Until middle age, I had never known anyone who was not either a Christian or a Jew. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and people espousing the other religious traditions of the world simply did not come across my suburban paths during childhood and adolescence. And obviously all of my colleagues in the Jesuit order where I lived in early adulthood shared my own Christian faith.

In 1972, however, I took part in what was billed as “Word Out of Silence: Spiritual Formation East and West,” a symposium held at Mount Saviour Monastery in Elmira, New York. There the Benedictine monks hosted religious leaders from a dozen different traditions in a week of prayer and other spiritual exercises. It meant my first exposure to turbaned swamis and Zen masters with shaved heads, an experience that helped to change my world view.

I will always remember the strain in my leg muscles as I assumed the lotus position for meditation each morning at 4:30 under the direction of a Japanese roshi. Though I was used to my own strict religious discipline, I worried about being able to last out the week under that austere regimen.  

At that time, only in the middle of my life journey, old age did not interest me as a subject for reflection. I was still too young for thoughts of later life to impinge upon my consciousness. Though I did often contemplate the thought of my own death, that event seemed far off in the future.

Thirty years later, however, I have become intent on finding whatever light on old age is offered by the various religious traditions of the world. Surely their wisdom, preserved for thousands of years, must have something important to say about what it means to grow old. And they must speak to the end of life on earth and its meaning for the future.

Even the changes brought on by modern life, I have learned, do not rob the wisdom traditions of relevance to our situation. In fact, as we struggle to find out for ourselves what later life means, many elders feel starved for spiritual nourishment. If traditions other than those with which we grew up can feed that hunger, then we may want to hear more.

This experience helps explain why I recently welcomed receiving for review a package of materials from the Park Ridge Center, based in Chicago. Entitled “The Challenges of Aging,” this package is intended for adult education in church settings. Though its focus is primarily Christian, the material also includes a rich handbook summarizing the outlook of other religious traditions about aging. Further information about the Park Ridge Center’s educational program is available at (312) 266-2222.

Though the five traditions discussed in the handbook – – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism – – differ among themselves in many ways, they all share some central values about aging. These values go directly against two dramatically different views of aging that have become dominant in modern American society. Both of these secular views are deeply flawed and are often the object of criticism by gerontologists and people who hold dear the religious insights offered by their tradition.

Those two views portray old age as 1) simply a time of decline when we start to lose it as we proceed downward on the path toward death,  or  2) a stage of life in which enterprising people can practice “successful aging” achieving good health, engaging in ceaseless activity, and discovering new creativity.

By contrast, the great religious traditions say first of all: “Later life is a time of spiritual flourishing.” These are the words of Dina Varano, who writes the fine summary article in the handbook that comes with the adult education package referred to above.

Spiritual flourishing is consistent with physical suffering and decline. In fact, all the traditions find value in suffering, not as an end in itself but as an opportunity for enrichment of soul. Personal enlightenment can transform the experience of bodily decline into personal greatness.

Each spiritual tradition calls for a “radical transformation of consciousness in later life.” Varano quotes the philosopher Harry Moody: “The spiritual traditions have never accepted the idea that human fulfillment is the product of social roles or relentless activity in the world.” Rather, the great religions see human fulfillment as something spiritual that comes as a gift of God.

Incidentally, the ancient Jewish biblical commentaries offer a charming explanation of how age began. The Midrash tells it this way: “Abraham introduced old age to the world. He came before the Lord with a plea. ‘Master of the universe, a man and his son walk together and no one knows unto whom to give honor. I beg of you, make a distinction between us.’”

Thus, according to this tradition, did age become seen as a blessing. The other religious traditions, too, offer profound reasons for appreciating what it means to grow older.

Richard Griffin

I do not hate politicians. Given the prevailing American views of office holders and seekers, this sentiment may strike you as naïve, even outrageous. However I continue to respect them in general and even to admire some.  Ideally, at least, I consider the knowledge that they have acquired as important to the rest of us and I welcome opportunities to hear from them.

That is why a recent university forum entitled “Reflections on Public Service” attracted my attention. Intended largely as a gathering where a small group of highly seasoned politicians could share some wisdom with students considering public service as a career, it turned out to be both instructive and entertaining as well.

This forum featured Senator Edward Kennedy; former Senator Warren Rudman from New Hampshire; Philip Sharp, who served for twenty years as a United States congressman from Indiana; and Doris Kearns Goodwin, the historian who has written widely about American presidents.

The atmosphere in the crowded amphitheater of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government was animated and yet relaxed. This tone was largely set by the old pros who spoke with warmth and humor of their work in Washington. To me, the occasion seemed that rare opportunity whereby older people get the chance to share their wisdom with those younger.

Ted Kennedy, in particular, showed himself at his most genial and more at ease than I had ever seen him previously. He seemed to take special pleasure in recounting anecdotes of his time in the senate and in sharing his political ideals. Asked by moderator Gwen Ifill how to connect public service with politics, he responded by invoking the famous line from his brother’s inauguration speech: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

He then affirmed that “young people made the difference for people of my generation” and cited their leadership in the civil rights struggle, the opposition to the Vietnam War, and the environmental movement. For him, volunteerism is still alive and well. The best part of it is “all you have to do is care; you don’t have to be a senator.”

