war, given the extreme disproportionality in Israel’s over-reaction to the earlier attack by Hamas in which only about 1,200 Israelis had died. Even in bombing Iran and Lebanon, Israel did not even attempt all other means of resolution, and in fact dismissed even the American brief cease-fire during in the spring of 2026. So too, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could not be counted as just according to the Catholic theory, as the invasion was unprovoked and President Putin had not attempted other means of resolution; his goal, after all, was to restore the Russian Empire of Catherine the Great. Such a naked power-grab cannot be reckoned as just, and in fact manifests Hobbes’ state of nature rather than anything normative.

It was in the context of Russia’s invasion, Israel’s genocide, and America’s bombing of Iran that Pope Leo became speaking in strong words against what was becoming a world order characterized by Hobbes’ state of nature in which life can be expected to be short and brutish. The pope’s criticism of the American bombings thus had larger implications than merely to pressure the Trump administration to resort exclusively to negotiation rather than deadly force. Three bullies on the world stage were literally getting away with murder on a mass scale, while the UN and the International Criminal Court by in large could only stand by and proffer impotent verbal rebukes. As could be expected, the Pope’s opposition to the new status quo was like a lightening rod for the bullies.

Even though U.S. Vice President Vance was schooled in politics rather than in theology, and had only years before even converted to Catholicism, he warned the pope to “be careful when he talks about matters of theology.”[2] I’m sure that rebuke from a recent convert went down well at the Vatican. Abstractly, the over-reaching epistemologically and in terms of praxis of the political domain onto the religious one, supervening the innate criteria and knowledge exclusive to the latter domain, implies a category mistake and even a conflation of the two distinct domains as if they were a seamless whole. President Trump’s comments that the pope was “weak on crime” and “terrible on foreign policy” even covered over the theological domain entirely with political pavement. The pope had used distinctly theological, rather than just moral, not to mention political, language to criticize the American use of military force as stemming from the delusion of omnipotence and self-idolatry. Trump’s earlier threat to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” was thus “truly unacceptable” from a distinctly theological standpoint (as well as moral one).[3]

In short, even though there was arguably some daylight between the Catholic just war theory and Pope Leo’s assertion that Jesus of the Gospels opposes war itself, it is not as if that theory permits any and all wars. To be sure, especially up against the Hobbesian state of nature, a normative constraint without powerful enforcement can safely be ignored by bullies on the world stage. Theology is distinct from the political realm, and this point is clear in the Gospels as Jesus distances himself from even the Zealots. Hence compassion even (and especially) to enemies and detractors can take place under Christian auspices even against enemies during a war. Vance’s warning to the pope about the latter’s attempt to do theology is thus ludicrous. Moreover, the pope’s alleged pacifism, which is arguably in line with Jesus of the Gospels, implies that the Church’s just war theory may need to be thought with more attention to the Gospels and less to trying to be relevant in the political domain. The world was arguably careening away from the message of peace through forgiveness and compassion that is in the Gospels in break-neck speed, and Pope Leo’s decision to use stronger, more direct theological language reflects just how potentially dangerous the collapse of the post-World War II world order was, as government officials around the world merely looked as at least three bullies were setting up a very different kind of world “order,” one of “(military)might makes right” in which even the legal fiction of international law is wantonly ignored with utter impunity. Antipodally, just because Jesus’s preachments on how the Kingdom of God can be realized here and now could have a significant impact on international relations does not mean the theological domain is the same as, or reduces to, the political domain. Ironically, were the Catholic Church to replace its just war theory with Pope Leo’s statement that Jesus can not be used to justify war itself, this more idealistic move could have a more significant impact on the world both interpersonally and between governments because the ideal of compassion even to enemies would be highlighted from the theological vantage point.

---

1. Aleksandar Brezar, “White House vs the Pope: What Is Behind the Clash and Catholic Just War Doctrine?” Euronews.com, 17 April, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

The Scarlet and the Black

In the film, The Scarlet and the Black (1983), Gregory Peck and Christopher Plummer face off as Monsignor Hugh O’Flaherty and Col. Herbert Kapper at the end of the film when the Nazi head of police in Rome abruptly changes his tune in challenging the Catholic priest no longer by threats, but by appealing to the priest’s faith of humble compassion applied even to one’s enemies so O’Flaherty will extend mercy to Kapper’s wife and children, who would otherwise fall into the hands of the Allied troops advancing into Rome. Before that dialogue, O’Flaherty and Pope Pius XII subtly debate whether the pope had been right in compromising with Hitler in order to keep the Catholic Church intact in Nazi Germany. The film can thus be viewed in light of the potential of the medium of film to convey and even thrash out contending theological ideas.

The full essay is at "The Scarlet and the Black."

The Apocalypse

In the film, The Apocalypse (2002), the Apostle John is a prisoner at an island-prison because he is a Christian. He is having visions of heaven in the last of days and Valerio, another prisoner is dutifully writing what John dictates so various church congregations can know of John’s revelations. He is esteemed so much by other Christians that he feels pressure to steer them to God’s truth. Too much esteem, I submit, is being directed to John, as he is, as he admits, only a human being, though he does get caught up in his own direct access to God, as in being able to know the will of God. This is a temptation for any religionist, especially religious leaders. Although subtly, the film conveys John’s over-reaches though without having another character explicitly refer to them as such.

The full essay is at "The Apocalypse."

Hope Gap: A Critique of Institutional Religion

Organized or institutional religion as the Roman Catholic Church is in the background in the 2019 European film, Hope Gap. Even with such names as Grace and Angela, religious connotations are present. In fact, the film can be interpreted, at least in part, as a critique on religion in general and Catholicism in particular. The medium of film can indeed play a vital role in critiquing sacred cows from the vantagepoint of an oblique angle or a safe distance.

The full essay is at "Hope Gap."

Spirituality in the Workplace: Hindu and Christian Strategies

Mohan Vilas, a Hindu monk at Govardha Ecovillage, spoke at Harvard’s Bhakti Yoga Conference in 2025. He had gone from the world of financial derivatives to worshipping Krishna. Once he had fulfilled his “lower needs,” he looked for more. After obtaining a M.B.A. and while working in finance, he was hungry for knowledge beyond the world of business. So he studied ancient Vedic culture. His talk at the conference was on being an idealist surrounded by strategists. He addressed the question of whether the world allows individuals to practice virtue. Even when a person is not in a dysfunctional workplace or in a hostile society, the human mind struggles, Vilas said, to apply ethical virtues. Plato’s dictum that to know the good is enough do the good, and thus to be good, may be wildly optimistic, considering the instinctual force of urges in our nature to act immorally, even though other people are harmed as a result. It is even more difficult to get into a habit of doing good while “swimming upstream” in an ethically compromised workplace or an aggressive societal culture. An ethical Russian or Israeli soldier in the mid-2020s, for example, would have a lot of trouble refusing to bomb hospitals in Ukraine and Gaza, respectively, and, moreover, invading another country and withholding food so to starve an occupied group. Such a soldier would be intolerable to both Putin and Netanyahu, respectively. Vilas’s question is the following: What happens when a person who is good is put into a selfish society? Must an ethical person finally inevitably exit a culture that rewards narrow selfishness, passive-aggression and deception?

