What can God do for me today?

Through the recent campaign, I tried to keep my comments about Sarah Palin limited. It was simply too easy for me to fall into the sin of judging her, not just as a potential elected official, but as a human being.

The strong ties to 3rd wave Pentecostalism, which a life long Catholic like me finds weird and unnerving. The strong ties to the "Flag hating" Alaska Independence Party, which makes my working class, Irish Catholic, son-of-a-WWII vet sensibilities bristle. Being an overly protective father of a disabled son, even Palin's strange behavior and choices concerning her youngest son Trig make me uncomfortable.

With all that and the governor's politics, it would be waaaay too easy for me to see her as a characiture and not a fellow child of God. But something in her recent interview on Fox News caught my attention:

"Faith is a very big part of my life. And putting my life in my creator's hands - this is what I always do. I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is. Even if it's cracked up a little bit, maybe I'll plow right on through that and maybe prematurely plow through it, but don't let me miss an open door. And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

I cannot look into Palin's heart and mind, but if we take this quote at face value, it seems to suggest that Evangelical Protestants have a somewhat different view of their relationship with God than the one I hear described each week at Mass. We certainly do hold that God is the one true source of good and power. But it seems distinctly un-Catholic to presume to know, with certainty, that God's will and one's own ambitions perfectly coincide.

In this particular case it is even more striking to me because there appears to be no thought given to the consequences of one's own actions. Instead of 'God keeps giving me great opportunities and I just seize those bulls by the horns...', perhaps 'God keeps giving me great opportunities so I will just keep trying to overcome my failures as a servant...' would be closer to my understanding of our instructions from Christ.

It just struck me that God is credited for the opportunity, but "plow right on through" is seemingly wholly separate. It is incredibly difficult to view much of Sarah Palin's campaign rhetoric as being in line with the 8th Commandment. And even now that the election is over, she seems to have some difficulty with the truth.

This is not to suggest that I am morally better than Sarah Palin. As A. J. Jacobs noted in his book, "The Year of Living Biblically", "I lie a lot" myself. I am just noting that, in our conversations with God, we seem to focus on different things. I spend a lot of time asking for forgiveness for my many failures and generally ask for help in finding the strength not to repeat them. Add some gratitude for the many blessings in my life and the wonder of creation (that one has been happening a lot more since I started watching "The Universe" on the History Channel), and there just doesn't seem to be a chance for career opportunities to even come up.

Of course, that could just mean that I should spend more time talking to God...

The Death Penalty

Recently someone was kind enough to send me this article to 'correct' my understanding of the Church's position on the Death Penalty:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

Frankly, I find Mr. Akin's reasoning pretty un-compelling. To be fair, he seems to at least be relatively honest about the context of the Cardinal Ratzinger quote he uses. Ratzinger appears to have been explaining why certain disagreements with the Church rise to the level in Canon law were communion can be refused (CIC 915) and why others do not - even though those other disagreements may be over grave and important moral principles. This is not entirely new ground, the modern 'blueprint' for rightfully refusing communion was laid out by John Paul II, who used divorce as the example of grievous public sin.

However, there seem to be three huge gaps in Akins' reasoning when he proceeds to argue that capitol punishment is a matter for our courts, not the Church.

First, although he is correct that the Church does sometimes delegate final moral decision making, it is always clear when it does so. CCC 2309 delegates determination of several factors for Just War to rightful civil authority. Similarly, CCC 2278 puts complex decisions about refusing medical treatment in the hands of patients or those they designate to protect their interests. But while CCC 2266 makes punishment of crimes a rightful role of civil authority, CCC 2267 specifically singles out the death penalty and cites papal authority instead.

The second problem with Akins' assertion that "Judges and Juries Decide" is that, in the US, Judges and Juries do not consider the Church's criteria for the death penalty! Look at CCC 2267:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'"

Juries make death penalty decisions on factors like the severity and violence of the crime, not society's safety from the criminal. If you are using different criteria, has the moral decision making even been delegated?

