Cremating Terri Schiavo

Day after day, the cluster of protest placards outside the hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla., kept changing.

"Not brain dead" gave way to "Give Terri water." Hopeful appeals to Gov. Jeb Bush and President George W. Bush turned into cardboard cries of hopelessness.

Then a new message appeared in the last days before the death of Terri Schiavo: "No cremation."

Protesters were bracing for the next hot controversy. Now they wanted to know if her husband would go ahead and do what he had vowed to do, cremating her body despite the furious opposition of her highly traditional Roman Catholic parents.

As Michael Schiavo once told the Tampa Tribune: "She never wanted to be put in the ground with bugs. She always told me that." Thus, he planned – backed by the courts – to have her cremated and her ashes taken to his family's plot near Philadelphia.

Bob and Mary Schindler were appalled, arguing that cremation would violate their daughter's Catholic faith. The parents have requested a wake, an open-casket funeral Mass and traditional burial in Florida. In one of their many pleadings to Pinellas County Court, the Schindlers argued that Michael Schiavo "has consistently exhibited a lack of respect" toward Catholicism.

"Even in death, he isn't going to allow them a shrine, a place to go talk to her," Franciscan monk Paul O'Donnell told reporters, speaking for the family. "Won't he at least give them her dead body?"

This debate is stark evidence that many Catholics continue to struggle with changes made by the modern church. After centuries of opposition to cremation, the Code of Canon Law now states: "The Church earnestly recommends the pious custom of burial be retained; but it does not forbid cremation, unless this is chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching."

The hardest liturgical changes to accept are those linked to emotional events at the crossroads of life – birth, marriage and death.

"Cremation is no longer considered shocking to most Catholics," said Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World Report. "But, overwhelmingly, traditional Catholics would lean toward a traditional burial. The older the Catholic, the more likely they would remember the traditions against cremation."

The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church hints at the ancient roots of this controversy, noting that cremation is permitted, "provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body."

Early Christian believers were familiar with pagan cremation rituals and saw martyrs burned at the stake, noted Father C. John McCloskey III, of the Faith and Reason Institute in Chicago. The Jewish apostles knew that Judaism rejected cremation.

"The early church also defined itself in opposition to Manichaeism, Gnosticism and other heretical sects that taught that the soul is good and the body is bad. So it didn't matter what you did with the body. The soul was all that mattered.

"But the church kept saying, 'No, the body is good. It should be honored and treated with respect.'... Thus, you had an emphasis in church tradition on funeral rites and the burial of the body in ground that has been blessed."

If Catholics choose cremation, the church still teaches that ashes should be stored in a holy place, as opposed to being kept in an urn on the fireplace mantle. Church authorities frown on rites that conclude with human ashes being scattered into nature, even though the ocean-loving relatives of John F. Kennedy, Jr., did precisely that in 1999, with the help of a priest.

In the Schiavo case, said McCloskey, it's important that the church wants Catholics to ask moral questions about their choices as they honor a deceased loved one. Thus, it is still appropriate to ask why someone – such as Michael Schiavo – chooses cremation over a traditional burial.

"You have to think that the goal here is to deny her family and the pro-life movement a grave, a place where they can have a shrine in her honor," he said. "But, honestly, if there is a grave of any kind, no matter where it is or what it is, people are going to find it.

"After all is said and done, people are still going to want to go there and pay tribute to Terri Schiavo."

The prayers of Hebrew Catholics

NEW YORK – It's hard for Roy Schoeman to share his faith without mentioning Abraham, his son Isaac and a sacrificial altar on Mount Moriah.

This story from Genesis is a cornerstone of the Jewish faith in which he was raised and educated, the son of Jews who escaped the Holocaust and came to America. But this familiar passage – with its covenant between God and Abraham's children – also is crucial to his testimony as a convert to Roman Catholicism.

For Schoeman, these faiths cannot be pried apart.

"If Christianity was meant for anyone it was meant for the Jews," he said at a gathering of the Association of Hebrew Catholics. Thus, the Catholic faith "is Judaism as it was defined by God Incarnate, Jesus Christ. ... He did not come to bring Christianity to the gentiles and leave the Jews alone."