Dostoevsky wrote when Russia was in crisis. In The Idiot, Prince Myshkin is an idealist who refuses to corrupt himself. It comes with a price: isolation.  If a society rejects moral purity, then what is valued? Myshkin is surrounded by schemers, but he is good nonetheless. His mere existence exposes the hypocrisy of those who are around him. He is identified as a problem by the corrupt. He is upsetting the balance in the social setting. He is viewed an active disturbance to be destroyed. If this sounds familiar, Jesus in the Gospel narratives is in the same dynamic. The very presence of an idealist is intolerable to sordid people who are used to manipulating other people. Being good is not beneficial in a dysfunctional societal (or organizational) culture in which cunningness is valued. Those who play fairly have a disadvantage relative to the corrupt manipulators because the latter have made the rules.

So, an idealist may be tempted to be a savvy Machiavellian strategist. Machiavelli wrote The Prince for rulers in a harsh international context. Not many people realize that his History of Florence includes the element of morality. Similarly, Adam Smith wrote not only The Wealth of Nations, but also The Theory of Moral Sentiments, the latter in which the professor of moral philosophy based his ethical theory founded on impartial sentiments in making moral judgments. However, Smith does not maintain that participants in a marketplace should be expected to act according to how others impartially feel about business conduct. Instead, the amoral and impersonal mechanism of “the invisible hand” gives aggregated self-interests of participants the unintended societal benefit of people working and obtaining goods and services. Smith accepts that market participants are self-seeking economic agents engaged in buying and selling rather than in being concerned for the economic welfare of others. That the invisible hand efficiently allocates goods and services in a competitive marketplace, which is a benefit of self-interests interacting, does not institute ethical business conduct by participants. In spite of the empirical studies claiming that acting ethically in business pays off financially, imperfect information can enable the unscrupulous to thrive.

Historically, Quakers in Europe and North America were known to be honest in business, and so they enjoyed trustworthy reputations.  This is not something that Smith counted on in writing about market competition in Wealth of Nations.

Even if Christianity had to some extend fostered ethical conduct, I submit that the advent of secularity in the West meant that the voluntary adoption of religious ethics in business could be less and less relied on. In India, I doubt that many Hindu merchants mimic the lack of concern for consequences in doing one’s caste’s duties that Krishna advocates to Arjuna concerning fighting in a military battle in the Bhagavad-Gita. A merchant could well protest that ignoring consequences in managing a business is a recipe for how to go out of business, in which case no one could get the goods or services provided by the business. It is more realistic to urge that the compassion enjoined by Krishna be practiced in the workplace, even if the workplace culture is toxic, and towards customers. Similarly, compassion to one’s detractors, as preached by Jesus in the Gospels, could gradually detoxify a dysfunctional organizational culture. Much stronger medicine, however, is expounded by Samuel Hopkins, who was a protégé of the Christian theologian of New England, Jonathan Edwards, in a book on holiness. Whereas Edwards, in his sermon, “The Portion of the Righteous,” maintains that the elect are to enter the kingdom of God only after the Last Judgment (i.e., Christ’s Second Coming), Hopkins interprets the kingdom of God as being accessible to a person before physical death in so far as one is kind and compassionately helpful to people who dislike one and whom one dislikes.  This version goes beyond the benevolentia universalis of generalized “neighbor-love,” and can be much more powerful spiritually in turning around a passive-aggressive organizational culture. Inconvenient compassion issuing out in acts of kindness takes much more effort, as the internal resistance is more, but, if done, the spiritual and psychological dynamic between two or more people can be utterly transformed.

Realistically, however, good-hearted idealists can be all-too-easily “eaten up” by sharks that thrive in hostile, back-stabbing organizational cultures. Sometimes it is best to vote with one’s feet kick off the dirt from one’s sandals, and find another workplace in which to work. Life is too short to stay where one is hated and otherwise where too many people are hateful. In this regard, I found Yale and New Haven, Connecticut to be beyond repair in 2025. That the university’s police chief, who was Christian minister and alumnus of Yale’s divinity school, had accepted the invitation of the FBI to show Yale’s private police unit how to use counter-terrorism tactics on students, post-doctoral researchers, faculty and presumably even alumni back auditing a course, and that security guards were regularly spying on students on campus was enough for me to pull the plug. I even asked if it was possible to refuse a degree already granted. This was greeted with a passive-aggressive refusal to reply to my email. So, I voted with my feet and returned to Harvard. Better to vote on principle than stay and be inflicted with passive-aggression sans organizational accountability.

Regarding employees of organizations, whether private, governmental, or non-profit, walking away, if done by more people in dysfunctional organizations, could have an “Adam Smith” kind of impact whereby organizations having toxic workplaces go under while healthy organizations prosper. Voting with one’s feet in employment is utilized too seldomly because of the financial uncertainty involved, especially in cases in which an employee quits one job before having secured another. Even if doing one’s duty by performing functions of one’s caste, including that of merchants, is valued, this does not mean that a Hindu is duty-bound to remain working in a dysfunctional company. A person need not choose between Shankara’s method of total renunciation and staying in a toxic organization. A person can both remain employed and exercise enough initiative to get out of a bad working situation and into a healthy organization.

Peacemaking and Hierarchy at Pope Francis’s Funeral

Sitting hunched forward, facing an also-hunched-forwardUkand very intense President Zelensky of Ukraine, both men’s unadorned chairs being surrounded by bald yet beautiful marble-floor in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican just before the funeral of Pope Francis, U.S. President Trump sought to close a deal that would end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Pope Francis would have been proud. Perhaps the pope, who had tirelessly preached an end to the militarized aggression not only in Ukraine, but also in Gaza, would have been even more proud had Russian President Putin been there too, hunched forward with his rivals to make peace, but that president was wanted by the International Criminal Court on allegations of having committed war crimes in Ukraine. Enemies making peace, and even extending in acts of compassion are necessary to gaining access into the kingdom of God, as preached by Jesus Christ in the Gospel faith-narratives.

The fact that both Trump and Zelensky were staring eye-ball to eye-ball, finally getting down to real business rather than insults and even talking points, is itself progress. That U.S. President Trump subsequently formally shook hands with E.U. President Von der Leyen is also something the dead pope would have liked, though he would likely have preferred the E.U. leader to have been sitting with the two other presidents when they had been discussing a deal for 15 minutes just before the funeral.

That the E.U.’s president had deferred to the governors of some large states, such as France, to take the lead for the entire E.U. left the U.S. president without the balance that the E.U. president could have supplied concerning the value in holding onto the principle of territorial sovereignty applied to Ukraine, lest otherwise invading another country unprovoked could be rewarded de facto. Fortunately, Trump furnished some balance himself in observing on the trip back to Washington, D.C., “There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities and towns, over the last few days. It makes me think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently, through ‘Banking’ or ‘Secondary Sanctions?’ Too many people are dying!!!”[1] To be sure, that Zelensky was willing to sign an exclusive mineral-rights contract with the United States was not lost on the business-oriented American president, mais sans doute, c’est la vie en les États-Unis. In spite of the American pecuniary interest, Pope Francis would have been pleased with President Trump for sticking up for Ukrainian civilians.

