I have had the pleasure of meeting many colorful characters so far on the Camino, and it is time to name the most colorful of the first half of the walk. My friend, Peter K. hopes it will be a German. But, before the listing the nominees, a short update. I am in Mansilla, 18.6 km from Leon. The past three nights and mornings have been cold - I´d guess upper 30´s to mid 40´s before warming up nicely during the day. Last night I stayed in a small farm town along a Roman road. Our Albergue, the only one in town had 16 beds, and I think we were full. One of the other pilgrims made a nice fire in the Albergues´s fireplace. Another pilgrim, a French priest, said mass at the local church. I felt like a little kid as I rang the church bell to let the town folks know that mass would be offered. About 5% of the town´s and half the pilgrims attended.
The runner´s up for most colorful pilgrim first half are; 1. The young redheaded American who cooks outside in the courtyard on a packpackers stove even when the Albergue has a kitchen. 2. The Spaniard who always has a posse with him although he started the Camino alone. I wrote about him hosting a dinner party in an earlier post. 3. The Basque, with the kind but strong face, who led the singing at the dinner party. 4. The Aussie who thinks he is on walkabout. 5. The cynical young ex pat who hates the US for all its lies. I don´t even think he likes our new prince of peace. He also doesn´t like the Albergues because there are too many people in them.
The winner is a Cuban who has lived in Madrid for the past 20 years. Some think he is a flirt. I think he has a zest for life. He will run (yes, run with pack on) to a group of tired pilgrims and sing to them to lift their spirits. I have seen him writing notes in the dirt for others to read. At breakfast, he greets everyone in the room. And, what put him over the top as the most colorful were his antics from three or four days ago. I was sitting on a sidewalk with a Frenchmen (who was sharing his lunch with me). We were the only two on the street. I looked up and there was the Cuban acting the part of drum major marching down the street with his walking stick held high with two band members marching in formation (can two march in formation?) behind him.
Sorry Peter, no Germans in the finals. I have met many great Germans. Some have been crazy enough to start the Camino at their own houses, walking from Augsburg (as reported earlier) and Munich. Most of the Germans have read the comedians book on the Camino but none so far has admitted that he influenced their decision to walk. Among the Germans, there is a good mix of Catholics from the south and Lutherans from the north. Great folks, but not among the six most colorful characters.
Tomorrow I make it to Leon where I will rest Sunday. On Monday, I head out again, joined by two friends from Austin, Bill and Mark.
The New York Times has found another Catholic priest scandal to explore. On today's front page, the paper offers a "rare look at the lengths the Catholic Church goes to to keep clergy members' clandestine relationships hidden." The article documents the sexual affair between Fr. Henry Willenborg, a Franciscan, and a woman he was counseling. Along the way, the reporter notes that these relationships are "hardly unique" and reveal how the Church was "tightfisted" with its money when the child produced by the affair developed cancer. (Given the Church's endless supply of money, greed is the only possible explanation.) There are plenty of questions to ask from a journalistic standpoint (As one reader asked in the comments, If a priest's consensual affair warrants the front page, why didn't the Times deem the sexual affair of a major presidential candidate, John Edwards, newsworthy?), but I'm interested in the Church's handling of this mess. For now, one question jumps out at me: why does the Church insist on confidentiality agreements in these cases? Isn't transparency essential in a situation like this, not only in terms of the confidence we place in the clergy, but in terms of the clergy members' own accountability? The surrounding culture, including the New York Times, would have a harder time shouting "Scandalous cover-up!" whenever sin among the clergy is discovered if the Church stopped acting as though the clergy are sinless.
Steve writes:
Catholic Charities “hires to mission.” It does not and need not require that employees or volunteers be Catholics to further its mission. If it did so require, it would be discriminating on the basis of religion. When it requires that its directors be Catholics, it discriminates on the basis of religion, but that discrimination is necessary to further its mission. Faith-based social service organizations that do not proselytize, generally, can hire without regard to religion in furthering their mission.
