End of Times... So What?

Since this is the end of the Church's year, we hear a lot of references about the end of times. Readings from Revelations, Mark 13, Luke 21...

Year after year, I am never really sure what to think about this. My lack of a clear emotional response seems more important this year. Believe it or not, there is a substantial faction of US citizens who are convinced that President Elect Obama is the anti-Christ and that a literal interpretation of Revelations is at hand.

My initial reaction upon hearing this was, 'wow, that's stupid'. But, to be fair, I have no way of proving that these people are wrong. Personally, I have always considered Revelations a veiled form of dissent against Roman oppression, but Jesus is quoted as making references to the end in the synoptic Gospels as well. When I try to play 'what if?', my first thoughts are a bit condescending, such as 'if the rapture comes and I am among the saved, who is going to feed my fish?' This, of course, leads to business ideas, like Rapture Insurance for Evangelical's household pets.

But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that it does not matter to me. As far as I can tell, Jesus' instructions on salvation remain the same. Rather it is in the context of the Good Samaritan in Luke, or the final judgement in Matthew, my job is identical. As long as I have room for for spiritual improvement I don't need to worry about anything else. So, between Jesus setting the bar high and my endless faults, I am pretty well set!.

All Nations...

I am always moved by Matthew 25, and hearing yesterday's reading was no exception. Although the passages move me every time I hear them, it is interesting to me to hear fresh points of view. In his Homily yesterday, the priest made two interesting points. First, unlike most of the parables, this one is harder to project oneself. It is easy to see oneself in either group, the goats or the sheep.

Sometimes we answer a call for charity, other times we turn a deaf ear. The priest noted that it may not even be possible for us to always answer, since we are human not God.

The other point he made which I had never considered is that there are actually three groups, not two. There are the sheep and the goats, but also the people in need, with whom Jesus directly associates with the Son of Man.

It has always been clear to me that the answer to Salvation is always the same. The criteria in yesterday's reading are nearly identical to the criteria given by Jesus in the parable of the Good Samaritan. But the priest's observation that there are three groups got me thinking. In re-reading the passage again last night, it struck me that the Son of Man does not call all people before him, but "all nations". Further, both the damned and the saved are surprised at their fate. God's work was not recognized as such by either group.

This has me pondering on rather or not there is a lesson on our need to work as a community of faith, not just as individuals. It also has me wondering if the things we think matter to God are what we will, in fact, be judged on. Perhaps we need to answer Jesus' calls to service as broadly as we can, just in case...

Quick Note

For those who (quickly!) emailed me. I realize that I pointed to the same USCCB quote in the post just before my last one. The "makes a lot of sense to me" was meant to be a bit of a self deprecating joke. I am sorry that did not come through.

"One family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ..."

I do not normally spend much time at online Catholic forums. They pretty much discussion nothing but abortion. Everything leads to abortion, "Just Faith" is a bad program because it does not focus on abortion, "Renewal" is a bad program because it talked about something other than abortion...

People even try to specifically curtail abortion in their discussions ("NOT AN ABORTION THREAD!" in the subject line), but to no avail. But I was searching for more information on Fr. Newman's situation, which I wrote about a few days ago. For some reason I actually clicked on the Google result that I knew would take me to Catholic Answers. Predictably, the broadest consensus was that Newman was 100% right, should be made a bishop, and any Catholic who voted for Obama should be excommunicated. But the post below from "AgingCatholic" made a lot of sense to me:

Originally Posted by James Tetreault  I totally agree!

The problem, of course, is that we are not Protestants. We are part of an apostolic Church. We have the Vicar of Christ as our undisputed moral leader. That leadership gave us some specific instructions on voting:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...litica_en.html

Read #4 in its entirety. For better or worse, Rome makes it clear that it is "incoherent" and a "detriment" to the faith to elevate individual teachings at the expense of others. The section then concludes with a list of 9 examples (highlighted in the text) of moral principles that do not permit compromise.

If there was any doubt if Rome was serious, Pope Benedict cleared the matter up in Sacramentum Caritatis:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/be...itatis_en.html

See #83, "Eucharistic consistency". The Pope cites the above document and reiterates that the values "are not negotiable".

This presents a huge problem for US Catholics, because all our major party presidential candidates hold intrinsically evil positions, including abortion. In this case, the words are not hyperbole. Abortion is an absolute, that is, there are no recognized licit applications. So, as Pope John Paul II explained in Vertitatis Splendor, some acts can be deemed intrinsically evil.