Ironically, the pope would perhaps have been less pleased with the way the Vatican arranged the viewing of his corpse and his funeral because of the extent of hierarchy terms of proximity of viewership. During the three days of public viewing in St. Peter’s Basilica, ushers wearing suits kept the ordinary people moving, while ushers wearing tuxedos greeted the line of people inside the temporary barrier as they passed through and maybe sat on chairs for a while. By the later folks, I am not referring to heads of state or Catholic clergy primarily, for most of the “very important persons” were rather ordinarily dressed, and this made the suit versus tuxedo distinction look pretentious and fake, and thus as an artifact from a desire to put some groups of people above others beyond what merit would legitimate. Were the deceased pope’s spirit watching and able to speak to the living there, the recommendation would likely have been that if there has to be a hierarchy, then give the poor parishioners of the Rome diocese the best view, and the most connected people the worst view, with the people who had known the pope being situated somewhere in the middle. So too at the funeral, sections spanned out from those seating the most important people—the Cardinals and visiting heads of state and prime ministers—to those sections seating priests and then finally the general public in the very back. I hope some of those people had binoculars.

During the funeral, the most important people sat in the two squares at far-right, while the general public sat in the eclipse at far-left, many of whom did not even have a direct view of the altar, which was under the small white square, far-right, between the Cardinals and the government dignataries. There is even a slight color difference between the two squares (center) opposite the two light-colored priest-squares. Visually, all this was hierarchy to the maximus, contra benevolentia universalis. 

That the value behind Jesus’s preachment that (most of) the first are last and the last are first, is worthy of being put into practice even by a pope was not lost on Pope Francis, who spoke truth to power and on behalf of the poor and marginalized. It is unfortunate, therefore, that power and prestige, connections and wealth, had the best seats at that pope’s funeral and the closest viewing of the open coffin during the three days of viewing. I think the pope would have been surprised and pleased were the most well-dressed ushers tasked with greeting the general public passing in front of the barricades, while other ushers, wearing mere suits, tasked with directing the insiders.

Perhaps the fact that that having the general public behind the smaller area of viewing better suits the larger number of people in the public group in terms of space. This in turn indicates that hierarchy is to some extent, absent the distinction of suits and tuxedos, natural, for fewer people could be accommodated inside of the barriers, whereas more people would not fit there. Also, perhaps people who had known the pope in person deserved a chair and a longer look than, say, a tourist passing through Rome. Nietzsche considered hierarchy to be natural for human beings. But it can also be argued that human organizations can take the matter of differential preferences too far. The tuxedo/suit dichotomy is a clear example of artificial rather than natural hierarchy.

That a small number of people representing marginalized groups, such as transsexuals, had been set up in front of the burial church to “greet” the arriving coffin is not enough to evince Jesus’s teaching. In fact, situating officially marginal groups at such a marginal part of the day’s events actually cements the groups’ marginal status in the public consciousness. Bringing marginalized groups, including victims of military aggression in Ukraine and Gaza, that had been particularly dear to Pope Francis to view the casket at the Vatican in front of the temporary barriers would have sent a very different message. In the case of transexuals, the Cardinal-in-charge could have practiced kindness to one's enemy and that the last are first. The combination of these two principles lies at the core of Jesus's preaching on the kingdom of God, which Jesus emphasizes in the Gospels. Faith in Jesus as God is for naught, Paul wrote, if there is not love, and he and Augustine insisted that God itself is love. I would add that agape (self-emptying) love is evinced not only metaphysically, but also in the practice of the two spiritual principles. Come on, guys, be bold; turn the world on its head; it may finally see itself for what it is, and even that an alternative paradigm is possible. In the Gospels, Jesus dies for that paradigm, and yet you still don't get it. The blind following the blind gets nowhere.

Perhaps it is to compensate for an innate human instinct to extenuate hierarchy that the Roman Catholic religious organization should attempt to apply Jesus’s teaching that recognizes the last, including the marginalized, as first, and the first as last. With compassion and peacemaking with one’s enemies, putting the last first can be said to be an excellent means to indwelling the spirit of the kingdom of God, which does not operate in the ways of the world, but as God would analogously would like to see the world. Reflecting the worldly excessiveness of hierarchy rather than instantiating a counter-example, the high-ranking Vatican clergy-officials can legitimately be accused of failing as disciples and even of hypocrisy. At least they were willing to give space for two political leaders to try to get to a deal that would end a long war that had already been so destructive of civilians in Ukraine. The deceased pope would have been proud.

---

1. Darlene Superville and Aamer Madhani, “Trump Expresses Doubts Putin Is Willing to End the Ukraine War, A Day After Saying a Deal Was Close,” AP News.com, April 26, 2025.

A Bishop's Partisanship Overshadows Her Christianity

On the first full day of U.S. President Trump’s second term, the president and vice president attended a multi-faith prayer service at the National Cathedral. Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde delivered the sermon on what is necessary for imperfect political unity in a country such as the United States. I contend that in trying to influence the president on immigration policy in a partisan way, she undercut the credibility of her message that there is strength in loving rather than retaliating against one’s detractors and even political enemies. The sacrifice of which she spoke concerning being kind in reaching out in humanity to people we dislike could be applied to herself in resisting the temptation to be partisan. That she lapsed at the expense of Jesus’ most important message is particularly striking.

Rev. Budde claimed that recognizing the dignity of even one’s enemies as being worthy of respect is one of three elements in achieving an admittedly imperfect (for we are imperfect beings) political unity, which in turn can be understood as “a way of being with one another.” To hold different perspectives or opinions as “valid and worthy of respect” does not require agreeing with them, and it is indeed permissible to proffer corrections on faulty reasoning. Such differences can exist within a deeper political unity if there is also compassion with another person’s humanity, as in the context of natural disasters.

Helping another person even though dislike exists in either or both directions involves sacrificial love as we give of ourselves for the sake of others, regardless of whom they voted for in the last election. In his Sermon on the Mount, the priest said, Jesus advocates loving not just our neighbors, but to love our enemies. Such love can seem vague, and the term “enemies” can easily be dismissed as too extreme to apply as the term does not include people who simply don’t like us or whom we don’t like. Being willing to be compassionate and kind in not just sympathizing, but also helping even people whom we regard as assholes is none other than the content of the kingdom of God, according to Samuel Hopkins, an American theologian who followed his relative, Jonathan Edwards, in the First Great Awakening. God is incarnate in our world in the interpersonal dynamic that only exists when a person disregards dislike in choosing to respond in kindness to another person’s needs when doing so is inconvenient interpersonally.   Valuing this divine presence in the world and enabling it to manifest by helping out in humaneness is something that anyone can value without necessarily believing in a god-man. Indeed, the litmus test in Christianity could be changed in line with this focus on the kingdom of God, whose mysteries Jesus says in the Gospels he came to discuss. Put another way, were actual acts of kindness to people who have been rude or even mean the focus for Christian intention, interpersonal peace might just break out as from a mustard seed. The world would change dramatically, and a president could lead the way by example.

Had the priest left her message at that, the impact would have been greater than it was, but she went on to bring up Jesus’ position on societal outcastes in order to beg President Trump to have mercy on people in the United States who have entered illegally. Reminding the president of Jesus welcoming outcastes in the Gospels, she pleaded for mercy on the hard-working people in the U.S. who don’t “have the proper documentation” to be in the country but “are not criminals.” I submit that not having the proper documents is a function of having broken U.S. law, and thus being criminals by entering the U.S. illegally. The problem lies not with documents, but with the willful decision to enter another country without permission, which, I submit is rather presumptuous. To label this as not criminal is not only incorrect factually, but glosses over the sheer presumption in sneaking into another country. I submit that the attitude of “laws don’t apply to me” is indeed presumptuous, and in fact is inconsistent with being in a society at all. For it is only in a Hobbesian state of nature that laws do not apply.

