Among recent examples of Catholic bishops acting very poorly indeed, here’s an example of bishops acting “good.” They joined representatives of various groups advocating nuclear arms reduction to present a petition with over 50,000 signatures to the White House.

On May 7, Stephen Colecchi, USCCB’s director of International Justice and Peace, representing the US bishops delivered the petition in a meeting with Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for strategic communications and speechwriting. Leaders of arms control groups, including the Arms Control Association, the Council for a Livable World and Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, also participated in the meeting.

In response to the petition, Rhodes said: “The White House appreciates the engagement of citizens across our country who support efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and seek the peace and security of a world without them. This type of grassroots activism is critical to build awareness around the dangers of nuclear weapons, and to support common sense arms control policies.”

In a March 2 letter to National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chairman of the USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace, outlined some moral considerations to take into account during the study:

The current review of nuclear weapons policy by the Administration presents a once-in-a-decade opportunity to make significant strides towards a safer, more secure future for our nation and world. For decades, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Holy See have supported nuclear nonproliferation and verifiable efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.

As you advise the President, I urge you to recommend further reductions in U.S. nuclear forces. The horribly destructive capacity of nuclear arms makes them disproportionate and indiscriminate weapons that profoundly endanger human life.

At a time of fiscal restraints, tens of billions of dollars currently allocated to maintaining Cold War-based nuclear force structures could be redirected to other critical needs, especially to programs that serve poor and vulnerable people at home and abroad. As the Second Vatican Council taught, “[T]he arms race is an utterly treacherous trap for humanity, and one which ensnares the poor to an intolerable degree.”

Our Conference urges our nation to work with the international community to replace nuclear deterrence with concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations. Pope Benedict XVI stated in his 2010 World Day of Peace Message, “I firmly hope that … concrete decisions will be made towards progressive disarmament, with a view to freeing our planet from nuclear arms.”

Consistent with Catholic teaching, the Holy See and the U.S. bishops have long supported reducing the number of nuclear armaments, preventing their spread to other nations, and securing nuclear materials from terrorists. For decades they have promoted the twin and interrelated policy goals of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. USCCB understands this is an ideal that will take years to reach, but it is a task which our nation must take up with renewed energy.

The President has an opportunity to honor his commitment to “put an end to Cold War thinking” by pursuing further steps that will make our nation safer from the threat of nuclear weapons.

See Bishop Richard E. Pates’ letter here.

Kate Ott, assistant professor of Christian Social Ethics at Drew University and a Catholic, has written a lovely memorial to feminist theologian Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz. This was posted on the Feminist Studies in Religion blog:

As many reading this blog may have already heard, Dr. Ada María Isasi-Díaz passed away in the early morning on May 13, 2012.  While there are many other more qualified scholars, colleagues and friends to write a memorializing blog than I, I take up the task with humility and responsibility. I have known Ada since 1999 when she spoke in one of Rev. Dr. Letty Russell’s courses, Third World Women’s Theologies. This was a transformative class for my own formation, but what I could not believe was that one of the authors of our assigned readings came to have lunch and teach us.  As my partner often reminds me, I proclaimed that evening, “I met one of the coolest women in the world.”

After that meeting I was lucky enough to have a number of other opportunities to get to know Ada and continue to study her scholarship.  From a travel seminar to Cuba to hearing about her recent pilgrimage in Spain, from a quiet lunch in New York City to lectures at three different seminaries, I had plenty of opportunity to learn from Ada, who always had a story and advice to share.  Ada was an inspiration to me as Roman Catholic woman wondering where my place in academia might be.   I also often found myself uncomfortable in conversations with her, especially as a Master’s student rather clumsily discovering how my race and nationality blinded me to my privilege.

The “. . . coolest women in the world” quote was referenced again in our household just last fall as I began my position at Drew Theological School.  Her retirement opened the faculty vacancy for my and other faculty appointments last year.  She was a professor of ethics and theology at Drew University beginning in 1991 and became emerita in December 2009.  Her legacy continues as do the opportunities for intersection with it.

This semester in my Feminist Ethics seminar at Drew, her pioneering work in Mujerista theology was a topic of class discussion as well as some students’ final papers.  The Christian Ethics core course students wrestled with her ethical claims about scripture as a source for ethics in “La Palabra de Dios en Nosotras-The Word of God in Us” from Searching the Scriptures, Volume One: A Feminist Introduction.