Fortunately, in addition to a Pope, we have a college of bishops, whose job is to help us properly apply Church teaching in our particular culture and circumstances. Since there is only one Vicar of Christ, and all bishops' authority belongs to him, the bishops try to work collectively and in communication with Rome, since only when they are in communion with Rome are they acting as authentic teachers. The USCCB, working in such a collaboration, produced a document on developing a proper moral conscience for Faithful Citizenship:

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizen...CStatement.pdf

If one looks to chattering by the laity, you can find dismissals and complaints, but conservative Catholic theologians, like Fr. Richard Neuhaus, have been extremely complimentary of the document's doctrinal accuracy. This should be no surprise, since very conservative Bishops, like Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, oversaw its preparation.

If we look at #27-#30, we find that the bishops reiterate Rome's instructions regarding our requirement to not elevate certain teachings at the expense of others. However, the bishops also give some guidance on what to do in a moral dilemma like the one we face. #36 and #37 acknowledge that such dilemmas exist and list a variety of options available to dealing with them. One of those options is to apply a concept normally referred to as "proportionate reasons". We know that this did not just come out of nowhere, because we have a leaked letter from then Cardinal Ratzinger to the bishops which explains the concept as well as some of its limitations.

The key is at the end of #37: 

Quote:

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

This is not a random concept, but a core Catholic teaching. See the Universal Catechism:

Quote:

"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." - CCC 1790

Catholics cannot go against their certain moral conscience, because to do so puts their salvation in peril. But the second part is important to, we must be mindful that, even when we are CERTAIN we are right, we must remain mindful that we can be wrong, and act accordingly. In their statement on voting, the Bishops did not ignore this, going back to #29, where they explained that we cannot compromise some teachings at the expense of others:

Quote:

29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

The Bishops are bringing up an even broader point, about the breadth of our obligation to Christ. But perhaps most importantly, when we are not acting in the spirit and name of Christ, we are not acting as true Catholics.

Again with the dumb...

I have really been surprised with the publicity and intensity that bishops have chastised the lay faithful over the presidential election. It appears that, for some US bishops, only one moral course of action was even remotely conceivable.

Given his past writings I expected Fr. Richard Neuhaus to make the argument that the bishops had over-estimated our intelligence in the Faithful Citizenship document. At least he is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the document itself is theologically sound. The "Catholic Answers" crowd, who had taken it upon themselves to collapse the 9 broad "fundamental and inalienable ethical demands" that Rome had placed on us in voting into a much smaller subset that is of concern to "Serious Catholics", predictably argued that the document is evidence that the USCCB is a politically active secret liberal cabal...

But I am surprised at how overt some bishops have been. After all, the election is now over and healing must begin. Part of this may be human nature. If a bishop runs a political ad, there is an emotional investment in the outcome. And timing and statements where anything but subtle.

But Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio seems particularly blunt. DiMarzio reportedly oversaw the creation of the Bishop's Statement and now seems to be stating that we either did not understand it, or abused it. I, for one, would really like some elaboration on this.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is not our teaching on abortion is absolute? So John McCain's position on abortion, which includes exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and maternal health, would seem intrinsically evil (VERITATIS SPLENDOR). In addition, McCain has publicly stated in the past that he has reservations about overturning Roe v. Wade, something that would be considered dissent from a Catholic politician.

In addition, my understanding is that our belief in life is comprehensive; conception to natural death. So shouldn't McCain's positions on war, poverty, medical care, and the death penalty all be factored in? In the document (#36 and #37), the bishops noted that choosing between intrinsically evil positions is a "moral dilemma". It gave guidelines, and then placed the final moral decision in the hands of individual Catholics. As I understand it, we would have all been compelled to follow the certainty of our individual consciences anyway (CCC 1790).

So let's consider the situation from a lay Catholic's point of view. For better or worse, there is zero measurable evidence that presidential voting for a 'less intrinsically evil' position on abortion (if there really is such a thing) actually has an effect on abortion in the US. Abortion rates have been falling for a couple of decades and dropped more sharply under pro-choice Clinton than intrinsically-evil-but-still-somehow-pro-life Bush. So, if we consider the practical implications of our vote - exactly as #36 and #37 advise, there is no blatant or obvious solution.