The last problem is the use of the word "prudential". I think that a strong case can be made that Pope John Paul II was, in fact, exercising his prudential judgment in this case. The Catechism of the Council of Trent argued that the death penalty was licit because, ultimately, it upheld the purpose of the law:

"The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives." - Catechism of the Council of Trent (emphasis added)

As Cardinal Dulles explained in his essay in First Things, John Paul II had concluded that, under today's conditions, that same "purpose" is best fulfilled a different way. This is a conclusion that the Bishops, world wide, appear to overwhelmingly agree with. The question then becomes, does "prudential" mean 'optional'? Fortunately, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church directly addresses this:

"Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." - LUMEN GENTIUM, #25 (emphasis added)

The phrase "even when he is not speaking ex cathedra" means, 'even when he is not invoking papal infallibility' or, 'even when he is expressing his prudential judgement'. In the case of the death penalty, we have a strong indication of "His mind and will". Our last two popes have addressed the death penalty in public statements on US soil. In addition to the Universal Catechism, we have the local Catechism (UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS), which identifies the death penalty as a causal factor in our "culture of death". Last, but not least, we have written papal directives, like the important encyclical EVANGELIUM VITAE.

The desire for revenge and retribution are understandable. But as Pope John Paul II explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), we hold certain rights to be inalienable. They cannot be abridged because their origin is from God. The most fundamental of these is the "right to life". Like freedom of speech, the true test of our belief in something is not standing up for it when it is easy, but doing so when it is hard.

WWRJD?

I know, it is not very Christian of me.  It is oh so easy to be the Pharisee and oh so hard to be the Publican.  But after quietly listening to 90 minutes of right wing talk radio in the back seat of a car, the image above does reflect my mindset at the moment...

Prop 8 revisited...

Recently I posted why I did not support Prop 8 here in California. To recap, my reasons hinged on my own moral conscience.  Secular marriage is too far removed from the Sacrament of marriage for me to legitimately feel threatened by gay marriage.  On the other hand, negative impact on the civil rights of same sex partners does feel emotionally tangible.  

At the risk of repeating myself, I would not expect anyone to argue that John McCain should be denied visitation rights to some of his children in the hospital just because of the Church's position on divorce, infidelity, and remarriage. Similarly, I would feel guilty subjecting other children of illegitimate (Catholic-wise) unions to such (seemingly) unnecessary suffering.

I did not defy the Church lightly, but considered #1790 from the Universal Catechism:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed."

I cannot ignore my own pangs of conscience, but I must remain aware of my own fallibility and the legitimate moral authority of the Pope.

However, there is another aspect of the Prop 8 campaign that I found troubling.  Namely, our obligation to the Eighth Commandment:

"The eighth commandment forbids misrepresenting the truth in our relations with others. This moral prescription flows from the vocation of the holy people to bear witness to their God who is the truth and wills the truth. Offenses against the truth express by word or deed a refusal to commit oneself to moral uprightness: they are fundamental infidelities to God and, in this sense, they undermine the foundations of the covenant." - CCC 2467

I wish that tactics like this had been limited solely to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811100003

But, unfortunately, I heard a number of similar claims from members of my own parish.  The most favorable view I can take on this is to assume that they were merely repeating what they, themselves, had heard.  But it seems to me that, in Catholicism, the ends do not always justify the means...

PNAC is back...

One of the more interesting aspects of the recent election for me was reading George Weigel's election related columns in The Tidings, the weekly newspaper for the Archdiocese. It was no surprise to hear blatant partisan rhetoric, that has been Weigel's MO for years. Even he seems to realize that he sometimes pushes the boundary of blatant lap dog. For example, one of his 'Catholic Difference' columns on Campaign 2008 appeared in The Tidings as so:

http://www.the-tidings.com/2008/091908/diffce.htm

But the column is truncated in his official archive:

http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubid.3568/pub_detail.asp

And the Boston Pilot (published a few weeks after The Tidings):

http://www.thebostonpilot.com/articlearchives.asp?ID=7010

So the surprise was not divisive, hateful, rhetoric like this:

"Question for Sen. John McCain:

How would you work with Democrats so that the war against
terrorism is a bipartisan effort?"