Her career was distinguished by scholarship, but also activism.  Many of us may know and others will read about her childhood and conscientization as a young adult.  She continued her work as a radical voice for equality from the seminary classroom to her local church.  As I was reminded recently, when Our Lady Queen of Angels church was closed, she helped lead the protest vigils and Sunday services in the sidewalk of the church.  One of my favorite Ada quotes is from a speech in which she refers to the word Eschatology and says (paraphrasing), “I use these theological words and teach them to the women in my parish, because I paid a lot of money for them and it’s time we liberate them as well.”

Ada popularized and gave new language to the study of theology and ethics from a Mujerista perspective.  Her sister and niece recently set up a blog to keep friends, family, and colleagues informed of Ada’s treatment and then her passing.  The comments detail the gratitude for the many contributions Ada made to so many lives as well as the discipline of theological and social ethics.

At Drew, there is a legend that all new faculty are told about the ‘Giants that once walked the Drew Theological School Forest.’  I’m not as familiar with those giants as I am with the generations of pioneering women scholars we are losing each year – I think about Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz this week, and others like Jane Schaberg who left us in April and my mentor Letty Russell in 2007.  We could add to this list.  Ada is one of the Giants, in my book.  May we at Drew and those in mujerista, womanist, and feminist religious studies honor and build upon the foundation she leaves. En la Lucha . . . (in the words of Ada)–Kate Ott

Kate Ott has published “Searching for an Ethic: Sexuality, Children, and Moral Agency” in New Feminist Christianity: Many Voices, Many Views and is co-editor of Just Hospitality: God’s Welcome in a World of Difference and Faith, Feminism, and Scholarship: The Next Generation.

“To say that I am made in the image of God is to say that love is the reason for my existence, for God is love. Love is my true identity. Selflessness is my true self. Love is my true character. Love is my name.” –Thomas Merton

New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton (New Dimensions Press, 1961)

Cuban-born mujerista theologian Dr. Ada-Maria Isasi-Diaz died Sunday, May 13, the Feast Day of Our Lady of Fatima. She was diagnosed with cancer less than six weeks ago. She was 69.

The March 2012 issue of Sojourners magazine ran Associate editor Elizabeth Palmberg’s interview with Isasi-Diaz, Faith at the Tipping Point. The interview was conducted November 2011 at the Call to Action conference in Milwaukee.

“She leaves behind an amazing legacy. More than just a theologian, she was active in the struggle of others,” said Drew University colleague Dr. Laura Kearns, noting Isasi-Diaz’s 2009 leadership in protesting the closure of Our Lady Queen of Angels church in Harlem (see the NYT article).

Ada María Isasi-Díaz was a major force in Hispanic, mujerista, and feminist theology, liberation theologies rooted in the everyday experience of Latinas. As her foundational 1996 book Mujerista Theology: A Theology for the Twenty-First Century put it, her work aims at creating “a public voice for Latinas and capturing a political space for that voice,” including in academic theology. Isasi-Díaz was professor emerita of ethics and theology as well as founder and co-director of the Hispanic Institute of Theology at Drew University in Madison.

Watch an amazing video of Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz from Harvard’s Women’s Studies in Religion Conference.

Ada’s family has been blogging about her illness and last days at Ada’s Blog. Her sister Gloria writes:

There was no struggle, agony nor any signs of discomfort. She has now moved on to her eternal life, having left behind a remarkable legacy. The lives of all who knew her and loved her were immensely enriched by her presence. She walked un Buen Camino and triumphed in La Lucha for compassion and solidarity. It is time to celebrate her life and honor her memory.

“Ada Maria lived what she taught,” commented Notre Dame’s liberation and Hispanic theologian Virgilio Elizondo. “She was a great pioneer not just of creative theological thought but even more so of prophetic and visionary work among the people. She lives in our hearts and memory.”

+ Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz – PRESENTE! +

Read more:
Ada Marìa Isasi-Díaz, Mother of Mujerista Theology by MICHELLE GONZALEZ MALDONADO

Isasi-Diaz’s many books include:

Mujerista Theology: A Theology for the Twenty-First Century
En la Lucha / In the Struggle: A Hispanic Women’s Liberation Theology (Biblical Reflections on Ministry)
En La Lucha/In the Struggle: Elaborating a Mujerista Theology (10th Anniversary Edition)
La Lucha Continues: Mujerista Theology
Inheriting Our Mothers’ Gardens: Feminist Theology in Third World Perspective by Letty M. Russell, Kwok Pui-lan, Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz and Katie Geneva Cannon
Hispanic Women, Prophetic Voice in the Church: Toward a Hispanic Women’s Liberation Theology by Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz and Yolanda Tarango
Women of God, Women of the People: Four Biblical Meditations

Last week I joined with folks around the world in “connecting the dots” on global climate change. Here’s a video from the worldwide event and a photo of our little “connect the dots” group at Dorothy Day Catholic Worker in Washington, D.C. Check out Climate Dots.

Theologian Walter Wink died on May 10, 2012.

A shout out and thank you to Richard Deats for sending me his beautiful reflection on the passing of his friend and theologian Walter Wink.

Rev. Richard Deats, editor emeritus of Fellowship magazine, has led nonviolence workshops around the globe, including in southern Africa with Walter Wink during the apartheid era. Here’s an excerpt of Richard’s memorial (and I hope you’ll read the whole thing at the Fellowship of Reconciliation site):

“Walter Wink, 76, one of the most creative and influential scholars of our day, died peacefully at his home in Sandisfield in the Berkshire Mountains of Massachusetts on May 10, 2012. His health had been declining since he was diagnosed with Lewy body dementia.

Wink was born in Dallas, Texas. He was a graduate of Southern Methodist University, after which he received Master of Divinity and Doctor of Theology degrees at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He was assigned as pastor of the First United Methodist Church in Hitchcock, Texas for five years. Then, for nine years, he served at Union Seminary as professor of New Testament, followed by becoming professor of biblical interpretation (1976-2005) at Auburn Theological Seminary, also in New York City. Outspoken against the Vietnam war, from 1967 to 1976 he served on the national steering committee of Clergy and Laity Concerned about Vietnam.

Wink became a prolific author of prize-winning and widely studied books. He wrote 16 books and hundreds of articles in the fields of biblical interpretation, war and peace, and nonviolence.

His acclaimed trilogy on “the principalities and powers,” The Powers – Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament; Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence; and Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination – has been of continuing influence. Engaging the Powers was completed during a sabbatical when Wink received a coveted Peace Fellowship from the U.S. Institute of Peace. …” –Richard Deats

Read the whole reflection and see more photos.

11 June 1963: Vivian Malone entering Foster Auditorium to register for classes at the University of Alabama. Vivian Malone, one of the first African Americans to attend the university, walks through a crowd that includes photographers, National Guard members, and Deputy U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach.

Recently, I listened to the 5 March 2012 speech by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in which he defend the targeted killing of U.S. citizens at the sole discretion of the president of the United States.

It sounded to me like the death knell of the great democratic experiment. If citizenship doesn’t convey the right to protection by the State balanced with just due legal process to address criminality, then citizenship really doesn’t mean much. And when one can be put on a “death squad list” without ever having a chance to be judged by a jury of one’s peers (not members of the NSA, CIA, etc), then The great Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the U.S. Bill of Rights–two cornerstones of modern, liberal, rights-based democracies–have been tossed in the shredder.

I believe Eric Holder is a “good man.” I think he understands the very real consequences of inhumane laws through the life story of his sister-in-law Vivian Malone Jones, who along with James Hood, stood a “the schoolhouse door” while Alabama Gov. George Wallace blocked their entrance to the University of Alabama. Wallace was defending “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!” The courageous stand by Jones and Hood led to the integration of the University of Alabama.

In Holder’s speech before Northwestern University’s law school yesterday he said, “Some have called such operations “assassinations.”   They are not, and the use of that loaded term is misplaced.   Assassinations are unlawful killings.   Here, for the reasons I have given, the U.S. government’s use of lethal force in self defense against a leader of al Qaeda or an associated force who presents an imminent threat of violent attack would not be unlawful — and therefore would not violate the Executive Order banning assassination or criminal statutes.”

As Thomas Merton reminded us in Raids On the Unspeakable,

“It is the sane ones, the well-adapted ones, who can without qualms and without nausea aim the missile, and press the buttons that will initiate the great festival of destruction that they, the sane ones, have prepared What makes us so sure, after all, that the danger comes from a psychotic getting into a position to fire the first shot in a nuclear war? Psychotics will he suspect. The sane ones will keep them far from the button. No one suspects the sane, and the sane ones will have perfectly good reasons, logical, well-adjusted reasons, for firing the shot.”

