Sermon
Scapegoat
The Rev. Jack D. Bryant
Hope Unitarian Church
October 23, 2005
First Reading: Leviticus 16:5-10; 21-22; 29-30 (Instructions to Aaron)
5He shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. 6Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. 7He shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting; 8and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel. 9Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD, and offer it as a sin offering; 10but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.
. . .
21Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. 22The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.
29 This shall be a statute to you forever: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall deny yourselves, and shall do no work, neither the citizen nor the alien who resides among you. 30For on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the LORD.
Second Reading: Testing the Faith: Pope bans homosexuals from ordination as Priests. World Net Daily. September 19, 2005.
Applicants with 'gay' tendencies won't be admitted to seminaries
Pope Benedict XVI has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document that bans men with homosexual tendencies from being ordained as priests, reports Catholic World News.
The policy statement is a direct result of the pope's concern about the pedophilia scandal in the church – especially in the U.S.
The new document, prepared by the Congregation for Catholic Education in response to a request made by the late Pope John Paul II in 1994, will be published soon
. . .
The text, approved by Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder that detracts from their ability to serve as ministers, says the CWN report.
. . .
The pending release of the "Instruction," in the face of certain criticism from liberal forces in America and Western Europe, demonstrates the determination of the Vatican to improve the quality of priestly ministry and to protect the church from some of the scandals that have recently shaken the Catholic community – and no doubt deterred many men from entering priestly training.
Informed sources in Rome indicate that the "Instruction" probably will be made public after the Synod of Bishops, which meets in Rome Oct. 2 through 23.
Sermon
Last month I read several articles about the instruction on homosexuality that the Vatican is expected to release in the near future. As soon as I heard the news I thought of the story of the scapegoat from Leviticus. The term “scapegoat” is actually a result of a mistranslation of the original Hebrew. But that doesn’t matter. And - given the modern meaning given to that word - it’s a particularly appropriate term for what the Vatican is trying to do - which is avoid the genuine issues raised by the sex scandals in the Catholic church.
That’s why I think the key phrase in the Vatican story is this:
The policy statement is a direct result of the pope's concern about the pedophilia scandal in the church – especially in the U.S.
But if the Catholic church wanted to confront the pedophilia scandal this instruction is the last thing they would be doing. That’s because homosexuality doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s not homosexual priests who have been molesting children. It’s been heterosexual priests. That’s because pedophilia isn’t about same sex attraction, it’s about arrested emotional development. It’s about grown men behaving in a manner appropriate for pre and early adolescents. The charge that homosexuals are responsible for the pedophilia problem in the Catholic church is on par with accusations that there is an international conspiracy by the Jews or the Illuminati to control the world and all its financial institutions. The reality is a pedophilia scandal driven by the Vatican’s policies on celibacy. But because the Vatican does not make mistakes it is necessary to have a scapegoat on which the blame can be pinned. The only thing surprising about the Vatican’s response about its pedophilia scandal is that they had not yet issued a public statement accusing those who brought the problem to light of playing the “blame” game.
I thought of the story of the scapegoat when I read the news of the Vatican’s soon to be released instruction because it is such a good example of the modern meaning of the word. But what I find interesting is that our modern usage of the word is actually inconsistent with what happens in Leviticus. A scapegoat in the modern sense is a person who is blamed for a wrong committed by another. But in Leviticus the scapegoat was not just literally a goat, the whole purpose was different. The purpose was a ritual by which people recognized what they had done wrong. The ritual was an act of acknowledgment of personal responsibility. Nobody thought the goat had done it. The people knew they were the ones responsible. It was a symbolic act by which wrong was acknowledged so that people could move forward. In that sense I think it was a wise and healthy thing to do. Go to a psychologist today and you might receive similar advice. If you have unresolved issues with a parent or another person who is already dead you might be told to write a letter to that person as a way of laying out on the table what is wrong about the relationship - that, having done so, you might move forward in your life in a healthy way. Some churches have a new year’s ritual that does something similar. Judaism, of course, continues to have its Day of Atonement. And some churches apply the concept to issues such as grief and loss. It is the idea of acknowledging something within one’s own heart that lies at the heart of that ancient ritual.
But that’s not the modern sense of the word. The modern use of the term turns the original idea on its head. In our modern world we don’t admit wrong, we look for someone else to blame. Germany’s problems under Hitler were the fault of the Jews. America’s problems today are the fault of the liberals - or conservatives - or immigrants - or homosexuals - or Christians - or non-Christians - or whoever you want it to be. Louis Farrakhan says it’s white people. The Ku Klux Klan says its people of color. It used to be the communists, but that’s passé today. The essence, however, is always the same. It is the identification of someone on whom you can pin the blame. It’s the avoidance of personal responsibility. And it’s an act of violence - not necessarily physical violence - although it can be as in the case of lynchings - but violence nonetheless. I saw a good example of how it becomes violence in the New York Times this morning. It was a story about how the United States is currently withholding all funding from the U.N. Population Fund because that program is teaching and promoting the use of modern birth control methods in third world countries. The scapegoat in this instance is any post-medieval understanding of sex and medicine. And the direct result is the yearly death of tens of thousands of women because the current administration would rather they die than have birth control pills or modern medical care.
