Sollicitudo Rei Socialis

Closing Up Shop

2006-04-13T08:34:00.000-04:00

After much thought and prayer, all of the contributing editors and writers have decided that we can't continue with Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. This is primarily due to time constraints -- we all have too much on our plates. To illustrate how much we have on our plates: I was supposed to post this announcement on Monday. Better late than never, I guess. ;)

It has been wonderful and, at times, challenging to blog about Catholic social justice teaching in our complicated world. I know I can speak for all of us when I say that we're sorry to have to say goodbye to this project. But we must, and so this is the last post you'll see on Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. We will, however, be keeping the blog open as a resource to our readers and also to ourselves. We may be having to end this project now, but that doesn't mean we have to erase all the work we've already done.

In any event, we thank you for reading and for sharing this part of our journey with us. May God bless you and keep you; may he show his face to you this Easter Season, and may the joy of his resurrection bring you everlasting peace.

Gaudium et Spes 41

2006-04-10T11:23:00.000-04:00

Gaudium et Spes 41 begins by suggesting that humanity is indeed experiencing a time of progress. But it is only through the reliance on God -- and the recognition that God fulfills our deepest human longings -- that this "development" can reach its full potential:

Modern (humanity) is on the road to a more thorough development of (its) own personality, and to a growing discovery and vindication of (its) own rights. Since it has been entrusted to the Church to reveal the mystery of God, Who is the ultimate goal of (humankind), she opens up to
(people) at the same time the meaning of (their) own existence, that is, the innermost truth about (themselves). The Church truly knows that only God, Whom she serves, meets the deepest longings of the human heart, which is never fully satisfied by what this world has to offer.

We might not always possess the full awareness of it, but God even works deeply upon believers themselves, to further the plan of salvation:

She also knows that (people are) constantly worked upon by God's spirit, and hence can never be altogether indifferent to the problems of religion. The experience of past ages proves this, as do numerous indications in our own times. For (people) will always yearn to know, at least in an obscure way, what is the meaning of (their) life, of (their) activity, of (their) death. The very presence of the Church recalls these problems to his mind. But only God, Who created (human beings) to His own image and ransomed (them) from sin, provides the most adequate answer to the questions, and this He does through what He has revealed in Christ His Son, Who became (flesh). Whoever follows after Christ, the perfect (human being), become (themselves) more (human). For by His incarnation the Father's Word assumed, and sanctified through His cross and resurrection, the whole of (the person), body and soul, and through that totality the whole of nature created by God for (human) use.

At this point, it's appropriate to ask, "What makes Jesus special?" It's also timely, for the celebrations of Holy Week point in a special way to the most profound aspect of Christ's example: his emptying, or kenosis. A person who throws herself in front of a bus to save a child. A person who has sacrificed tirelessly for the poor and needy. Even if these people are not believers, and not conscious in any way about the Paschal Mystery -- in such sacrifices, people make the choice to imitate Christ, to take up their cross and follow, even if they do not know Another has walked that same path.

The Church is in a difficult place today. More difficult certainly, than forty years ago. We need leaders who embody those core values of kenosis: people who can do more than talk about sacrifice. When we find them, I think the relationship with the modern world is eased, at least in the sense of being able to communicate clearly the Christian vision.

Thanks to this belief, the Church can anchor the dignity of human nature against all tides of opinion, for example those which undervalue the human body or idolize it. By no human law can the personal dignity and liberty of (people) be so aptly safeguarded as by the Gospel of Christ which has been entrusted to the Church. For this Gospel announces and proclaims the freedom of the (children) of God, and repudiates all the bondage which ultimately results from sin (cf. Rom. 8:14-17); it has a sacred reverence for the dignity of conscience and its freedom of choice, constantly advises that all human talents be employed in God's service and (people's), and, finally, commends all to the charity of all (cf. Matt. 22:39).

As I read this section, I think the laity have a special apostolate these days to assist in overcoming the poor image of the hierarchy. This last paragraph is certainly true, in spite of the sinfulness of those who have harbored sexual predators.

This agrees with the basic law of the Christian dispensation. For though the same God is Savior and Creator, Lord of human history as well as of salvation history, in the divine arrangement itself, the rightful autonomy of the creature, and particularly of (humankind) is not withdrawn, but is rather re-established in its own dignity and strengthened in it.