Richard Rohr also explores this issue of the “good man’s” capacity for unspeakable evil in his book Things Hidden. Rohr writes:

“The ego is that part of the self that wants to be significant, central, and important. It is very self-protective by its very nature. It must eliminate the negative to succeed. (Jesus would call it the “actor” in Matthew 23, usually translated from the Greek as “hypocrite”.)

The shadow is that part of the self that we don’t want to see, that we’re afraid of and we don’t want others to see either. If our “actor” is well-defended and in denial, the shadow is always hated and projected elsewhere (we tend to hate our own faults in OTHER people!). One point here is crucial: The shadow self is not of itself evil; it just allows you to do evil without recognizing it as evil! That is why Jesus criticizes hypocrisy more than anything else. He does not hate sinners at all, but only people who pretend they are not sinners!

Jesus’ phrase for the denied shadow is “the plank in your own eye,” which you invariably see as the “splinter in your brother’s eye.” Jesus’ advice is absolutely perfect. “Take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:4-5).”

The American body politic has long denied the “plank in our own eye.” And so we inexorably become more and more like those we deplore. The rarefied air of the White House and Justice Department is a super-food for the ego and slowly strangles self-reflection, self-doubt, or anything that might lead to embracing one’s shadow side. And, truth be told, even if one did find space to embrace the shadow, the system is so deeply entrenched that it would brook no opposition.–Rose Marie Berger

President Obama discusses his evolving thinking on civil unions and civil marriages, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the difference between state solutions and a federal act, religious liberty, the Black church, college Republicans and gay issues, the Defense Against Marriage Act, and his Christian faith. I highly recommend reading the transcript to get the full texture and context of the President’s comments.

Transcript: Robin Roberts ABC News Interview With President Obama (9 May 2012)

ROBIN ROBERTS: Good to see you, as always–

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good to see you, Robin.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Mr. President. Thank you for this opportunity to talk to you about– various issues. And it’s been quite a week and it’s only Wednesday. (LAUGH)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That’s typical of my week.

ROBIN ROBERTS: I’m sure it is. One of the hot button issues because of things that have been said by members of your administration, same-sex marriage. In fact, your press secretary yesterday said he would leave it to you to discuss your personal views on that. So Mr. President, are you still opposed to same-sex marriage?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well– you know, I have to tell you, as I’ve said, I’ve– I’ve been going through an evolution on this issue. I’ve always been adamant that– gay and lesbian– Americans should be treated fairly and equally. And that’s why in addition to everything we’ve done in this administration, rolling back Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell– so that– you know, outstanding Americans can serve our country. Whether it’s no longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act, which– tried to federalize– what is historically been state law.

I’ve stood on the side of broader equality for– the L.G.B.T. community. And I had hesitated on gay marriage– in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient. That that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and– other– elements that we take for granted. And– I was sensitive to the fact that– for a lot of people, you know, the– the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth.

But I have to tell you that over the course of– several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbors. When I think about– members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about– those soldiers or airmen or marines or– sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf– and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is gone, because– they’re not able to– commit themselves in a marriage.

At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that– for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that– I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now– I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue. There’s a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you’re seeing is, I think, states working through this issue– in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that’s a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Well, Mr. President, it’s– it’s not being worked out on the state level. We saw that Tuesday in North Carolina, the 30th state to announce its ban on gay marriage.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well– well– well, what I’m saying is is that different states are coming to different conclusions. But this debate is taking place– at a local level. And I think the whole country is evolving and changing. And– you know, one of the things that I’d like to see is– that a conversation continue in a respectful way.

I think it’s important to recognize that– folks– who– feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as– between a man and a woman– many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They’re coming at it because they care about families. And– they– they have a different understanding, in terms of– you know, what the word “marriage” should mean. And I– a bunch of ‘em are friends of mine– you know, pastors and– you know, people who– I deeply respect.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Especially in the Black community.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely.