So, I submit that by “getting political” in a misleading or artful way, the priest undercut the immense credibility that lies in the strength of forgiveness by helping out people who have been most unkind—a kind of strength that is often dismissed in the political world, as it is by the Romans in the Gospels. In his writings, Nietzsche argues that this sort of strength is actually weakness. He even points out how it is preached as a means of gaining power over the politically strong. This is exactly what the priest was doing in trying to make the president feel guilty for objecting to people whose first act in the U.S. was to break its laws by entering illegally. That they have no right to be in the U.S. does not undercut their dignity, for they have done that themselves in audaciously sneaking into a country (or staying beyond a court date). The priest herself said that honesty is a major element of political unity.  

Unfortunately, the focus was not on whether serving the humanity of even political adversaries in acts of kindness rather than seeking retribution constitutes strength or weakness. Christianity stands for the former, whereas Nietzsche provides a counter-argument wherein the religion is useful for the weak who are not strong enough to be politically powerful. It could be that valuing not only turning the other cheek, but responding to the humanity of detractors in acts of kindness is the or ought to be the definitive litmus test by which a person can decide in the privacy of one’s own heart whether one is a Christian. Were this the focus of the religion, then the earthly city might really change. Being opportunistic in seeking political influence, on the other hand, is unfortunately already well-ensconced, and is thus easily recognizable.  

Pope Francis: Urbi et Orbi against War

Although Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic Church could not amass a countervailing military force, he could use his pulpit to excoriate the world’s military aggressors in moral terms. Gone are the days when popes wielded military forces and whose threats of excommunication and damnation could be used with effect; modern-day popes speaking to a global audience, which includes non-Christians (not to mention non-Catholics), must resort to moral suasion. So it is ironic that as unprovoked military attacks on civilians have become more massive and increasingly against the norm expected of governments, the influence of popes has decreased, both militarily and theologically, in international affairs. Even so, Pope Francis was able to appeal to a theological belief and value in Christianity during his Christmas Day, 2024 public address at the Vatican. Although not in itself enough to thwart the invasions and related crimes against humanity in Gaza especially, but also in Ukraine, the main impact may be said to be in throwing some light on just how antipodal Russia’s President Putin and Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu were from the distinctively Christian the kingdom of God, both as a concept and a spiritual reality fundamentally at odds with the ways of the world. In other words, there is value in the world being able to grasp that two degrees of separation exist between military invaders intent on harming and killing innocent civilians and the kingdom of God as described in the Gospels by Jesus.

The full essay is at "Pope Francis's Christmas Urbi et Orbi Message."

Church of the Peripheries

One of the leitmotifs of the four Christian Gospels is the surprising value of peripheries even over people who are up front, whether politically, economically, socially, and even atop religious institutions. “The last are first, and (most of) the first are last” is a Biblical staple for Christians. In terms of compassion, the value being espoused here is consistent with Jesus’s preachment that compassion to one’s detractors and even sworn enemies is the way into the spiritual Kingdom of God, which, being within a person and between people in the spirit of inconvenient love/compassion, is at hand rather than pending Christ’s Second Coming. This point is dramatically made in the film, Mary Magdalene. It was also made in Pope Francis’s decision to skip the grand opening of Notre Dame in Paris and go instead to the French island of Corsica in December, 2024. In making this choice, the pope evinced distinctively Christian leadership, which can also be practiced by heads of governments and even CEOs.

Skipping an ornate state ceremony in Paris, Pope Francis went to a small Mediterranean island, “highlighting local traditions of popular piety on the one hand and migrant deaths and wars on the other.”[1] The symbolism of the trip thus goes beyond Corsica. “The Mediterranean is the backdrop of this trip, surrounded by situations of crisis and conflict,” Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni, said.[2] The notion and value of compassion that is inconvenient is especially welcome in the context of suffering, and, indeed, a person who oneself has suffered greatly may be particularly inclined to redress hate in the world with compassion. This is much more valuable than meeting with the president of a country.

Hence, rather than meeting French President Macron at his palace, the pope was scheduled to “meet privately with Macron at the airport before departing . . . back to Rome.”[3] The first are last. “The pontiff pointedly did not make the trip to Paris . . . for the pomp surrounding the reopening of the Notre Dame Cathedral following the devastating 2019 fire.”[4] Rather than going to Paris, the pope went to an island whose population numbers only 340,000 people. As they had been embroiled in pro-independence violence, the context there was ripe for soothing, compassionate attention. Like a good shepherd who goes after a lost lamb so it would not be eaten by a wolf, a good pastor goes to the periphery where fear can be expected to eclipse happiness and contentment. A good pastor shirks the contentment of pomp and lavish display in order to go to a sparce periphery.

So too, Macron could have followed suit, assuming he values Jesus’s example, by not only venturing into the poor suburbs of Paris, but also giving Corsica its political independence instead of limited autonomy. The island is closer to Italy anyway. Lessening violence is worth more, I submit, than attending a highbrow grand opening of Notre Dame. Rather than worship the spurious crown of thorns that was returned to the cathedral just after its opening, a Christian following in the pope’s footsteps would be more inclined to evince inconvenient compassion not only to strangers, but, even more so, to people who have been rude, rejecting, and even hateful to oneself.

Benevolentia universalis is commonly thought to be the epitome of Jesus’s life and teaching on how to enter the Kingdom of God; I submit that something more—something even more difficult—is needed to usher in the Kingdom in the world, one person at a time.  Put another way, “the last are first” can be interpreted not only as going to the least rather than the first in society (and in a church!), but also as treating one’s detractors as the last in the sense of being the first in receiving one’s compassion and even love. This is in sync with self-sacrifice and the difficult exercise of free-will, and thus with agape, self-emptying love that is uniquely the epitome of divinity in Christianity, and thus the religion’s real presence. Even in ritual reality, which is qualitatively different than metaphysical reality, agape itself is the real-presence being ritually sought and received. Once ingested, it is for naught if it does not issue outward in compassion to the most difficult of people rather than just to compliant strangers.

---

1. Daniel Bellamy, “Francis Becomes the First Pope to Visit the French Island of Corsica,” Euronews.com, December 15, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., italics added.

On the Role of Free Will in Redemption

The film, The Professor and the Madman (2019), is based on the true story of James Murray, the editor of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary in the 19^th century, and William Minor, who contributed over 10,000 entries. Minor, who suffered from schizophrenia, was at the time a patient at Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum for having killed Jack Merrett under the recurrent delusion of being chased. In the film, this narrative serves as the basis to explore whether even people who think they are unredeemable can nevertheless be redeemed, and thus freed, from their own guilt.

The full essay is "The Professor and the Madman."

True Confessions

The film True Confessions (1981) centers around a priest who is the heir-apparent and assistant of the cardinal of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California. Even though the priest is a precise bureaucrat and liturgist, I contend that he lapses in what can be said to be the true mission of a Christian priest, and thus in the essence of Christianity. Moreover, the film is deficient in not making this point explicit.