For his part, Warren Rudman spoke from the heart about the value that he has found in his chosen path. “There is no psychic satisfaction like public service,” he proclaimed. “I decided that a long time ago.” Since leaving the senate, he has found pro bono service to the community “terrifically satisfying.”

Phillip Sharp praised participation even when it does not produce success. “It is also important to run to lose,” he said of becoming a candidate for office in situations where there is no realistic chance of getting elected. It still helps the community to raise issues and refine them.

Doris Kearns Goodwin spoke with typical charm about some of her experiences with Lyndon Johnson. He felt depressed in his last months of life by his failures as president. “The only hope he had before he died was that he would be remembered for civil rights,” Goodwin recalled.

From her current study for a book on Abraham Lincoln, she told how depressed he was in his early thirties, so much so that his friends took knives away from him. But after he freed the slaves, he wrote: “my fondest hopes are realized.”

Asked about unaddressed issues, the two senators focused on racism. Ted Kennedy believes that we have made fundamental progress but that the issue remains before us still. “We have to free ourselves from it,” he stated. He also spoke of our national need for “a sense of common purpose.”

And Warren Rudman made this bold prediction: “If we cannot give equality to all Americans in the next twenty years, then you will see the decline of America.”

Phillip Sharp is convinced of the need for us “to undo the barriers that prevent people from rising to the level of their talent.” Doris Kearns Goodwin emphasized our need for “leaders who can follow public opinion but shape and mold it at the same time.”

A student asked whether political leaders need to have a high level of schooling. Ted Kennedy stated that “innate qualities are more important.” Doris Goodwin cited Lincoln who had only one year of formal schooling but brought temperament and character to the office of president at a time of great crisis.

Another questioner raised the subject of global warming. Kennedy called it an “enormously serious” issue and accused the Bush administration of being “in the tank” with industries.

I came away from the forum encouraged by this example of give and take among generations. This was a sharing of experience and viewpoints that characterizes a healthy democratic community. Many young people do want to hear from those with many years of public service; some of those who have been in the public eye for a long time do welcome hearing the views of young people.

Richard Griffin

What pleasure is sweeter in later life than seeing a friend from boyhood receive a public honor? In addition to rejoicing with him, you taste the exquisite satisfaction of being ahead of anyone else in having recognized your friend’s merits long before they did.

That was my experience last week as Robert Bullock, who has been my friend since age fourteen, received recognition from the Brookline-based national organization Facing History and Ourselves. Father Bullock is pastor of Our Lady of Sorrows parish in Sharon where he is much respected and loved by parishioners and townspeople.

Jokingly, I tell Bob that he became well prepared for the challenges of an adventurous life when we were in high school together. We were both members of the St. Sebastian’s baseball team during those years. Anyone who was brave enough to play third base, as he did, when I was pitching, certainly demonstrated bravery under fire.

In those days I did not realize that Bob had already been touched by history seven years previously. In 1936, Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, visited Bob’s home parish in Newton. There he placed his hand on the boy’s head in blessing. Little did anyone know then that this pope would become the continuing subject of controversy even now, centered on his actions and failures to act during World War II.

Incidentally, I feel some small association with this same drama. As a reporter for the Boston Post, my father was sent to cover the papal consistory of 1939 at which Cardinal Pacelli was elected pope. He accompanied Cardinal O’Connell, the archbishop of Boston, on shipboard as the latter sailed to Rome to vote. No one at that time doubted that Pacelli was the right person as the world and the church entered a time of severe crisis.

In retrospect, there seems to have been something prophetic in Bob’s contact with Cardinal Pacelli, however fleeting. It can now be seen to presage his lifelong interest in the relationship of the Catholic Church with the Jewish community, an interest that would lead to his involvement in Facing History.

Before becoming pastor in Sharon, Father Bullock had been Catholic chaplain at Brandeis University. That was a position highly favorable for developing an intimate knowledge of Jewish traditions in all their beauty and variety. He became a student of the Jewish community and moved ahead of his own church in his appreciation of that faith so closely linked with his own.

Through his study and personal associations over the years, my friend Bob has built on the Brandeis experience and has become widely recognized for his pioneer work in helping bring the Jewish and Catholic communities closer together.

He has followed with intense concern the issues raised by the Holocaust. His commitment to the educational mission of Facing History has been notable: the struggle to eliminate racism, prejudice, and anti-Semitism. With this organization, he believes that “history is a moral enterprise” and must be studied for its meaning.

Father Bullock has long anticipated the Catholic Church’s official moves toward revision of its own theology vis-à-vis the Jewish community. He took the lead in applying the teachings of the Second Vatican Council that corrected erroneous ideas about responsibility for the death of Jesus. And he saw how Catholics need to change deeply ingrained attitudes about brothers and sisters whose faith antedates Christianity.