ROBIN ROBERTS: And it’s very– a difficult conversation to have.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely. But– but I think it’s important for me– to say to them that as much as I respect ‘em, as much as I understand where they’re comin’ from– when I meet gay and lesbian couples, when I meet same-sex couples, and I see– how caring they are, how much love they have in their hearts– how they’re takin’ care of their kids. When I hear from them the pain they feel that somehow they are still considered– less than full citizens when it comes to– their legal rights– then– for me, I think it– it just has tipped the scales in that direction.

And– you know, one of the things that you see in– a state like New York that– ended up– legalizing same-sex marriages– was I thought they did a good job in engaging the religious community. Making it absolutely clear that what we’re talking about are civil marriages and civil laws.

That they’re re– re– respectful of religious liberty, that– you know, churches and other faith institutions– are still gonna be able to make determinations about what they’re sacraments are– what they recognize. But from the perspective of– of the law and perspective of the state– I think it’s important– to say that in this country we’ve always been about– fairness. And– and treatin’ everybody– as equals. Or at least that’s been our aspiration. And I think– that applies here, as well.

ROBIN ROBERTS: So if you were the governor of New York or legislator in North Carolina, you would not be opposed? You would vote for legalizing same-sex marriage?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I would. And– and that’s– that’s part of the– the evolution that I went through. I– I asked myself– right after that New York vote took place, if I had been a state senator, which I was for a time– how would I have voted? And I had to admit to myself, “You know what? I think that– I would have voted yes.” It would have been hard for me, knowing– all the friends and family– that– are gays or lesbians, that for me to say to them, you know, “I voted to oppose you having– the same kind of rights– and responsibilities– that I have.”

And– you know, it’s interesting. Some of this is also generational. You know, when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that– I have terrible policies on the– the economy or on foreign policy. But are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know– sexual orientation that they believe in equality. They’re much more comfortable with it.

You know, Malia and Sasha, they’ve got friends whose parents are same-sex couples. And I– you know, there have been times where Michelle and I have been sittin’ around the dinner table. And we’ve been talkin’ and– about their friends and their parents. And Malia and Sasha would– it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them. And– and frankly– that’s the kind of thing that prompts– a change of perspective. You know, not wanting to somehow explain to your child why somebody should be treated– differently, when it comes to– the eyes of the law.

ROBIN ROBERTS: I– I know you were saying– and are saying about it being on the local level and the state level. But as president of the United States and this is a game changer for many people, to hear the president of the United States for the first time say that personally he has no objection to same-sex marriage. Are there some actions that you can take as president? Can you ask your Justice Department to join in the litigation in fighting states that are banning same-sex marriage?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I– you know, my Justice Department has already– said that it is not gonna defend– the Defense Against Marriage Act. That we consider that a violation of equal protection clause. And I agree with them on that. You know? I helped to prompt that– that move on the part of the Justice Department.

Part of the reason that I thought it was important– to speak to this issue was the fact that– you know, I’ve got an opponent on– on the other side in the upcoming presidential election, who wants to– re-federalize the issue and– institute a constitutional amendment– that would prohibit gay marriage. And, you know, I think it is a mistake to– try to make what has traditionally been a state issue into a national issue.

I think that– you know, the winds of change are happening. They’re not blowin’– with the same force in every state. But I think that what you’re gonna see is– is– is states– coming to– the realization that if– if a soldier can fight for us, if a police officer can protect our neighborhoods– if a fire fighter is expected to go into a burning building– to save our possessions or our kids. The notion that after they were done with that, that we’d say to them, “Oh but by the way, we’re gonna treat you differently. That you may not be able to– enjoy– the– the ability of– of passing on– what you have to your loved one, if you– if you die. The notion that somehow if– if you get sick, your loved one might have trouble visiting you in a hospital.”

You know, I think that as more and more folks think about it, they’re gonna say, you know, “That’s not who we are.” And– and– as I said, I want to– I want to emphasize– that– I’ve got a lot of friends– on the other side of this issue. You know, I’m sure they’ll be callin’ me up and– and I respect them. And I understand their perspective, in part, because– their impulse is the right one. Which is they want to– they want to preserve and strengthen families.

And I think they’re concerned about– won’t you see families breaking down. It’s just that– maybe they haven’t had the experience that I have had in seeing same-sex couples, who are as committed, as monogamous, as responsible– as loving of– of– of a group of parents as– any– heterose– sexual couple that I know. And in some cases, more so.