And who best to exemplify the confirmation and strength of human dignity? Lay people empowered by their relationship with Christ.

The Church, therefore, by virtue of the Gospel committed to her, proclaims the rights of (people); she acknowledges and greatly esteems the dynamic movements of today by which these rights are everywhere fostered. Yet these movements must be penetrated by the spirit of the Gospel and protected against any kind of false autonomy. For we are tempted to think that our personal rights are fully ensured only when we are exempt from every requirement of divine law. But this way lies not the maintenance of the dignity of the human person, but its annihilation.

GS alludes here, I think, to the notion of rights-plus-duties, rather than a rights-alone approach. Human rights are indeed an essential component of human dignity. Human rights are most often abused by leaders. The same leaders, of course, overemphasize duty and forsake the rights of others. Striking a balance in this is vital. Each person indeed has rights. But each person also has particular duties to fulfill in his or her role in a family, in friendships and associations, with the commitments of school and work, as well as within larger groups: in churches, neighborhoods, and political entities, including the world as a whole.

Comments?

Gaudium et Spes 40

2006-04-02T12:24:00.000-04:00

Returning from a pause in this site's examination of Gaudium et Spes, section 40 begins a brief chapter treating "The Role Of The Church In The Modern World." What has preceded this section is a set-up for the Church's brief reflection on exactly what is the place of the church in the world, as the document confesses:

Everything we have said about the dignity of the human person, and about the human community and the profound meaning of human activity, lays the foundation for the relationship between the Church and the world, and provides the basis for dialogue between them.(1) In this chapter, presupposing everything which has already been said by this council concerning the mystery of the Church, we must now consider this same Church inasmuch as she exists in the world, living and acting with it.

The Church embodies the action of the Trinity in our world. A body of mortal beings, it is confined to time, but has a role beyond the realm of experienced time:

Coming forth from the eternal Father's love,(2) founded in time by Christ the Redeemer and made one in the Holy Spirit,(3) the Church has a saving and an eschatological purpose which can be fully attained only in the future world.

The Church also has specific tasks entrusted to it:

But she is already present in this world, and is composed of (human beings), that is, of members of the earthly city who have a call to form the family of God's children during the present history of the human race, and to keep increasing it until the Lord returns. United on behalf of heavenly values and enriched by them, this family has been "constituted and structured as a society in this world"(4) by Christ, and is equipped "by appropriate means for visible and social union."(5) Thus the Church, at once "a visible association and a spiritual community,"(6) goes forward together with humanity and experiences the same earthly lot which the world does. She serves as a leaven and as a kind of soul for human society(7) as it is to be renewed in Christ and transformed into God's family.

Sounds a bit sneaky. But it does provide the context for our efforts at evangelization. Our ultimate goal is not the repudiation of the world, but rather its transformation.

That the earthly and the heavenly city penetrate each other is a fact accessible to faith alone; it remains a mystery of human history, which sin will keep in great disarray until the splendor of God's (children), is fully revealed. Pursuing the saving purpose which is proper to her, the Church does not only communicate divine life to (people) but in some way casts the reflected light of that life over the entire earth, most of all by its healing and elevating impact on the dignity of the person, by the way in which it strengthens the seams of human society and imbues the everyday activity of (people) with a deeper meaning and importance. Thus through her individual matters and her whole community, the Church believes she can contribute greatly toward making the family of (people) and its history more human.

The Church's comminucation of the divine, that's worth repeating:

By a two-fold emphasis on the dignity of the person: healing and elevating (medicinal and political, if you will). Non-Catholics participate in this as well:

In addition, the Catholic Church gladly holds in high esteem the things which other Christian Churches and ecclesial communities have done or are doing cooperatively by way of achieving the same goal. At the same time, she is convinced that she can be abundantly and variously helped by the world in the matter of preparing the ground for the Gospel. This help she gains from the talents and industry of individuals and from human society as a whole. The council now sets forth certain general principles for the proper fostering of this mutual exchange and assistance in concerns which are in some way common to the world and the Church.