Another important set of experiences in Father Bullock ministry comes from his role as director of campus ministry for the Archdiocese of Boston. He held this position at time of great tension in American society, nowhere more so than in colleges and universities.

The Church, too, was feeling this same pressure as demands for change became insistent. My friend helped steer many of us campus ministers through this time of radicalism in church, academia, and society at large.

His work with Facing History has been deeply relevant to the ministry that Bob Bullock has practiced for decades. Two weeks ago, Facing History not only gave my friend words of praise before an audience of twelve hundred people, but also endowed a educational fellowship in his name. The organization had good reason to do so: Father Bullock has been contributing his talents to it for much of its twenty-five year history.  The executive director of the agency, Margot Stern Strom, expressed special appreciation for giving to its members the benefits of his theological reflection and wise counsel.

At the same time that Father Bullock was honored, the philanthropist Richard Smith, for whom his Jewish tradition is vitally important, was also recognized for long service to Facing History. Currently chairman of the board of trustees, Smith has distinguished himself for his generosity to the organization and his good ideas for extending its services more widely.

As a guest at the award ceremony, I felt privileged to be taking part in an event that celebrated the spirit of both Passover and Easter in the exchange of mutual respect and love.

Richard Griffin

“I feel very happy about it; it’s going to save a lot of money.”  This is what Grace Straight, 78 years old, says of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ new Prescription Advantage drug insurance plan. She and her husband, Donald Straight, are longtime residents of the town of Templeton, living in the same house since 1948.

Donald, who has just applied, agrees with Grace: “It’s a good program, by the looks of it.” He has been retired for twelve years and needs to take several medications daily to keep himself in good health, medications that he could not afford if left to his own resources.

The Straights stand among the early enrollers in the new plan which officially began on April 1st. At least one television station in Boston has reported that Prescription Advantage is running far behind expected enrollments, but Secretary of Elder Affairs Lillian Glickman assures me that this information is incorrect. Already more than fifteen thousand elders and people with certain specific disabilities have signed up for the program.

Secretary Glickman says, “We are ahead of where we want to be.” And this achievement comes before a mass media campaign scheduled to begin in May. Her hope is that all eligible elder citizens will seize the opportunity to sign up.

She expresses excitement about the program. “Finally, every elder will have access to coverage that is affordable,” Glickman says. And she takes satisfaction in Massachusetts being the first state to adopt such comprehensive coverage. “The eyes of the nation will be upon us,” she boasts; “We hope it will inform the national debate.”

Massachusetts has already had programs in place to provide drug coverage for its elder citizens. But these Pharmacy and Pharmacy Plus programs will now be replaced by a new and more sweeping plan.

To get information about Prescription Advantage you can simply call 1-800-AGE-INFO, where you can also find out how to enroll. In addition, you can contact the Council on Aging in your city or town or one of the 27 regional ASAPS (Aging Service Access Points).

In its newsletter, the Executive office of Elder Affairs summarizes how the new program works: “Prescription Advantage enrollees will pay premiums, deductibles and co-payments. Unlike other insurance plans, payments will be graduated and are based on gross annual income.

“The state will contribute to the premiums and deductibles for certain low-income enrollees. Members whose income falls below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) pay lower co-payments.

“The maximum monthly premium will be $82, and the state will pay the full cost of premiums for individuals at or below 188% of the FPL.

“There is also an unlimited coverage benefit, and the maximum out-of-pocket expense for co-payments and deductibles for any enrollee will be the lesser of  $2,000 or 10% of gross annual household income.”

For a sharp appraisal of Prescription Advantage, I turned to two well-informed advocates for older people. John O'Neill, Executive Director of Somerville Cambridge Elder Services and current president of the Massachusetts Home Care Association, feels mixed about the program. “It’s good that it’s a public plan,” he says, and it should prove helpful for low-income people. But it has too many deductibles and co-payments for his taste.

“The premiums are a shot in the dark,” he adds, because no one knows how much the whole program will cost. “They are afraid of adverse selection, “ he says of the planners, because so many people who are big users of prescription drugs may sign up. And the plan depends on state funding from year to year.

Another highly knowledgeable advocate for older people, Art Mazer of Cambridge, feels concern about some public policy issues connected with Prescription Advantage. A veteran health care analyst with many years’ service with the federal part of the Medicaid program, Mazer also welcomes Prescription Advantage because he sees its promise for so many low-income people.

At the same time he feels critical of arrangements behind the new program for at least three reasons. First, he says, “I am opposed to insuring one item of health care, namely drugs, without insuring other services.”

Secondly, Prescription Advantage will be funded entirely out of funds that Massachusetts received from the settlement with tobacco companies. Currently, some thirty percent of these funds are being used for other needed health services but all that money and more will be soaked up to pay for the new drug program. He fears that the total costs to the state will go far beyond projections.

Thirdly, Mazer regrets that Prescription Advantage will not lower the costs of drugs. The companies that produce them will still be free to spend twice as much money on advertising as they do for research. This advertising of prescription drugs is a practice, he says, that allows patients to pressure their doctors to prescribe more of these drugs, even when not advisable.

Richard Griffin