The full essay is at "True Confessions."

Pope Francis and the Traditionalist Opposition: Transcending Ideological Sides

Certainly by the close of 2023, a group of American Roman Catholic clerics, informally headed by Cardinal Raymond Burke (a traditionalist and legalist), were actively opposing Pope Francis. The problem for the members of the opposition faction was that, as traditionalists, they would take seriously the specific oath of obedience they had made to the pope and his successors. Lest such oaths be construed as only binding when they are convenient, which would effectively dissolve any binding, the traditionalist were at risk of being caught by their own hypocrisy. How to deal with such people? The pope had doubtless asked himself this very question on multiple occasions. How does enforcing the oath square with loving one’s detractors, even enemies? The American president Abraham Lincoln put his political rivals on his cabinet; should Pope Francis follow suit, or should he expunge his disloyal opposition and risk Burke’s charge of dictatorship? Does such a charge even make sense, however, given the oath of obedience? I submit that a Christian organization—any Christian organization—ought to be run not by the world’s methods, but according to a radically different kingdom, possible here and now, in the transformation of one’s own heart by serving, and even caring for, one’s detractors. Otherwise, a Christian organization is so in name only, and thus inherently hypocritical.

On November 11, 2023, Pope Francis removed Bishop Strickland from the office of Bishop of Tyler, Texas. The bishop had “been an outspoken critic of Pope Francis, challenging his leadership over social media and even daring Francis to fire him during an interview in 2020.”[1] To challenge the legitimacy of Pope Francis as head of the Roman Catholic Church is in direct conflict with the oath of obedience to whomever is the Vicar of Christ (i.e., the pope). Clearly, having “accused Francis of undermining the central teachings of the church, including on politically charged issues like abortion and same sex marriage,”[2] Strickland didn’t believe that the pope, or at least Pope Francis, stands as the Vicar of Christ to the Church. The bishop’s hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Along with the other American traditionalists, Strickland didn’t like Francis’ “focus on migrants and the climate crisis.”[3] Yet Strickland himself had been very ideological in posting anti-vaccine messages during the Covid pandemic and calling President Joe Biden an “evil president” over his support of abortion rights.”[4] To be sure, Francis’ choice of issues, including economic inequality and the environment, reflect a certain ideology, but the pope war right in his criticism of the American traditionalist clerics as too preoccupied with (human) ideology.

Both sides, and indeed even there being sides in this fight, could transcend ideology itself by letting go of all of the political issues and instead focusing on putting into practice what Jesus says and demonstrates in the Gospel narratives about how people should treat each other. Beyond neighbor love, and much more difficult, caring for opponents is how the Kingdom of God grows within and thus in the world, changing it fundamentally in the process, for faith without love is for naught, Paul wrote.

Although Pope Francis had “frequently turned the other cheek, going so far as to say he does not seek to crack down on opponents,” even appointing “to Vatican departments” people “who held different views than his own,” he decided that Cardinal Burke would “lose some of his privileges, reportedly including a subsidy for his 4,488-square-foot apartment and monthly stipend.”[5] Austen Ivereigh, a papal biographer, told CNN that while meeting the pope on November 27, 2023, “Francis told me he was taking away the apartment and salary of Cardinal Burke because he was using these privileges ‘against the church.’”[6] In what sense? “For so long, Cardinal Burke had been calling into question Francis’ authority and his teaching. This would be shocking in any organization, but particularly shocking in the Catholic Church, given the special role the papacy has in upholding unity,” Ivereigh said.[7]

I contend, however, that the pope should not only have resisted the temptation to take away his detractor’s privileges, but also could have been personally serving and caring for Burke on both a personal and a professional level. This does not mean agreeing with the Cardinal, or even promoting him to a cushy Vatican office; rather, it means going beyond the natural tendency to retaliate, and even less convenient route of turning the other cheek to actively love the Cardinal by caring for him as a human being, and in that way being a servant leader as Jesus is in the Gospel narratives. Doing nice things on a human level, such as volunteering to do some of his errands, like picking up dry cleaning for the Cardinal when he is busy, does not signal ideological agreement or capitulation. Rather, strength of the sort that Jesus evinces in the Gospels is shown. Not that there would be any publicity; the caring must be selfless. To be sure, this may be difficult, as we’re talking about a pope here, but perhaps he could have less visible people care for the Cardinal to make his life easier. In theological jargon, going beyond turning the other cheek to reach out to detractors and even enemies enables us to go beyond Augustine’s notion of caritas to the relatively selfless notion of agape.

Cardinal Burke also could have been acting in compassion for his ideological opponent. That the Cardinal too was a leader in the Church means that his efforts to help the pope personally would count as servant leadership. The matter of the oath of obedience would be transcended by selfless love operationalized as helping the older man with life’s challenges. What use is jousting over which ideological issues get the microphone of the Church if its very leaders are resentful and angry at each other and thus evince not Jesus’ way but that of the Romans and the Sanhedrin? If an organization can be characterized as being hypocritical, then what’s the point? Hasn’t the institution already lost? 

Lest it be concluded that such a response would only encourage more dissent, it might, but the things being fought over would be relativized—transcended as the Church goes from ideological agendas to focus on something deeper: ultimately, the spiritual feeling that God is present in a very curious way in interpersonal relations run contrary to egos. Hopefully, eventually such love that is not at all convenient, if earnest and sincere, would seep into the fabric of the institution and transform it into something that Jesus would recognize. Gradually, the focus would shift from political ideological agendas on both sides to behaving as Jesus advocates in the Gospel. This would be the focus. A spiritual experience in interpersonal relations would be increasingly felt and even valued and thus the movement would gain traction. The Kingdom of God would be growing as if from a mustard seed. Although hopefully not motivated to serve as a model, the pope’s change of course could rub off on local bishops and parish priests around the globe, as they start to help out those parishioners and employees who have been “pains in the ass.” It is easy to care for, and in this sense serve, friends; it is not easy to enter the Kingdom of God, as it is antithetical to the ways of the world. People who would view Francis as strong for caring for Burke are the authentic Christians, whereas even believers in Jesus who infer weakness and even capitulation on Francis’ part are not Christian. This is admittedly a different litmus test than the one that has enjoyed hegemony throughout the history of Christianity, and the two can lead to different verdicts concerning the same person.

---

1, Raja Razek, “Pope Removes Outspoken Conservative Texas Bishop after Investigation,” CNN.com, November 11, 2023.
2, Christopher Lamb, “Pope Francis Takes on Unprecedented Attacks from American Opponents,” CNN.com, December 13, 2023.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.

Gay Pride and Evangelical Christianity

Taylor Swift, an American singer and cultural icon in 2023, spoke “out against anti-queer legislation” during a concert in early June. “We can’t talk about Pride Month without talking about pain. There have been so many harmful pieces of legislation that have put [gay people] at risk. It’s painful for everyone. Every ally. Every loved one . . . ,” she said.[1] So much hurt. The level of intensity on both sides of the moral, political, and religious issue motivated me to go to a parade to see for myself. When I arrived at the one in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the morning, I thought the issue was mostly political; by the time the parade began, religion had clearly trumped the political. A small but vocal group of evangelical Christians and a larger group of young women wearing and carrying gay flags (in part to hide the Christians) were shouting at each other in utter futility of noise. What if people would use religion to dissolve the religious and political anger and even tension instead of stoking them? I contend that both sides missed an opportunity for interpersonal peace that could have grown like a mustard seed to take hold among combatants in a variety of contentious issues in the world.