Notes:

1. Cf. Paul VI, encyclical letter Ecclesiam suam, III: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 637-659.
2. Cf. Titus 3:4: "love of mankind."
3. Cf. Eph. 1:3; 5:6; 13-14, 23.
4. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter I, n. 8: AAS 57 (1965), p. 12.
5. Ibid., Chapter II, no. 9: AAS 57 (1965), p. 14; Cf. n. 8: AAS loc. cit., p. 11.
6. Ibid., Chapter I, n. 8: AAS 57 (1965), p. 11.
7. Cf. ibid., Chapter IV, n. 38: AAS 57 (1965), p. 43, with note 120.

Any comments?

Gaudium et Spes 39

2006-03-28T17:06:00.000-05:00

The heavily footnoted 39th section of Gaudium et Spes concludes this current chapter, by looking to the end times and expressing that universal longing for peace and life, and freedom from sin and death.

We do not know the time for the consummation of the earth and of humanity,(cf. Acts 1:7) nor do we know how all things will be transformed. As deformed by sin, the shape of this world will pass away;(cf. 1 Cor. 7:31; St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, V, 36, PG, VIII, 1221) but we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling place and a new earth where justice will abide,(cf. 2 Cor. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:13) and whose blessedness will answer and surpass all the longings for peace which spring up in the human heart.(cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Apoc. 21:4-5) Then, with death overcome, the (children) of God will be raised up in Christ, and what was sown in weakness and corruption will be invested with incorruptibility.(cf. 1 Cor. 15:42 and 53) Enduring with charity and its fruits,(cf. 1 Cor. 13:8; 3:14) all that creation(cf. Rom. 8:19-21) which God made on (humankind's) account will be unchained from the bondage of vanity.

Heaven is a stimulation, the Council teaches, for the transformation of the modern world in whatever way believers can effect it. The "foreshadowing" mentioned below inplies that activity to restore the world into a graced balanced, however flawed that might be in intention or result, is a participation of sorts in the coming Reign of God, as realized in its truest final form:

Therefore, while we are warned that it profits a (person) nothing (to) gain the whole world and lose (him- or her)self,(cf. Luke 9:25) the expectation of a new earth must not weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age.

It's a concern to God, that much is clear:

Hence, while earthly progress must be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ's kingdom, to the extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the Kingdom of God.(Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno: AAS 23 (1931), p. 207)

What we receive at the end of our lives, at the end of time, will be familiar to those who work for these ideals:

For after we have obeyed the Lord, and in His Spirit nurtured on earth the values of human dignity, (communion) and freedom, and indeed all the good fruits of our nature and enterprise, we will find them again, but freed of stain, burnished and transfigured, when Christ hands over to the Father: "a kingdom eternal and universal, a kingdom of truth and life, of holiness and grace, of justice, love and peace."(Preface of the Feast of Christ the King) On this earth that Kingdom is already present in mystery. When the Lord returns it will be brought into full flower.

Comments?

Guest Blog: The Ecumenical Call to Social Justice Work

2006-03-27T00:00:00.000-05:00

When the SRS editors asked me to consider how Christians and Jews have worked together to advance the cause of social justice, I thought immediately of the historic struggle for civil rights in this country. I thought of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, and of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel (both of blessed memory), and of Rabbi Heschel's famous assertion that when he marched with Dr. King in Alabama he was praying with his feet. In the words of Harold Schulweis, these "two men from different geographies, color, creed, theological background were joined in a spiritual kinship whose legacy address[es] our own times."

Their admirable work inspired the current generation of social justice movers-and-shakers. Who's carrying on the legacy of Dr. King and Rabbi Heschel in today's world?

One answer is the Shalom Center, under the stewardship of Rabbi Arthur Waskow. The Shalom Center helped give rise to the Tent of Abraham, "a gathering of Jews, Christians, and Muslims who have been building a 'Tent' of shared spiritual concern for peace, justice, and healing of the earth." (Here's their mission statement).

Among their projects is God's October Surprise, a "call to share sacred seasons" which began last fall and will continue in 2006 and 2007. In this rare convergence of calendars, these Octobers mark the confluence of the sacred Muslim lunar month of Ramadan and the sacred Jewish lunar month of Tishrei (which includes the High Holy Days), the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, and World-wide (Protestant/Orthodox) Communion Sunday. The month was marked with a series of events, and will be again over the coming two years; there's tremendous opportunity for ecumenical social justice work here. (If this kind of thing inspires you, don't miss The Tent of Abraham: Stories of Hope and Peace for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, a new book due from Beacon Press in July, written by Rabbi Waskow, Joan Chittister OSB, and Sufi scholar Saadi Shakur Chisti).