The Palm Sunday-weekend conference was held at Sts. Cyril and Methodius Church, not far from Times Square. It drew more than 100 Catholics from across the nation and overseas, including a core group of converted Jews.

Some in the audience shed tears as Schoeman emotionally offered a prayer for the conversion of his own mother. They murmured "amen," as he read the biblical account of Abraham preparing to sacrifice "his only son," until being stopped by an angel who said God would provide a lamb. Because Abraham was willing to surrender his son, God said: "I will indeed bless you and I will multiply your descendents as the stars of heaven. ... And by your descendents shall all the nations bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

Surely this prophecy foreshadows the life and sacrifice of Jesus, said Schoeman, a former Harvard Business School professor who now focuses his studies on theology. This is why Hebrew Christians insist that conversion does not destroy Jewish identity, but "fulfills it," "completes it" and even "crowns it."

It would be hard to craft a statement that would be more offensive to millions of religious and secular Jews.

However, leaders of the Association of Hebrew Catholics spend as much, or more, time addressing the beliefs of Catholics who say the Second Vatican Council teaches that Jews can "be saved" without embracing Jesus. This division in Catholic ranks has affected many public debates, from clashes about the goals of Jewish-Christian dialogues to the content of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

The conflict intensified in 2002 when a study committee linked to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, working with National Council of Synagogues, released a set of theological reflections that inspired blunt headlines. The Washington Post went with "Catholics Reject Evangelization of Jews," while Christianity Today offered " Jews Are Already Saved, Say U.S. Catholic Bishops."

The document argued that while the "Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God." Thus, the unique Jewish witness to God's kingdom "must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity."

Cardinal Avery Dulles of Fordham University was one of many rejecting this text as a statement of Catholic teaching.

"Peter on Pentecost Sunday declared that the whole house of Israel should know for certain that Jesus is Lord and Messiah and that every one of his hearers should be baptized in Jesus' name," wrote Dulles, in America magazine. "Paul spent much of his ministry proclaiming the Gospel to Jews throughout the Diaspora. Distressed by their incredulity, he was prepared to wish himself accursed for the sake of their conversion."

The problem is that progressive elements inside Judaism and Catholicism are striving to "redefine both of these faiths," said David Moss, president of the Hebrew Catholic association. Thus, most mainstream Jewish leaders are convinced that the Vatican has officially changed its doctrine.

"The truth is that Catholicism teaches that there is only one path to salvation and that is through Jesus Christ," said Moss. "Now how does that salvation happen for individual people? That's up to God. He's in charge, not us. ...

"But there is nothing in Vatican II that says Catholics are not supposed to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to his own people."

Archbishop in a tough room

Comedians know the meaning of the phrase "tough room."

Professional speakers of all kinds try to steer clear of openly hostile audiences. Naturally, clergy avoid them as well.

But Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput recently accepted a luncheon gig in what he had to know would be a "tough room." Sure enough, his speech in the open City Club forum produced what veteran Rocky Mountain News religion writer Jean Torkelson called "verbal fisticuffs" when Chaput fielded questions on sex, celibacy, contraception, taxes and the state of Sen. John Kerry's soul.

The archbishop came out swinging in the first lines of his address, creating an interesting case study in how the World Wide Web can change the shape of ecclesiastical press relations.

"Some of you may remember that a year ago I was part of a rally on the Capitol steps to protect state funding for the poor and homeless. But you didn't read about it in the 'Rocky' or the Denver Post, because they didn't cover it," he said.

"Last September, just a few weeks before the election, I preached a homily to 5,000 people at Red Rocks, and I had them repeat out loud three times that if we forget the poor, we'll go to hell. That's one of the principles of Catholic social teaching. If we forget the poor, God will forget us. By our indifference, we will damn ourselves. But you didn't read about that in the press either, because – again – nobody covered it."

The archbishop was probably not surprised that this part of his speech didn't get covered, either. It's a Catch-22.

In the pre-digital days that would have been the end of that, other than a Catholic newspaper report for the faithful. But Chaput took a simple step that, in the age of email lists and "weblogs," offered his critique to a small, but strategic, national audience. He posted the City Club text on his own Web site and this link spread via a sympathetic network of traditional Catholics.

The reviews were good in many cyber-rooms.