The tension in the "culture wars" had been building in the United States and by 2023 was palpable. The U.S. Supreme Court’s returning the matter of abortion to the States had given Republican legislators in conservative states the confidence to pass anti-gay laws. In early March, 2023, for example, the Tennessee legislature passed and the governor signed a law prohibiting “male or female impersonators” from performing on public property or where the performances can be seen by children.[2] They are too impressionable, so the assumption went, to see men wearing dresses. One concern voiced by opponents of the law was that the content of drag shows, in which gay men (typically) dress as women and sing and tell jokes as performers, was being labeled as sexual. This raises the question of whether men wearing dresses is sexual in nature. A prepubescent child would perhaps view the dresses as costumes rather than conveying anything sexual, for we adults are the ones so preoccupied with sex. Transsexuals were afraid that police might “enforce the law against transgender people walking around in public, falsely painting them as ‘male or female impersonators.’”[3] It was not this concern that caused a federal judge to temporarily put the Tennessee law on hold, however, or that drag shows are not necessarily sexual, but, rather, that the legal language, locations viewable by children, is too vague and broad, especially given the contrasting free-speech interest of the drag-show performers. Doubtless drag performers in Tennessee felt misunderstood, hurt, frightened, and even dirty.

Also hurt was a fifth-grade teacher in Florida who was fired after being accused of promoting homosexuality because the Disney film she showed her class has a gay character. That a gay character is in a film does not in itself mean that the film promotes homosexuality or constitutes the instruction of certain gay topics, which Florida law banned.[4] The teacher felt unfairly treated, not only because the film does not promote homosexuality, but also because she had received signed permission slips from a parent of each student in the class. Furthermore, Florida's government had not instituted a process by which films could be assessed. Nonetheless, the new teacher was fired. 

Meanwhile, some Roman Catholics, even priests, were castigating the gay charity group, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, as anti-Catholic and even Satanic. That the gay men who were in the charity group had been wearing the robes, or habits, of nuns is understandably prime facie insulting to Catholics. Unfortunately, the human, all too human urge to lash out without getting more information blocked the reason why the gay sisters were wearing the nun’s habit. Wearing the habits was actually a compliment. After the parade, one of the local leaders of the gay Sisters told me that the use of the nun’s attire was not to humiliate the Church, but, rather, because, she told me, “We do a nun’s work. We take care of sick people and feed the hungry. We value that.” It is a stamp of approval of what nuns do! The gay Sisters not only valued what Catholic nuns do in charity, but also actually did what nuns do. "We do what they do, so we wear their habit," the leader told me. The gay sisters were not anti-Christian even though they believed that criticism of the Church was warranted. Hypocrisy is fair game to be called out, such as in priests raping children and bishops, including Joe Ratzinger before he was a pope, covering up the crimes to protect the universal Church, and in hating one’s enemy (e.g., gays) instead of showing kindness and compassion as Jesus in the New Testament would. He is compassionate to a prostitute even though he views her job as a sin. He keeps her from being stoned, so would he not protect the gays from shouting evangelical Christians at a gay parade. Just as he goes to the home of a tax collector, he might even go to a gay parade even as his disciples shake their heads in utter disbelief. Would not Jesus volunteer to help the gay Sisters in caring for others, again at the consternation of his disciples? 

For their part, from a Christian point of view, the gay sisters could have gone "the extra mile" in not only doing a nun's work, but also caring for Catholic nuns, such in nursing homes. Catholic nuns, brothers, and priests for their part could have shown up at the charity events of the gay sisters to help them and do charitable work. To be sure, volunteering to work at charities only goes so far from a Christian perspective if enemies are hated and attacked rather than loved. For unless you have love (i.e., the root of charity is caritas, or sublimated love raised high), your faith is for naught, so writes Paul, and love of enemy, such as by helping and otherwise serving one’s enemy (and detractors as well as people one doesn’t like) is the highest manifestation of love, and the most difficult. For anyone naturally finds it easy to love one’s friends and thus volunteer to help them.

Were Catholic monastics and clergy willing to help the gay sisters—to be sure, without necessarily accepting the sisters’ use of the nun’s uniform—and the gay sisters willing to care for elderly nuns and volunteer at Catholic charities, the conflict would be transcended and both ends of the dispute might be able to sense God’s presence. This is none other than the Kingdom of God as described by Jesus in the Gospels. It is the goal, and it is open to be had now rather than only after death. It is clear that both parties to a dispute are not in God's presence when both sides felt insulted and hurt, especially when they are shouting at each other at the onset of a gay Pride parade. 

I did not participate in such a parade in 2023 because I agree with everything in the "gay agenda" and culture, but, rather, because gays in the U.S. felt attacked by the words and legislative deeds of conservatives in some of the American governments. Transsexuals and drag queens in particular seemed to feel hunted, and thus no longer welcome in some of the American States. 

To be sure, I have some reservations about the transexual ideological agenda, such as the use of the plural pronoun they for a singular antecedent, and the banishment of the words man and woman from public discourse. Flashes of anger meant to punish "infractions" and impose an ideological agenda are inappropriate and reflect a certain arrogance, for no human being has a monopoly on truth and ideology of whatever stripe falls short. The extreme lack of tolerance for ideological disagreement, as reflected in the flashes of anger reflect the wholesale dismissal of an ideological position that is not in lock-step with the political correctness, which goes well beyond the transexual agenda. 

The hateful claims that transsexuals are freaks of nature or even Satanic are in my view not justified by the transsexual ideological agenda with respect to language. Moreover, the claims detract from legitimate concerns that have not been given deserved attention. For example, I contend that a conflict of interest exists in cases in which the brain, or mind, is tasked with deciding whether that itself or the person's body expresses the person's authentic gender (i.e., whether the person is a man or a woman). This qualm is not limited to cases in which the person is mentally ill. The human mind is not unbiased with respect to itself. The assumption that the mind cannot be wrong in general or more specifically about its own thinking is false. Not even logic is objective, as certain assumptions are built-in. The assumption of objectivity or infallibility is, moreover, impious because only God is all-knowing (omniscent) and infallible. The assumption of human ideological infallibility is particularly egregious. The human mind is hardly an impartial decider between itself and the body, especially in a culture in which a mind-body dualism is held to be possible and perhaps even laudable. I've raised the point of the mind's conflict of interest with some transsexuals, who either dismiss the point or were stumped. These reactions give me reason to suspect that the conflict of interest has been exploited in a significant number of cases. Even so, I defend the freedom of transsexuals to express themselves and as they say, be the persons they are. To be sure, even the assumption that one's gender captures who one is may be reductionistic, if indeed several of one's roles go into one's identity. By the way, the singular pronoun one is gender neutral, and, if used, can obviate the problem of reduced linguistic clarity that comes with using a plural pronoun for both plural and singular nouns. 