Also noteworthy is Clergy and Laity Concerned About Iraq, a multifaith organization of clergy and layfolk who oppose the Iraq war and who agitate for peace and justice. Their official existence began last April 4 at Riverside Church; the date was chosen in memory of Dr. King (and with the intent of continuing his legacy). They've written an open letter to the President, held a multireligious tent revival on Independence Mall and staged a civil disobedience action (those latter two events are described by "prisoner 151" here).

Another place to look for ecumenical social justice work is Rabbi Michael Lerner's Tikkun (both the magazine, and the community). They describe themselves as "an international community of people of many faiths calling for social justice and political freedom in the context of new structures of work, caring communities, and democratic social and economic arrangements."

One of the Tikkun community's projects is the Network of Spiritual Progressives (you can read about their core vision here). They're holding a Spiritual Activism Conference in May, designed to be an ecumenical and interfaith experience which will bring together social justice-minded folks across the religious spectrum.

(I can't resist here putting in a plug for the Progressive Faith Blog Con, a July gathering for liberal religious bloggers which is also designed to be interfaith, and which will surely have a social justice component. I'm one of the organizers, and don't want to hijack this post to promote the event -- if you're interested, read more about planned programming here).

Those of us who care about social justice care about it deeply, but there aren't nearly enough of us to achieve the work that needs to be done. I'd like to see more people involved in this important work -- not just those of us on the liberal fringes of our traditions, but everyone who identifies themselves as a Christian or a Jew. How can we bring this dream to fruition? I think one answer lies in our scriptures.

The verse most often repeated in Torah is "love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." Out of this arises one of Judaism's most central teachings about the way God wants us to live. We must live in a way that empowers the marginalized, protects the vulnerable, clothes the naked and feeds the hungry -- a way that enacts the mitzvat ha-borei, the mitzvah of the creator, to love our neighbors, our "others" as ourselves.

Though I'm no expert on the Christian Scriptures, I know that the gospel of Matthew contains a pivotal passage about separating the sheep from the goats. Jesus will separate, the text tells us, those who fed him when he was hungry, and clothed him when he was naked, and welcomed him when he was a stranger, from those who did not. When his followers ask, baffled, when they could have done these things, he argues famously that when we do these things for the least of his brethren, we do them for him.

Jews and Christians both hear the call to be active in "the care and redemption of all that God has made." We need to set aside our doctrinal differences, our history of disagreement about thorny theological subjects like the nature of God and redemption from sin, and focus on our traditions' common teachings about the imperative to heal the world. Redeeming creation from its brokenness is some of the most valuable work we can do. And as the famous quotation from Pirkei Avot holds, "it is not incumbent upon us to finish the task, but neither are we free to refrain from beginning it."

- - -

Rachel Barenblat is a rabbinic student in the ALEPH Rabbinic Program and an accomplished writer in a variety of genres, including poetry and liturgy. She maintains the popular blog Velveteen Rabbi and also contributes to Radical Torah, a collaborative blog which takes a look at the Torah through the lens of progressive religious and political viewpoints. Rachel is part of the Jewish Renewal tradition, and she is the shaliach tzibbur (services-leader) at Congregation Beth Israel, a Reform synagogue in North Adams, MA.

Gaudium et Spes 38

2006-03-26T20:06:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 38 addresses some of the recent concerns expressed in the comment boxes on my blog.

For God's Word, through Whom all things were made, was Himself made flesh and dwelt on the earth of men.(cf. John 1:3 and 14) Thus He entered the world's history as a perfect man, taking that history up into Himself and summarizing it.(cf. Eph. 1:10) He Himself revealed to us that "God is love" (1 John 4:8) and at the same time taught us that the new command of love was the basic law of human perfection and hence of to worlds transformation.