To make matters even more difficult, the same document specifically warns us, just as Rome's Doctrinal Note did (#4), that we cannot use the excuse of "limiting the harm" to take actions that are a detriment to other fundamental moral values (see #27-#30). No matter how much I worry about abortion, I cannot embrace, for example, unjust war.

If Catholics factor in multiple fundamental moral values, a broad understanding of pro-life, and their own perception of past and future relative effectiveness, it seems completely understandable that they are going to arrive at different conclusions. I find it extremely disconcerting that Bishops like DiMarzio are insinuating that only one moral conclusion could have been reached. Especially since the document he, himself, oversaw appears to express a theme similar to one I wrote on the other day. I noted that our teaching on life is so broad, that we, not being God, cannot love enough to fully embrace it. Instead, we find the capacity to embrace pieces of it and strive to add more.

DiMarzio seems to be implying that he, himself, can infallibly view all of our pro life teachings in perfect context. Further, that it is seemingly no big deal, since we all would have reached the same conclusion if we simply had better reading and comprehension skills. If that is the case, I wonder what he felt about the inclusion of this in the document:

29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

Education is bad for the Church?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3464073/Educated-Catholics-have-sown-dissent-and-confusion-in-the-Church-claims-bishop.html

Education has a "dark side" which is related to "original sin"? Uh, wow.

Although there is a perception that the Church has been 'anti knowledge', that is largely false. Galileo's problems had more to do with interpersonal relationships than a rigid resistance to early scientific thought. Likewise, the Church never rejected evolution, but simply warned that we must still accept the hand of God in creation.

The 'big bang' was originally predicted by physicist Georges Lamaitre - Monsignor Georges Lemaitre. Just this week I was reading a paper by geneticist Kevin FitzGerald, PhD from Georgetown University. That is Kevin FitzGerald, SJ, PhD, he is a Catholic priest.

It really is not my place to second guess a bishop, particularly one who has been charged with addressing a drop in Mass attendance. But if, by some odd twist of fate, Rome were to accidentally get me on the phone, my comment would be that the problem is not that we have left the middle ages, but that Catholics are having trouble connecting their faith to their everyday lives.

Non Catholic denominations can fill their seats in other ways, lights and contemporary music, the best volleyball league, whatever. I would not fault pastors for trying these things, since the intention would be to save. But I think we need to go deeper. To me, one of the best things to come out of the Second Vatican Council is that we, the lay faithful, are given an opportunity to act. I cannot explain how reaffirming it is for my faith to see people make an extra effort to exchange the sign of peace with my disabled son. All his odd quirks that earn us a wide birth everywhere else seem to be a magnet for compassion in the house of God.

But it is hard to carry that action outside of the Church, and perhaps the bishops could help. It is not my place to question their leadership, but with the heavy emphasis on things like abortion and gay marriage, we often find ourselves acting defensively in areas of seeming moral ambiguity. Abortion draws us to politics and leaves us arguing about all imperfect choices. Protecting marriage often leaves us open to venting our own discriminatory thoughts. I believe that part of the reason that I am an observant Catholic today is that the parish of my youth had a strong emphasis on social justice and the plight of the poor.

It tied it all together. We built that house, we helped that family, it is real, we can see it, it brought us together, and it seemed to directly connect to the Gospel we were hearing.

Some days I have empathy for Protestant Reformation...

For me, being Catholic is both a religion and a cultural identity. My family lived for several years in a house without indoor plumbing because, quite literally, my father would not lie about being Catholic for the sake of a job. One of my first recollections of public school was the teacher explaining to the class what a WASP was, and that I was not one of them. But everyone was going to show true Christian charity to the poor pagan boy anyway...

Instead of making an effort to fit in, I began wearing my Catholicism as a badge of distinction. Since I was partially motivated by a deep dislike for the teacher (and later took waaay too much pleasure in her getting embroiled in a titillating small town sexual scandal), this was not nearly as noble as it sounds.

It was not until later in life that I began to really appreciate our faith's true place in my life. The extended family of parish members who were there for me when my father was dying. The community that came together when a classmate of my daughter's struggled with, and ultimately succumbed to, a rare form of bone cancer. The looks for shared joy when my severely disabled son took first communion...