And, you know– if you look at the underlying values that we care so deeply about when we describe family, commitment, responsibility, lookin’ after one another– you know, teaching– our kids to– to be responsible citizens and– caring for one another– I actually think that– you know, it’s consistent with our best and in some cases our most conservative values, sort of the foundation of what– made this country great.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Obviously, you have put a lot of thought into this. And you bring up Mitt Romney. And you and others in your administration have been critical of him changing positions, feeling that he’s doing it for political gain. You realize there are going to be some people that are going to be saying the same with you about this, when you are not president, you were for gay marriage. Then 2007, you changed your position. A couple years ago, you said you were evolving. And the evolution seems to have been something that we’re discussing right now. But do you– do you see where some people might consider that the same thing, being politics?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, if you– if you look at my trajectory here, I’ve always been strongly in favor of civil unions. Always been strongly opposed to discrimination against gays and lesbians. I’ve been consistent in my overall trajectory. The one thing that– I’ve wrestled with is– this gay marriage issue. And– I think it’d be hard to argue that somehow this is– something that I’d be doin’ for political advantage– because frankly, you know– you know, the politics, it’s not clear how they cut.

In some places that are gonna be pretty important– in this electoral map– it may hurt me. But– you know, I think it– it was important for me, given how much attention this issue was getting, both here in Washington, but– elsewhere, for me to go ahead, “Let’s be clear. Here’s what I believe.” But I’m not gonna be spending most of my time talking about this, because frankly– my job as president right now, my biggest priority is to make sure that– we’re growing the economy, that we’re puttin’ people back to work, that we’re managing the draw down in Afghanistan, effectively. Those are the things that– I’m gonna focus on. And– I’m sure there’s gonna be more than enough to argue about with the other side, when it comes to– when it comes to our politics.

…..[discussion of Mitt Romney, recent Al Qaeda activity, and Mother's Day]

ROBIN ROBERTS: Lookin’ forward to talkin’ to her about her cookbook. But a final question since you talked about that. Did you discuss this with Mrs. Obama, the same-sex marriage issue?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I did.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Was that something–

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, no, this is somethin’ that– you know, we’ve talked about– you know, over the years. And– and she f– you know, she feels the same way that– she feels the same way that I do. And that is that– in– in– in the end, the– the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is– is how we treat other people.

And– you know, I– you know– you know, we– we’re both– practicing Christians. And– and obviously– this position may be considered to put as at odds with– the views of– of others. But– you know, when we think about our faith, the– the thing– you know, at– at root that we think about is not only– Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf– but it’s also the golden rule, you know? Treat others the way you’d want to be treated. And– and I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids. And– that’s what motivates me as president. And– I figure the more consistent I can be– in being true– to– to those precepts– the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband, and– hopefully the better I’ll be as a president.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Mr. President, thank you very much.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Great to talk to you.

ROBIN ROBERTS: You as well.

* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *

God bless Rev. Billy, my favorite televangelist activist, pastor of The Church of Stop Shopping. This is what the gospel looks like. A 5-minute video.

Reverend Billy from 2gee on Vimeo.

People are angry, they want to be heard.
Billy's got the Bullhorn.

Thích Nhat Hanh and Merton in 1966

We don’t teach meditation to the young monks. They are not ready for it until they stop slamming doors.–Thich Nhat Hanh to Thomas Merton in 1966

The piercing truth of this statement struck me as a perfect way to communicate the endless disguises and devices of the false self. There is no more clever way for the false self to hide than behind the mask of spirituality. The human ego will always try to name, categorize, fix, control, and insure all its experiences. For the ego everything is a commodity. It lives inside of self-manufactured boundaries instead of inside the boundaries of the God-self. It lives out of its own superior image instead of mirroring the image of God.

The ego is constantly searching for any solid and superior identity. A spiritual self-image gives us status, stability, and security. There is no better way to remain unconscious than to baptize and bless the forms of religion, even prayer itself, instead of surrendering to the Substance Itself. First stop slamming doors, and then you can begin in the kindergarten of spirituality. Too many priests, bishops, and ministers are still slamming doors.

In the name of seeking God, the ego pads and protects itself from self-discovery, which is an almost perfect cover for its inherent narcissism. I know this because I have done it all myself.–Richard Rohr, OFM

Adapted from Contemplation in Action by Richard Rohr. Read more by Richard Rohr and learn about the Center for Action and Contemplation.