Chiming in at the No Left Turns "blog," political scientist Joseph Knippenberg of Atlanta's Oglethorpe University in Atlanta wrote: "We need more religious leaders like Archbishop Chaput who will challenge the simple-minded separationism that clearly informs the opinions of a significant portion of elite audiences like this one. And we need reporters who will cover these speeches fairly and honestly."

This makes it safer to play "tough rooms." In addition to posting speeches, I think religious leaders – left and right – should take advantage of other digital options.

* Why stick to a prepared speech text? Web-savvy leaders can claim the right to digitally record their public appearances and then post online the audio and video files. Was the crowd hostile? Were there hecklers? Supporters and critics can watch for themselves.

* Worried about a hostile media interview? In addition to urging reporters to use recorders, cautious religious leaders can record the interviews for themselves and then transcribe and post the results. This allows the interviewer and the interviewee to know what was said. If readers want to compare press coverage to the verbatim transcript, then so be it. Chaput used this tactic with the New York Times before the 2004 election.

* Tired of stereotypes? It's easier for people of faith to tackle complicated topics when they know they can use digital networks to circulate precise statements of what they believe. They can also post commentaries to help outsiders – reporters, even – understand the nuances. Recent National Association of Evangelicals statements on issues such as religious liberty, peace, poverty and the environment have filtered into elite news media, settings in which the term "evangelical" is often a slur.

* Using "blogs" and other digital forums, the faithful can post links to news media reports and then attach jeers and cheers. In an age of declining audiences for mainstream media products, wise newsroom executives might want to pay attention to these forums. What would happen if major religious groups – such as the Southern Baptist Convention – opened digital dialogues with media professionals?

It could happen. It would be good if it did happen. It's hard for dedicated, concerned readers to have too much information.

Communion in the Anglican Communion?

The words change from continent to continent, but the world's 77 million Anglicans have always found unity around altars containing bread and wine.

In Ireland's new Book of Common Prayer, the modern rite proclaims: "Father, with this bread and this cup we do as Christ your Son commanded: we remember his passion and death, we celebrate his resurrection and ascension, and we look for the coming of his kingdom.

"Accept through him, our great high priest, this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and as we eat and drink these holy gifts, grant by the power of the life-giving Spirit that we may be made one in your holy Church. ... Amen."

These familiar words failed to unite 38 archbishops when they gathered recently in the Dromantine Conference Centre in County Down, Northern Ireland. In fact, the Eucharistic table became the symbol of division.

The leaders of the Anglican Communion met for business, study and prayer, but could not share Holy Communion.

It's hard to gather at the same altar when bishops lack a common understanding of words such as "salvation," "resurrection," "marriage" and even "God," said Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison, an Anglican historian who is the retired bishop of South Carolina.

"You can't hold a church together with appeals to human emotions. You need stronger stuff than that," he said. "You can get by with bonds of affection at your local Rotary Club, but that won't work for us right now. ... You have to be of one mind on the doctrines that have united Christians through the ages."

In headlines around the world, the clashes behind Dromantine's high walls were caused by a familiar controversy – the ministry of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, a gay man living in a same-sex relationship.

The primates released a five-page communique that, in its most quoted passage, urgently requested that the "Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period leading up to the next Lambeth Conference" of the world's bishops in 2008.

The North Americans quickly denied that they had agreed to stand down.

But reports circulated that conservatives, led by Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola and others, had moved beyond words into dramatic action. Before the meeting, Akinola wrote Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and warned that many Third World archbishops would not celebrate communion with U.S. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. There are 2 million Episcopalians and between 40 million and 50 million Anglicans in Africa alone.

Seeking compromise, Williams proposed bringing in a chaplain to lead a daily Eucharist.

"Archbishop Akinola responded it was not the worthiness of the minister that prompted their objections, but their belief that unity of doctrine preceded unity of worship. It was not a question of receiving 'from' Bishop Griswold, but 'with' Bishop Griswold," wrote the Rev. George Conger, in the Church of England Newspaper.

Williams relented, "formally recognizing the state of broken Eucharistic communion," wrote Conger. Some Third World archbishops, led by Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, fasted for the four days.