Over the last few years I have spent a lot of time studying Church history, and have increasingly found myself taking the role of an 'apologist'. It is not that I deny that the human leadership of the Church makes mistakes, but I think that those mistakes have to be viewed in the broader context of human history.

For example, I have come to accept the sexual abuse scandals as a combination of misguided efforts to protect the Church and poor applications of forgiveness and charity. I have gotten caught up in the slippery slope of poor judgement myself, so I have tried, very hard, not to judge the US bishops too harshly. Even when my stomach was still churning over the first revelations, we made a conscious effort to keep our collection giving up. More importantly, I have tried to remind myself on a regular basis not to let the actions of a few, no matter how horrible, color my perception of the entire ordinary, who give so much.

But there are times that I am sorely tested. Take this news release for example. The headline says it all: "Catholic Campaign for Human Development Ends All Funding to ACORN". If one relies exclusively on say, TV news this might seem like a welcome development. There are, after all, many questions about ACORN...

The problem is that, if one bothers to actually research the facts, the questions and accusations are seemingly baseless and have only been raised and pushed for political purposes:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/florida/story/727793.html

As ACORN itself notes, the agency, not others, has been the chief whistle blower in virtually all cases. For example, it is required, by law, to submit all voter registration forms received, but flagged suspicious ones before passing them on. So when Bishop Roger Morin says this:

"More recently, the Subcommittee also became concerned about
widespread reports of ACORN involvement in alleged voter registration fraud and
political partisanship."

He appears to be saying that the subcommittee is reacting to false witness born against an agency which is, seemingly, pursuing the common good. In its Doctrinal Note on participation in political life, the Vatican states:

"The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best
expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it
succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the
human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this
principle, for otherwise the witness of the Christian faith in the world, as
well as the unity and interior coherence of the faithful, would be non-existent.
The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite
fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is
respect for the person that makes democratic participation possible. As the
Second Vatican Council teaches, the protection of «the rights of the person is,
indeed, a necessary condition for citizens, individually and collectively, to
play an active part in public life and administration»."

If use measurable reality as a yardstick, we do not have a significant problem with voter fraud in this country. In fact, when Indiana defended its voter ID law in front of the US Supreme Court, no evidence of actual voter fraud was presented. But we do have a serious problem with voter suppression and disenfranchisement. For example, we know that the Indiana law obstructed elderly nuns from voting.

Even more disturbing, the Attorney General firing scandal appears to have a strong connection to partisan based voter suppression (see also here). Remember, this is not just the realm of political accusations, but also a growing chain of confessions and criminal convictions. If you take away a person's right to vote, eliminating their voice in directing society, are you not attacking that person's inalienable rights as a human person, as defined by the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council? Further, if you twist the Justice Department for partisan political purposes are you not eroding our legitimacy as a society in the eyes of God?

ACORN primarily is focused on activities that we, as Catholics, should support. For example, it's efforts to register the poor and dispossessed to vote is in keeping with our obligation to social justice. Hiring the poor to do the actual work is not without problems, but a laudable goal in its own right. Similarly, its work on affordable housing meets our obligation to the development of a socially just economy, while its requirement that participants undergo training and counseling on money management and fiscal restraint is compatible with our beliefs regarding personal responsibility.

There may be legitimate reasons for the CCHD not to have a financial connection to ACORN, but false accusations and the malfeasance of an employee eight years ago does not seem to be one. Using similar logic, I could argue that the much broader child abuse scandals, combined with all those questions about Catholicism's legitimacy as a Christian faith raised by various Protestant sects, is a valid reason to stop putting envelopes in the collection basket at Mass.

This leaves me wondering if the Bishops are acting out of ignorance of the underlying facts, or reacting to pressure from Catholics who have bought into the 'voter fraud' myth. Either way, I cannot help but be disappointed. I believe that we, as Catholics, should be at the forefront of the fight to enfranchise the poor in our political process, regardless of the partisan political consequences of doing so.

I realize that the Bishops may sometimes factoring in other things, like the need for unity. But when I see a group that appears to be legitimately pursuing part of our obligation to the less fortunate viciously maligned in a partisan political fight, it is hard for me not to take sides and make judgements. After all, Senator McCain attended an ACORN rally and called the participants "Great Americans" just two years ago...

Perhaps some fear is a good thing...