I suspect that part of the struggle for transexuals is that societal notions of masculinity and femininity at least in America are too narrow. A man may assume that he is really a woman in part because some of his attributes fall outside of what society tells us are masculine. A young man with long straight hair might assume that he is feminine and thus not really a man in part because long hair is traditionally associated with women, or a man with a high-pitch voice might think that he is really a woman. Once while visiting a university, I said to such a man that the societal norms of masculinity are too narrow. “If that is your natural voice, and you have male reproductive organs, then that voice is masculine.” He smiled and I could see relieve fall over his face and down his long hair. Male lions, after all, have manes. Short hair may in fact emasculate a man (and who wants to see a person's skull).

In spite of my reservations, which I do not inflict on binary and transsexual people as they are insecure enough in American society, I have befriended some transsexuals in order to expressly convey empathy. I have found that they crave or at least greatly appreciate emotional support, as they have come to feel so hated and afraid due to the verbal attacks and legislation of conservatives. 

So on the afternoon of Easter Sunday in 2023, I stopped in at a gay bar to say hello to a transexual bartender whom I had met at a grocery store. Upon seeing me, she was so happy she gave me a hug. This told me that emotional acceptance was very much needed. It was not an easy visit for me, as young gay guys there made a point of giving me more than a cold shoulder because I was old. As I was leaving, one of them even said to his friends, "Oh good, he's leaving" so I would hear it. 

Again, while waiting to take my place in the gay parade’s line-up a few months later, I seized upon the spontaneous opportunity to minister to a transsexual, whose evangelical Christian parents had forbid him to take estrogen (i.e., the female hormone) and required him to undergo years of conversion therapy wherein he had been instructed to repress his gay instinctual impulses. He told me he felt isolated generally, and even fearful that he might be physically attacked attacked while walking in the parade. My opinion on transsexuality was not relevant; compassion does not hinge on ideological agreement. The professor in me did point out, however, that "they" is not a singular pronoun, and he went after that like a dog to a bone. At least our academic discussion got his mind off his fear. As we were talking, however, a small group of evangelical Christians walked through, announcing that everyone there was a slut and would go to hell. The clear message was that gay people are worthless. It did not take long for some of the gay young adults to reach a boiling point and start shouting at the so-called “Christians,” who fecklessly departed to across a street to take up their position. It did not take long for gay women especially to take their position directly in front of the "Christians." The battleline was set, and the lone policeman became visibly nervous and called for backup.

Shouting insults at one’s enemies is not loving them as if for their own good; such a rationale is extremely arrogant, and even self-idolatrous. Without love, especially where it is least convenient, faith is for naught. The evangelical Christians surely presumed that they were saved even as they hurled insults into the crowd rather than being kind and compassionate—yet without agreeing with the gay ideology or approving of gay sex. Perhaps people who consider themselves to be Christians hesitate to be kind and compassionate to adversaries in part out of fear that agreement would be assumed. Of course it is difficult to set the anger aside.

Attending to human needs even and especially of detractors or enemies can help a society transcend seemingly intractable conflicts of contending values. Attending to another person’s physiological needs, as well as the emotional needs from being emotionally hurt or afraid, can do wonders in relegating, or transcending, even very heated conflicts. Attending to pain-caused represents such a different orientation from the typical castigating of an enemy that a transformation of heart capable of moving such a mountain would be meteoric in its importance and power. 

At the location where the gay parade was set up, the shouting match between the “Christians” and the gay people could not be missed. I tried to model the silence that perhaps the divine is in shouting matches between groups contending for truth. I stood on stretch of raised cement and held the gay flag high while I silently faced the aggressors (i.e., the “Christians). Had bottles of water been for sale nearby, I would have purchased some and used one hand to give them to the “Christians” while holding a gay flag with the other hand. Rather than waving the flag to provoke anger, I would have sought quite humbly to attend to the thirst needs of the “Christians,” who were undoubtedly thirsty after having yelled so much on a hot day. I would have been modeling this to the gay women as much as being compassionate to people with whom I disagree ideologically.

I hope I would have said to the young gay women that only by helping one’s enemy can one get past the sting of the harsh words and thus the pain and anger. “Don’t you get tired of holding onto all that anger?” Jesus says in the film, Mary Magdalene to a woman angered by the physical abuse that women endured from their respective husbands. In that movie, Mary Magdalene not only is the first witness to the resurrected Jesus, but also understands that the Kingdom of God is a matter of transformed hearts rather than a military victory, a more just political or economic system, or something that will not happen until the end of time. Gandhi, who was very much influenced by Jesus’ preaching and serving others in the New Testament, grasped the nature of the transformation.

In the film Gandhi, a Hindu man whose son had been killed by a Muslim man in the religious conflict just prior to the independence of India killed a Muslim boy. There is a way out of hell, Gandhi tells the distraught man: Pick a Muslim boy whose parents have been killed in the conflict and raise him—only raise him to be a Muslim. This does not mean that the man must embrace or agree with Islam; rather, Gandhi’s message is that only by helping people deemed the enemy can a person be free from the hell that one has constructed around oneself by hating one’s enemy.

Without changing their interpretations of the Bible, the “Christians” at the parade could have helped the gays and their allies to get properly situated as to where to stand in the line-up. The reactions of at least some of the gay people being helped would probably have been a muted or stunned bewilderment, yet not to preclude a subtle willingness to be helped by people having a very different opinion on homosexuality. If the gays would have been too intolerant or proud to accept the help, the fault would have been in themselves rather than the Christians. Similarly, some of the “Christians” would likely have shown muted signs of appreciation for receiving cool water from a man, whom they would presume to be gay, holding a gay flag.

In shouting that gay people are worthless rather than helping them on a human level, the “Christians” missed an opportunity to preach to the gays. Destructive and short-sighted values and behaviors, rather than being gay per se, are rarely seen outside of the gay "community," which itself may be more of a wish than a fact given the salience of individualistic values that exclude that of other-concern. I’ve heard enough from gay men on how they treat each other and the bases on which they value each other to know that they really need some sermons on love thy neighbor as oneself. Obviously this does not apply to every homosexual, but my claim is significant enough that it characterizes the American gay culture (and perhaps those cultures in other countries). Rather than using a blanket Old Testament abomination approach in which homosexuality itself is deemed sinful, the conservative “Christian” preachers could urge gays to be more Christlike in how they esteem and treat each other. For in this respect gay culture had become ripe for constructive criticism by 2023. 

In the “dating” (really looking-for-sex) online sites, for example, gay men can be quite brutal to guys who are deemed old or ugly. How dare such an inferior even message “hi” to one of the self-determined gods on earth. The criteria for being of greater value include being thin, muscular, and "hung," which means having a big penis. Even though physical attributes can be expected to be given a lot of weight when the purpose is limited to sex, the hypertrophic emphasis can be seen in how gay men with more attractive physical attributes regard and treat other, inferior gays. Bluntly telling guys that they are ugly without provocation or that "fat" or "guys over 40" will be blocked just for messaging "hello" points to anger and extreme disrespect based on physical attributes. How dare you contact me! You should be contacting guys on your level. From the standpoint of kindness, the first are actually last. Furthermore, the obsession on seeing nude photos, especially of dicks, and the attached ultimatums on gay sex sites can also be good fodder for preaching. So too are profile statements such as, "No black men; just a preference." To be sure, I've been told that some black men have statements excluding Caucasian men. I've also been told that it is not uncommon for gay men under 35 to demand payment for sex from men over 50. The passive-aggression in demanding payment from men presumed to be out of shape or simply older is insulting to the latter. Perhaps guys who are into older men should be charged too. When the men actually meet for sex, after having "met" online, how a guy rejects another based totally on appearance can be brutal. A man might see the man walking to the door and refuse even to open it, pretending not to be home and instantly blocking the guy online and by phone number. The choice is as feckless as it is needlessly cruel. Alternatively, the host could open the door and say that he is sorry for the other's inconvenience the other isn't his type after all. 