In the world Weigel lives in, love of one's neighbor, security of one's children, etc. are traits which are demarked along political partisan lines. The fact that a Democratic Congress has continued to fund President Bush's wars and given his administration tremendous latitude in waging a so-called 'war on terror', even at the expense of civil liberties, simply does not register.

This is much like Rush Limbaugh's current use of the term "Obama Recession" and "Obama Depression". Obama may not yet be president, but the 10 straight months of job losses, an additional $40 B in taxpayer dollars to AIG, etc., are somehow his fault... I am tempted to ask my Bishop, does Obama's responsibility for national failures extend back soley through the Bush years, or, as a good Catholic, am I to hold him responsible back to the point he was a fertilized zygote?

I once heard a Homily where 'Us' and 'Them' thinking was partially attributed to our deep roots as a Protestant nation. I must admit, the whole concept of identifying "real" Americans or "serious" Catholics does seem closer to Evangelical rhetoric than anything I have heard at Mass. But given he is a recipient of a papal cross ("Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice"), it is certainly not my place to question Weigel's religion, not matter how blatantly he wears his politics on his sleeve.

But, again, it was not his partisanship that surprised me. What peaked my interest was the seeming utter inflexibility of his world view. I guess I had expected more self described "neo conservatives" to follow Francis Fukuyama's lead and accept the discrepency between neoconservative ideas in theory, and disasterous practice. It is, after all, a fundemental concept of behavioral science that we can, in fact, learn from direct experience.

But, if anything, the failure of neoconservatism as foreign policy, the unerring failure of neoconservatives as prognosticators, and the rejection of neoconservative standard bearers in the recent elections seems to have reinvigorated true believers like Weigel and William Kristol. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which Kristol headed and for which Weigel is a mission statement signatory, had seemed headed for oblivion. But the web site has now returned from the dead.

Personally, I have no problem with this. I think that free speech is an important component for any Democracy. But I would sincerely like to see, just once, Weigel explain the disparity between the thousands of words he has written in support of the Iraq war on moral grounds (virtually all of which has since been debunked) and PNAC's position papers, which identifies war with Iraq as a "convenient excuse to promote [US] self interest". Much as Weigel once conceded that torture as US policy would invalidate a Just War argument for Iraq, but has since gone mute on the subject now that we know that, in fact, torture was/is official US policy, knowing where national (and, according to Fukuyama, partisan) self interest fits into Weigel's position would be helpful in judging his arguments.

Why I voted 'No' on Prop 8

If you are a Catholic living in California, you have heard of "Prop 8". It is an amendment to the California Constitution intended to prohibit gay marriage. Much of the ordinary, including our Archbishop here in Los Angeles, was very supportive of it. On Tuesday, it passed. But not with my vote.

Based on what Rome has written on the matter, it should have been a no brainer:

"When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning... Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such." (emphasis added)

I admit, I have some doubts about our teaching.  As Theologian Lisa Sowle Cahill points out in her book "Family: A Christian Social Perspective", our modern concept of a 'traditional' family bears little resemblance to the family structures and social norms of New Testament times.  After reading works like Bruce Malina's "Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea", I would have to say that many of these changes have been for the better, moving us closer to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

However, part of being a Catholic is accepting the Apostolic nature of the Church.  The Bishops, when they are in communion with the Pope,"are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ" (LUMEN GENTIUM #25).  Even when I do not fully agree, I should strive to obey.  

So why did I vote no?  It is simple, if I had voted yes, I would not have been supporting 'the family', I would have simply been persecuting a minority.  It is not that I do not agree that the family should be protected and fostered, it is just that I do not see our modern concept of marriage as being even remotely related to the Catholic sacrament.