I disagree. Catholic Charities would not be "discriminating on the basis of religion" -- it would not, that is, be engaged in unjustified exclusion of would-be associates -- if it required that "employees or volunteers be Catholics". "Discrimination" is no longer used to mean, in a non-pejorative way, "selection on the basis of some criteria or another". "Discrimination", for us, carries with it a presumption of wrong-ness; when it is tolerated, that toleration needs to be justified and limited, we now think. "Hiring for mission" is not like that.
Steve says that faith-based social-service organizations "that do not proselytize, generally, can hire without regard to religion in furthering their mission." Maybe. It is hard to know, given the overlay of rules that have not required them to proselytize, or that have interfered with their ability to hire-for-mission. But, in any event, from the fact that Steve, or I, or even the directors of the association conclude that the mission of the association does not require hiring co-religionists it does not follow that a decent political community should require, or can justify requiring, that the association adopt a "religion does not matter for mission" hiring practice as a condition of participating in a publicly funded social-welfare program.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Catholic Charities “hires to mission.” It does not and need
not require that employees or volunteers be Catholics to further its mission.
If it did so require, it would be discriminating on the basis of religion. When
it requires that its directors be Catholics, it discriminates on the basis of
religion, but that discrimination is necessary to further its mission.
Faith-based social service organizations that do not proselytize, generally, can
hire without regard to religion in furthering their mission.
Steve writes, here, that it is "possible to exaggerate the need for faith-based organizations to discriminate in the provision of social services." I suppose that's right. That said, I will go into broken-record mode and say that, in my view, it is a mistake to refer to or think about hiring-for-mission as "discrimination." Hiring-for-mission is not bad. It is not something shameful that religious groups are asking the government to tolerate or overlook. It is entirely appropriate for faith-based programs to hire-for-mission, and the fact that they do should not, in my view, cause us any concern when we think about funding their social-welfare operations.
Steve says "the real issue is not about discrimination, but about proselytizing." Again, I do not think we are talking about "discrimination," properly understood, at all. As for proselytizing, we want to be careful about defining the term, but I think Steve's right, and that it is reasonable for the public authority to say "use our public funds for the public purpose that justifies our giving you these funds, and not for something else" (whatever that "something else" might be).
Here, the principle matters. And, as I see it, the principle is that there is nothing that should bother a decent political community about religious social-welfare organizations hiring for mission. (The hiring question, by the way, is different from the client-service question. I think it is clear that the government can say, "if you want the money, serve all comers.")
It is possible to exaggerate the need for faith-based
organizations to discriminate in the provision of social services. Catholic
Charities, Lutheran Social Services, and many Jewish welfare organizations have
received very substantial federal funds for more than half a century and they
have not discriminated on the basis of religion with regard to staff or
clients. If you think about a soup kitchen, you can see why the mission can be
accomplished without discrimination. To be sure, Catholic Charities and related
organizations require that their national and local leaders be Catholic (or of the organization's faith), but I
know of no serious opposition to funding for Catholic Charities or similar
organizations.
The fighting issue is about evangelical groups who want to
discriminate and use federal funds in order to proselytize (under federal law
they can engage in religious hiring if they do not use federal funds). Here the
real issue is not about discrimination, but about proselytizing. The question
is whether federal funds should be used to help religious groups proselytize.
President George W. Bush did not think so. Nor did John DiIulio (an inspirational
Catholic Democrat who headed the first faith-based office). Al Gore, Hilary
Clinton, and Barack Obama each have favored faith-based programs, but opposed
federal money for proselytizing. On the one hand, this vindicates establishment
clause values. On the other hand, it favors Catholic, Lutherans, and Jews over some
religious groups.
Even this issue is not as significant on the ground as it
might appear. Many evangelical groups refuse federal money on principle. Many
do not require volunteers and most staff to meet faith requirements. And many
believe that proselytizing is most effective after strong friendship
connections have been formed.