The willingness to be unnecessarily cruel is a salient feature of American gay culture. This squalid quality should be isolated for criticism rather than flown over, whether in blanket condemnations of homosexuality as itself being a sin or in wholesale ideological defenses of homosexuality by conservative and liberal clergy, respectively. 

The cruelty itself is startling. In “threesomes,” for example, in which three guys meet to have sex, if two of the guys are more attracted to each other than to the third, the two feel no compunction to make sure the third is not treated as the “third wheel” (i.e., the odd man out). In fact, the two men may be just fine with not even touching the other man, even if he is the boyfriend or even husband of one of the two! In the song, Luck Be a Lady Tonight, Frank Sinatra sings that a lady doesn't "wander all over the room, blowing on some other guy's dice." I had a girlfriend once who did that, and I refused to marry her because of it. "Let's keep the party polite," Sinatra sings. It is not polite when two gay guys in a threesome text to each other while the third guy is in the room in order to plan out how to trick the third guy into thinking that the session is over. Tell him you’re leaving, then leave, and he will leave. Then come back. I've heard of cases in which a man will even participate in such a secret scheme to get his boyfriend out. 

Incredibly, no guilt seems to accompany such betrayal because the physical attraction of the moment is all that matters in that value-set. Such indifference to hurting another human being is nothing short of pathological; at the very least, such cruelty reflects a malignant egism or self-centeredness and the lack of a conscience. This is good fodder for sermonizing. 

I’ve also been told that on the sex sites, and presumably at gay bars too, it is common for boyfriends and even husbands to cheat on their partners. The gay men who have told me of the sheer extent of this behavior admitted that it is probably more prevalent among gays than straight couples. I suspect, moreover, that the importance of what the other gay guy provides sexually is elevated in the selection of a boyfriend and husband. A gay man in San Francisco said once told me that a gay guy typically does not return to the same guy for sex because it is generally believed in that gay culture that there are so many gay men that there is probably someone who satisfies more items on one's list of sexual "likes" list. Another gay man, who was married, told me that that city is not good for gay couples, as there is more temptation to cheat for the same reason. This can be expected in cultures in which sexual attraction is allowed to be be so important even in relationships. To be sure, there are exceptions. A good friend of mine from college told me decades later that sex is about 10 percent of his relationship with his partner. So I am describing a dysfunctional (i.e., superficial and too cruel) culture. 

Relative to heterosexual relationships, I believe that there are proportionally more “open” relationships, meaning that both men in a relationship agree that they can have sex separately with other men. Still other couples want to "play together" by bringing in a third man. The gay culture approves of both arrangements. I contend that it does so because of the overwhelming importance of sex in gay relationships generally. Given the importance given to sexual gratification, such separate sex risks the boyfriend or husband going to the other man. Gay men in couples whom I have spoken with seem not to understand why emotional intimacy is weakened in cases in which either man has sex with other men separately. Even in sharing a man, feelings can easily get hurt if the third man is more interested in one of the boyfriends or husbands and the latter lets himself ignore his partner during the session. Preaching is indeed needed and would be of great value to gay men in open relationships, as the perils thereof seem not to be known or respected among gays.  

One gay man told me that a man’s sex drive is such that expectations of monogamy are not realistic. I suspect that this opinion is widely held by gay men. An open relationship and even cheating have to be accepted, realistically. I beg to differ; the loss of emotional intimacy and the potential for hurting the other person are too great. I've been told it is common for gay couples to “play together” with a third guy. Astoundingly, a couple (e.g., boyfriends) might go to a third guy’s home, and one of the boyfriends may even participate with the third guy in excluding the other boyfriend from the action and even collaborate in secret with the third guy to get rid of the other boyfriend! At least in America, the gay "community" can be fairly criticized for being too comfortable with the infliction of emotional harm and even betrayal without any taint of guilt. Clearly there is a lot of room for preaching from a Christian standpoint wherein God is love, which manifests between people. Such preaching is not going to be done by conservative clergy who ironically miss the arrogance and meanness in the gay "community" by merely making the blanket statement that homosexuality itself is a sin, or by liberal clergy who refuse to criticize internal gay culture because those clergy are primarily ideological defenders of diversity.

How might conservative clergy reach gay men? Perhaps by volunteering in a HIV clinic, for instance, or at a gay parade or event, insight could be gained on where preaching is really needed from the standpoint of loving rather than betraying one’s neighbor. Furthermore, perhaps in showing compassion toward gay men, conservative clergy might come to value compassion to one another and thus not be so mean and hurtful. Perhaps feeling the kindness of Christian clergy (and laity) might rub off on the gay men who are so callous towards each other and so single-minded on immediate sexual gratification. 

Perhaps clergy who view themselves as allies of the gay community might divert their attention from ideology to religious experience. Such a pivot could provide a basis on which to assess the gay community critically and challenge it. Such clergy would urge gay people who are very compassionate to lead the way in extending their kindness to people with whom they strongly disagree. Perhaps at a gay Pride parade, for example, such gay people might be oriented to satisfying the thirst of even a shouting "Christian" on a hot day. 

At the gay Pride parade that I attended in 2023, the young gay women and their allies could have shown the “Christians” that gays are not all bad, worthless, or dirty. Perhaps the "Christians" would have discovered that in being cared for by the lesbians that sexual conduct does not exhaust the soul, and thus how God judges it. Perhaps the young gays could have acted in charity, whose value is greatly increased when the intended beneficiaries are people whom the young gays don't like or agree with. Seeing by example how the the way of Jesus could be applied, the angry "Christians" could perhaps have been healed, and thus been in peace rather than anger and arrogance. In the Gospels, Jesus accepts Matthew even though he is one of the hated tax-collectors, and Jesus goes to the house of the Roman Centurion, whose faith, Jesus says, has cured the man’s slave. It is significant that Jesus does not rail against Matthew or the centurion as being evil or impure; instead, he serves them even though they are outsiders, for even they are capable of being loved. Sometimes this has to be experienced in baby-steps, such as in offering water. It is water, after all, that often symbolizes purity or renewal in religion. Like a mustard seed, small acts of human-to-human kindness can have large impacts, whereas two contending parties voicing conflicting values are typically static rather than dynamic.

---

1. Shruti Rajkumar, “Taylor Swift Breaks Silence And Condemns Anti-LGBTQ Bills During Eras Tour,” The Huffington Post, June 3, 2023.

2. Matt Lavietes, “Tennessee Governor Signs First-Of-Its-Kind Bill Restricting Drag Shows,” NBC News, March 2, 2023.

3. Ibid.

4. Isabel Rosales and Jaide Garcia, “Florida School System Has Closed Investigation Into Teacher Who Showed Disney Movie With Gay Character,” CNN.com, May 23, 2023.