Others may feel differently, and I respect that, but when 50% of marriages end in divorce and premarital and extramarital sex are the widely accepted, and even glamorized norm, it is hard for me to wring my hands and wail about the 'threat' of a small segment of the population wanting to form similar social structures.  Even if I could perceive an actual threat, it would seem hypocritical of me to focus on that one threat while remaining tolerant of so many others.

Think about it.  John McCain's first wife raised his children alone while he was a captive in Vietnam.  But after she was in a horrible car accident and lost her looks (along with some of her height and almost her life), he dumped her for a younger, wealthier woman.  A woman who, clearly, was willing to engage in an extra marital affair with him.  They began planning their wedding before his divorce was even final.

John McCain's current marriage is hardly in keeping with our Sacrament.  But I do not recall anyone asserting that he is not in a 'traditional' marriage, or that his disregard for the our idea of marriage and family disqualifies him from public office.  His current wife often spoke in public on his behalf during the recent campaign and I do not recall any of the women who held "Yes on 8" signs near my office protesting her appearances with shouts of "Jezebel!"

My point is not to pick on poor John McCain (or his heiress 'trophy wife').  My point is merely that if I were to focus on the tiny and remote (for me) issue of homosexual marriage before addressing the larger and more pressing attacks I see every day, I would not be doing so to protect my marriage, or that of my neighbors.  I would be doing it to hurt gay people.  Hurting people, even under the lip service of promoting the common good, does not meet the standards of my own 'moral conscience' for upholding the faith.

This is not to say that I would pass judgement on other Catholics.  I am just saying that I could not convince myself that I would be acting in good faith.

What is a "Couch Potato" Catholic?

To be completely honest, I do not know what the exact definition of "Couch Potato" Catholic is.  I only know that I have been labeled as one!

It all started when I tried to cite a document from the USCCB.  Two fellow Catholics were arguing about voting on an online forum.  The first Catholic had noted that he would be using a write in vote for President because of the issue of abortion.

A second Catholic then stated that doing so would be "complicency with evil" (sic).  As the two went back and forth it was mutually agreed that, from a strict Catholic teaching point of view, all the major party candidates for President and Vice President in the US in 2008 had public positions on abortion which were/are "evil" (or at least, as John Paul II proclaimed,  related to a "grave moral disorder" - EVANGELIUM VITAE #62).  This is an assessment I agree with as well.

For better or worse, our teaching on abortion is absolute.  So any acceptance of abortion (McCain, Palin, and Obama) is at odds with the Church.  Further, the Church has stated that Catholics in political life have a moral obligation to oppose laws which permit 'attacks on human life'.  So Biden's personal acceptance of the Church's position but resistance to public promotion of that same position in secular law is also problematic.

Interestingly, Palin has also publicly expressed a reluctance to impose her beliefs on issues like abortion on others.  However, even though she was reportedly baptized as a Catholic, I am not sure if she currently qualifies as a 'Catholic politician'.

In any event, where my two fellow Catholics continued to differ was that the first one felt he was not compelled to vote for evil in any form while the other argued that not voting for the "lesser" of two evils was, itself, a promotion of evil.

At this point I (unwisely) interjected that the USCCB document on "Faithful Citizenship" addresses this exact situation:

36.  When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma.  The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

 

37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. 

In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Based on this, I contended that since even non participation is expressly identified as a potentially licit response, voting for a write-in or 3rd party candidate who holds a position in keeping with the Church is quite likely licit as well.  After all, #36 begins "all candidates", not 'all viable candidates'.

To put it mildly, neither the quote nor my comments were well received.  I was told, in no uncertain terms, that it is "couch potato Catholics" like myself who undermine the work of "real" and "serious" Catholics and allow evil to rule the earth...

Oddly, my own approach to voting is probably closer to my detractor's.  I tend to vote somewhat pragmatically; attempting to promote good and limit harm.  I guess the difference is that I do not see that approach, or my specific choices, as inarguably right.  In fact, I see something admirable in "standing with God regardless of the odds", as our write-in peer put it.

If that dooms me to life on the sofa, so be it.  I just hope that there is snack food and baseball on a HD TV...