Human perfection--that's a high ideal. It's also an ideal that's not without hope:

To those, therefore, who believe in divine love, He gives assurance that the way of love lies open to (people) and that the effort to establish a universal (family) is not a hopeless one. He cautions them at the same time that this charity is not something to be reserved for important matters, but must be pursued chiefly in the ordinary circumstances of life. Undergoing death itself for all of us sinners,(cf. John 3:16; Rom. 5:8) He taught us by example that we too must shoulder that cross which the world and the flesh inflict upon those who search after peace and justice. Appointed Lord by His resurrection and given plenary power in heaven and on earth,(cf. Acts 2:36; Matt. 28:18) Christ is now at work in the hearts of (people) through the energy of His Holy Spirit, arousing not only a desire for the age to come, but by that very fact animating, purifying and strengthening those noble longings too by which the human family makes its life more human and strives to render the whole earth submissive to this goal.

The council bishops also recognize that not every individual possesses the same calling. However, every bliever shares that ideal endpoint in God's salvific plan.

Now, the gifts of the Spirit are diverse: while He calls some to give clear witness to the desire for a heavenly home and to keep that desire green among the human family, He summons others to dedicate themselves to the earthly service of (others) and to make ready the material of the celestial realm by this ministry of theirs. Yet He frees all of them so that by putting aside love of self and bringing all earthly resources into the service of human life they can devote themselves to that future when humanity itself will become an offering accepted by God.(cf. Rom. 15:16)

The celebration of the Eucharist is seen as an indispensible part of the life of believers. It is also a symbol of the way in which human activity can be steered and changed by God for a greater good.

The Lord left behind a pledge of this hope and strength for life's journey in that sacrament of faith where natural elements refined by man are gloriously changed into His Body and Blood, providing a meal of (familial) solidarity and a foretaste of the heavenly banquet.

Ohio's 6th District

2006-03-26T20:00:00.000-05:00

St. Sen. Charlie Wilson (D-Bridgeport) is running for Congress in Ohio's 6th congressional district, a seat that's been vacated by Rep. Ted Strickland (D), who is running for governor. St. Sen. Wilson has repeatedly been endorsed by Ohio Right to Life, which adds a twist to the usual debate between pro-life Republican Catholics on the one hand and pro-choice Democratic Catholics on the other. Of course his opponent, St. Rep. Chuck Blasdel (R-East Liverpool), has also been repeatedly endorsed by Ohio Right to Life.

Gaudium et Spes 37

2006-03-25T08:42:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 37 discusses the shadow side of progress:

Sacred Scripture teaches the human family what the experience of the ages confirms: that while human progress is a great advantage to man, it brings with it a strong temptation. For when the order of values is jumbled and bad is mixed with the good, individuals and groups pay heed solely to their own interests, and not to those of others. Thus it happens that the world ceases to be a place of true (family). In our own day, the magnified power of humanity threatens to destroy the race itself.

Lack of concern for others: the danger of the age. GS frames their analysis of the world's sin as being that of selfishness. Not a direct rebellion against God, necessarily, but a lack of concern for those harmed by selfish actions. Recalling Matthew 22:39, Jesus did equate the two loves as being alike.

For a monumental struggle against the powers of darkness pervades the whole history of man. The battle was joined from the very origins of the world and will continue until the last day, as the Lord has attested.(cf. Matt. 24:13; 13:24-30 and 36-43) Caught in this conflict, (humankind) is obliged to wrestle constantly if (it) is to cling to what is good, nor can (it) achieve (its) own integrity without great efforts and the help of God's grace.

Always on guard, it seems. I'm struck by the likeness with addiction recovery here. Recovering addicts acknowledge they are still addicts, though in a state of recovery.

That is why Christ's Church, trusting in the design of the Creator, acknowledges that human progress can serve (humankind's) true happiness, yet she cannot help echoing the Apostle's warning: "Be not conformed to this world" (Rom. 12:2). Here by the world is meant that spirit of vanity and malice which transforms into an instrument of sin those human energies intended for the service of God and (people).

God's will is that human beings find happiness in their own works, but cannot find a purity of contentment outside of God.

Hence if anyone wants to know how this unhappy situation can be overcome, Christians will tell (them) that all human activity, constantly imperiled by (human) pride and deranged self-love, must be purified and perfected by the power of Christ's cross and resurrection. For redeemed by Christ and made a new creature in the Holy Spirit, (human beings are) able to love the things themselves created by God, and ought to do so. (They) can receive them from God and respect and reverence them as flowing constantly from the hand of God. Grateful to (their) Benefactor for these creatures, using and enjoying them in detachment and liberty of spirit, (people are) led forward into a true possession of them, as having nothing, yet possessing all things.(cf. 2 Cor. 6:10) "All are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (1 Cor. 3:22-23).