But you shouldn’t think our government and the Vatican are the only people who behave in this manner. Conrad Wright, a leading historian of our own religious movement, wrote years ago that we, as movement, had begun to move from congregational polity towards a bureaucratic polity - and I know first hand that the first rule of a bureaucracy is the avoidance of personal responsibility. A bureaucracy cannot function without a scapegoat. I suspect it is a natural, human tendency to avoid blame. But it is a matter of choice. It is the natural, human ability to be able to make that choice. And we are responsible for the choices we make. Sadly, we do not always choose wisely. Sadly, religion - which at its best calls us to confront the reality within - is often misused, often turned into the supporter of scapegoating in the modern sense. That’s why the Vatican’s insistence on blaming homosexuals for its problem with heterosexual pedophiles is so tragic. It is tragic because the Vatican’s position is said to have been formulated after consultation with moral theologians and ethicists. However, the foundation of morality and ethics is about choice. It is the element of choice that moves an action or decision into the realm of morality. And homosexuality is not a choice. It is about a person’s being. It is no more a matter of choice than the color of your skin. A serious moral review of the Vatican’s pedophilia problems would not point to homosexuality - something which is not about choice. It would point to the Vatican’s policy on celibacy, a policy the Vatican has chosen to embrace. So long as the Vatican wants to have the scapegoat of homosexuality it will never deal with the problem. Children will continue to be abused. And homosexuals - as a group - will be singled out and targeted for hatred. And that isn’t religion, it is an abuse of religion.
Much of our modern culture is built around the literature of the bible. The story of the scapegoat is but one example, although it’s an example of how the original meaning has been twisted and distorted. But the bible as we know it today is but a part of a larger collection of writings. In 367 Bishop Athanasius issued an order that those other writings be destroyed. Almost all of them were. But a few weren’t destroyed and were hidden away. In 1945 some of them were rediscovered in what we now know as the Nag Hammadi library. One of those books was the Gospel of Thomas, an early alternative version of the ministry of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas is described as a “sayings” gospel. Instead of a narrative telling of the story of Jesus it is more like a collection of quotations and the one I find most fascinating is number seventy:
Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."
I believe the original story, the original ritual, in Leviticus was one designed to help people bring forth what was within them. It was to help them look within themselves because they knew if they couldn’t do that, what was within them would eventually destroy them. Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of Leviticus, the modern interpretation of the biblical tradition has gone the other way - and it doesn’t matter if you approve or disapprove of the bible’s influence on our culture, I believe its influence is an undeniable fact. The question is what we will do with it.
As I look at our culture today I see a tendency to embrace the use of scapegoats, to blame others for what is wrong. The angry rhetoric that pervades the media is evidence of this. How often do we hear someone dispassionately review the world and say, “You know, I’m part of the problem.” Instead we have what has been called the blame game by our current administration. And it would seem to be helpful that they would make such statements if they themselves were not such wonderful examples of blaming others for their problems, of refusing to look within themselves and discover what is there.
But the solution does not lie in changing others. The solution lies within the self. The solution lies in one person deciding that he or she will seek to discover that which is within. The solution lies - as Gandhi said - in becoming the change you want to see in the world. The solution lies in recognizing that leadership is not about position, it is about action; that leadership is not about controlling the behavior of others or being able to pin the blame on others and avoiding it oneself, but in controlling oneself, in understanding what is within the self and in doing so finding a path to personal salvation.
I believe the Vatican deserves criticism for its attempt to make homosexuals the scapegoat for its own problems. I believe the Vatican deserves criticism for its refusal to move beyond the medieval in its understanding of human sexual behavior and development. But all the criticism in the world will not change the Vatican. I believe our true responsibility is to look at our own behavior, to bring forth what is within us that we might save ourselves, because if we don’t, what is within us will destroy us. It is analogous to the wisdom speech I hear every time I’m on a commercial airline flight. If the oxygen masks are necessary, put yours on first, then help the person next to you.
As a movement I believe part of what is within us is a tendency towards a radical individualism that has too often fostered a sexual permissiveness that is just as destructive as the regressive sexual mores of other religious traditions. While the Catholic tradition has problems arising out of its rigid boundaries, Unitarianism has struggled with problems that arise out of our flexible and ambiguous boundaries. I much prefer our problems, just as I prefer my own personal problems to those others. But as a movement and as individuals I believe we must confront what is in us that we might be saved, because if we do not what is within us will destroy us.
So I would leave you with these questions. What is within our own religious tradition that we need to confront? What is within each heart and each soul that will save or destroy each of us?
Amen.