Griswold was defiant, saying his church welcomes future opportunities to defend its actions on behalf of homosexual clergy, since its leaders believe they have "sought to act with integrity in response to the Spirit, and that we have worked, and continue to work, to honor the different perspectives very much present" in the church.

Yes, these are painful and sobering times, and Allison said he could understand the stance taken by Third World bishops.

After all, it has been a dozen years since he decided he could no longer, with a clear conscience, receive communion during meetings of the U.S. House of Bishops. During a Bible study, several bishops had said that they believed they worshipped a god that is "older and greater" than the God of the Bible. Others said they could not affirm this belief, but would not condemn it.

"This is apostasy," Allison said.

When it came time for all the bishops to go to the altar and receive communion, Allison declined.

"If you do not share the same faith, you cannot share the same communion," he said, recalling that moment. "When people start talking about new revelations and creating some kind of new faith, that's when the red flags have to go up."

Those Oscar-winning sermons

Rare is the movie lover who hasn't glared at the television and muttered: "If I could pick the Oscars, things would be different."

This year, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (usccb.org) urged Catholics, and anyone else who heard about the online poll, to cast their own votes for the major Academy Awards.

And the winners are? The best picture winner was "Million Dollar Baby." Clint Eastwood won best director, for "Million Dollar Baby." The best actress honor went to Hilary Swank, for "Million Dollar Baby." In a big switch from the real Oscars, the Catholic-poll voters didn't pick Jamie Foxx as best actor for his work in "Ray." They selected Clint Eastwood, for "Million Dollar Baby."

The bottom line: It was a knockout for the sucker-punch melodrama in which a gritty boxer (with a gold cross around her neck) asks her surrogate-father trainer (a daily-Mass Catholic) to kill her because she does not want to live as a quadriplegic after tragedy ends her meteoric rise to fame.

Meanwhile, the bishops' own film critics gave "Million Dollar Baby" an "O" – morally offensive – rating and warned that its "guilt-wracked, but ultimately permissive" take on euthanasia "will leave Catholic viewers emotionally against the ropes."

This movie did not have the catechism in its corner.

"We praised it on the artistic level and, in many ways, it is a fine film," said Harry Forbes, director of the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting. "But we also felt duty-bound to give it the worst rating we can give, in terms of moral content. ... In the end, we did not believe it was propaganda for the euthanasia cause, although we know some people did."

Thus, the office's review said: "The pain and devastation of those involved is achingly evident. However, in spite of all the soul-searching that precedes it, the deed itself is presented as an act of reluctant heroism. ... Our sympathies and humane inclinations may argue in favor of such misguided compassion, but our Catholic faith prohibits us from getting around the fact that, in this case, the best-intended ends cannot justify the chosen means: the taking of a life."

Catholic ethicist Thomas Hibbs went even further, calling "Million Dollar Baby" a trip into a "nihilistic hell" in which Eastwood meditates on life in a chaotic, amoral and ultimately hopeless universe. At the movie's heart is the ultimate question: "What if God does not exist?"

The fierce debates about this movie underline a sobering reality, said Hibbs, author of "Shows About Nothing: Nihilism in Popular Culture from The Exorcist to Seinfeld." Modern consumers are more likely to find guidance at the mall or multiplex than in a religious sanctuary. Thus, whether they admit it or not, artists such as Eastwood are moral leaders when it comes time to wrestle with America's most divisive issues.

"What happens in pop culture shapes so many of our debates – even political debates – about these kinds of issues," said Hibbs, dean of the Honors College at Baylor University. "So maybe you haven't seen this movie. But you've heard about it on the news, seen it on magazine covers and read about it in the checkout line at the grocery store. And an Oscar-winning film like this influences other films. ...

"We have a vacuum in our society and this is what fills it – politics and movies. Where is the church in this picture?"

Forbes said feedback to the Conference of Catholic Bishops indicates that many readers do consult its film reviews. The Office of Film and Broadcasting critiqued 225 movies in 2004, publishing its reviews online and through Catholic News Service. The staff suspects that many of these readers are parents, looking for that friendly "A-I" rating that says the church believes a movie is appropriate for all ages.

Movies for adults are another matter.

"There was a time when what the bishops said had more clout," Forbes said. "They could say, 'Don't go to see that movie' and it would be so. We're in a different age and people go see what they want to see.