It actually took me a long time to realize that the first and last readings each Sunday are related. I suppose that I should have been taught that at some point (or perhaps I was, but just wasn't paying attention). But since it dawned on me, I have found that it often helps me have better insight into both readings. I have also found that, as our liturgical calendar repeats, I often find new connections to ponder.

Yesterday's readings are no exception. In the past the concept that has stood out for me is that we have an obligation to put all the gifts that God has given us to proper use. In the homily, the celebrant made an extremely interesting point by taking the Gospel reading even more literally. Instead of thinking of it as 'gifts', the priest proposed that we can view it as being entrusted with God's possessions. And, in that light, he then pointed out that among the most valuable possessions we have been entrusted with are our fellow human beings.

In re-reading the verses last night I happened to notice another theme, fear of God. This is actually a recurring theme in the Old Testament. It comes up so often that it can be easy to tune it out. But look at the end of the Gospel reading. The third servant loses what he has and ends up in the bitter wilderness. Jesus does not stress fear in the parable, but the concept of dire consequences remains. Also, His listeners would have already been very familiar with the many references to fearing the Lord in the Old Testament.

What made me think of this was something the priest said. As he talked about us all as God's possessions, and our obligation to be in the service of each other, he noted that we should be motivated in this by love, not fear. Fear, he said, would be the "worst possible motivation". This got me thinking about the seeming contradiction between a loving God and one which we are, at least scripturally, frequently told it is well to fear.

It seems to me that the answer is right in the first few lines of the recommended Responsorial Psalm in the link above. Fear of the lord is a blessing because it is connected to walking in "his ways". If we fear God, then would it not stand to reason that we believe in Him? Further, once you fear (and believe) in God, what else would you have to fear? All the destructive fears that consume so many, people who look different from us, socioeconomic competition from classes beneath us, powerful and competent women, etc., seem insignificant compared to eternal suffering!

With all due respect to my priest, in that light I think that a little fear may be a good thing...

Saint Paul was right...

I had started on a different post for today. But then I came across a reference to this news article on the Washington Monthly's online blog. Author Steve Benen's pieces often generate interesting debates in the comments area, but I was amazed at the volume and intensity that the post received.

I, and several others, commented primarily on what the Church officially teaches and explained that the statements of a single priest or even a bishop do not represent the official views of the Church. But there was still considerable outrage, including a great deal from self described Catholics (and many "former Catholic"s). In re-reading Rev. Jay Scott Newman's comments, I must admit that I can at least empathize with the reaction. But as I have let this digest, I am starting to feel a great deal of pity as well.

Our Catholic teaching on life is incredibly broad and incredibly difficult. As John Paul II explained in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI (#38), we are each endowed with inalienable rights. The most fundamental being our right to life. Since these rights come to us from God, they cannot be abridged by our fellow man, and remain with us in every stage of our development and in every condition. I, personally, get this in principle. If we are each a unique creation of a God who can, and does, love us each infinitely, then the distinctions that we draw between ourselves are meaningless. Just consider the math, 99.8 times infinity is neither larger or smaller than 107.62 times infinity and both numbers are beyond the scope of human comprehension.

But most of us can at least glimpse pieces of this incredibly broad teaching. For example, I do not think that I know anyone who would bludgeon their own newborn child to death at birth. And I am quite certain that most of my friends and acquaintances would be filled with angst and grief if they were confronted with a medical end-of-life decision for a beloved family member. But as we move towards the extreme ends of live, like when we are talking about tiny clusters of cells that, in many ways, act like normal maternal organ tissue, it becomes hard for many of us to view such life as exactly equivalent to our own.

When our own perceptions of 'worth' or 'value' enter into the mix, vision of our true equality in the eyes of God can become even more obscured. Consider, we all know people who would grieve horribly at suspending extraordinary medical treatment for a beloved parent but who would boast about their own willingness to pull the plug on, say, Osama bin Laden.

I mention this, because it appears to me that Fr. Newman feels our teaching on life quite strongly with regards to the unborn. But, sadly, he appears to believe that not being in lock step with him politically means that a portion (perhaps a significant portion) of his flock have turned their backs on the inalienable rights of the human person. I, personally think that this almost certainly misguided.

I believe that the real problem is that we each cannot love enough. God can love infinitely, but we cannot. So when it comes to an incredibly broad teaching like life, we love spottily, unevenly, and, most importantly, in unique individual combinations, across a broad spectrum. Just after Halloween I met a woman who is off to India, called to help continue Mother Theresa's work. I can glimpse that it is important, but cannot see myself going. Even though 4,000 children die every day around the world for want of two buckets of potable water, my prayers for them are, sadly, not as intense as the ones I offer for my own children.

In the encyclical DEUS CARITAS EST ("God is Love"), Pope Benedict points to St. Paul:

34. Interior openness to the Catholic dimension of the Church cannot fail to dispose charity workers to work in harmony with other organizations in serving various forms of need, but in a way that respects what is distinctive about the service which Christ requested of his disciples. Saint Paul, in his hymn to charity (cf. 1 Cor 13), teaches us that it is always more than activity alone: “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing” (v. 3). This hymn must be the Magna Carta of all ecclesial service; it sums up all the reflections on love which I have offered throughout this Encyclical Letter. Practical activity will always be insufficient, unless it visibly expresses a love for man, a love nourished by an encounter with Christ. My deep personal sharing in the needs and sufferings of others becomes a sharing of my very self with them: if my gift is not to prove a source of humiliation, I must give to others not only something that is my own, but my very self; I must be personally present in my gift.

I believe that the Holy Father is correct. Without love, Fr. Newman's attempts to lead his flock will mean nothing. It seems to me that this is a perfect opportunity for Fr. Newman and his entire flock to grow in love together. Instead of debating whose love is most urgent, or correct, they could all strive to love more broadly. Some might grow in their love for the unborn, others for the victims of war and torture, or the attack on life represented by poverty.

Fr. Newman's comments also reminds me of St. Paul in a couple of other ways:

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

First, I respect the father's right to an opinion, but I can find no evidence to support the idea that Senator Obama's position on abortion is particularly unique in his political caucus, let alone record setting. Likewise I can find very little evidence that the senator's political opposition was/is especially "pro-life". Governor Palin has not pursued abortion as a political agenda. Like Senator Biden, she has publicly stated that it would not be appropriate for her to push her beliefs on others. Similarly, Senator McCain has publicly questioned the wisdom of overturning Roe v. Wade.

For the later part of the campaign, at least two research/watchdog groups noted that McCain/Palin advertising was 100% negative. Further, many of the claims being made were widely reported to be untrue, or at least misleading. I cannot help but wonder if Fr. Newman's views have been shaped, not solely through objective reality, but through a multi-million dollar attempt to demonize a fellow child of God. As St. Paul noted, we need to bring things into the light to see their true nature.

"Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth." Ephesians 5:6-9

This can be difficult if others are intent on creating an intentional cloud of deception. I also find it a little disappointing that Fr. Newman is taking a teaching that is incredibly broad, and not only collapsing it to something very narrow, but then feeling that he must compromise even on the much narrower principle. After all, not only has our teaching on life seemingly been reduced to abortion, the distinction between 'righteous' and 'mortal peril' is seen as hinging on a sliding scale of believing in killing a narrower number of innocents.

I cannot think of another form of serious or intrinsic evil where so many Catholics are willing, as Fr. Newman, to label cooperation as just. If McCain supported the molestation of a limited number of children, would anyone be describing him as "plausible pro-child"? But, somehow, supporting certain types of abortions, continuation of a war that the Holy See has questioned, and a long history of supporting the death penalty makes him, unquestionably, "pro-life"?

Again, thinking of St. Paul, this seems backwards to me:

"Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped." - Philippians 2:5-6

Is it our place to decide what level of moral erosion is acceptable and redefine the natural law to match? Or are we supposed to strive to serve as living examples of that law as broadly and completely as we can?

To be clear, I would argue that, as divisive and over-reaching as Fr. Newman's comments seem to be, he does have a legitimate point. Rome has made it clear that we have an obligation to defend certain fundamental and inalienable rights in voting (see #4). Pope Benedict has written that this obligation relates directly to salvation and fitness for the sacrament of communion (see #83). If a Catholic did vote expressly for the purpose of promoting, say, abortion, then a serious moral dilemma would exist. But, since the US bishops have placed the responsibility on individual Catholics to make morally complex choices in voting when facing imperfect choices (see #36-37), we should try to view the choices of our fellow Catholics in the most favorable light, even when those choices do not match our own.

"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to
interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a
favorable way:

'Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a
favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he
cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter
understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not
suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct
interpretation so that he may be saved.'" - CCC 2478

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...