My reading of this is that the imitation of Christ can always be fruitfully brought into human endeavor. Love and reverence for things can express that quality God desires most strongly from the created world: gratitude. The promise is that detachment, therefore liberty, promotes true possession. I suppose the extreme counterexample is when things begin to possess us by the agency of our own sins. Thoughts?

Gaudium et Spes 36

2006-03-25T08:25:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 36 addresses the common fear that the Church is an agent for the stifling of the human spirit as opposed to a supporter of human endeavor:

Now many of our contemporaries seem to fear that a closer bond between human activity and religion will work against the independence of (people), of societies, or of the sciences.

As with anything, individual human beings do work to thwart human expression in a sinful way. Some of these human beings reside in the Church, where they may wreak havoc in the name of the same Church.

If by the autonomy of earthly affairs we mean that created things and societies themselves enjoy their own laws and values which must be gradually deciphered, put to use, and regulated by (people), then it is entirely right to demand that autonomy. Such is not merely required by modern (humanity), but harmonizes also with the will of the Creator. For by the very circumstance of their having been created, all things are endowed with their own stability, truth, goodness, proper laws and order. (Humankind) must respect these as (it) isolates them by the appropriate methods of the individual sciences or arts. Therefore if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God. (cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter III: Denz. 1785-1186 (3004-3005))

For the skeptic, the Church is in a position to labor to prove its words. The past statement I found interesting on two fronts. First, the notion that aspects of God's creation possess qualities, notably truth. Truth as a philosophical concept or ontological one is a quality of a scientific or artistic aspect of the universe. The obvious scientific item of the past would be the heliocentric model of the universe as championed by Galileo. Of the last century would be the elaboration of Darwin in developing the evolutionary model, and how it applies not only to biological creatures, but cosmology, geology, and perhaps even economics, to mention just a few disciplines.

Artistically (and my second point of interest is the pairing of sciences and the arts) one might find that music contains certain truths as well. Religious chant might have an artistic and scientific basis for producing a certain psychological state of mind--a state conducive to prayer. It would be found that other forms of music, aside from Gregorian chant say, would have a comparable or superior effect. That would be a truth, an aspect of God's creation, that would be undeniable.

Indeed whoever labors to penetrate the secrets of reality with a humble and steady mind, even though (she or) he is unaware of the fact, is nevertheless being led by the hand of God, who holds all things in existence, and gives them their identity.

A consciousness of the agency of God in one's work is not required for such work to be part of God's plan.

Consequently, we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, which are sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science and which, from the arguments and controversies they spark, lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed.(Cf. Msgr. Pio Paschini, Vita e opere di Galileo Galilei, 2 volumes, Vatican Press (1964))

Remember where we found this.

But if the expression, the independence of temporal affairs, is taken to mean that created things do not depend on God, and that (humankind) can use them without any reference to their Creator, anyone who acknowledges God will see how false such a meaning is. For without the Creator the creature would disappear. For their part, however, all believers of whatever religion always hear His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures. When God is forgotten, however, the creature itself grows unintelligible.

Comments?

Gaudium et Spes 35

2006-03-24T14:40:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 35 fine tunes what was said earlier about the value of human activity on the plan of God. The improvement of individuals, groups, and society as a whole is a good thing. As individuals and groups transcend self-improvement, growth above and beyond the comfort zone is more valued than material riches:

Human activity, to be sure, takes its significance from its relationship to (humankind). Just as it proceeds from (them), so it is ordered toward (them). For when (people work they) not only alter things and society, (they develop themselves) as well. (They) learn much, (they) cultivate (their) resources, (they go) outside of (themselves) and beyond (themselves). Rightly understood this kind of growth is of greater value than any external riches which can be garnered. (People are) more precious for what (they are) than for what (they have). (cf. Paul VI, address to the diplomatic corps Jan 7 1965: AAS 57 (1965), p. 232)

This is especially true in matters of social justice. Medical advances, for example, are more valuable for the good they do than the profits they garner for owners, investors, and even workers. Advancement in sociology, in a better and more harmonious rendering of society in other words, is more valuable than technological improvement.

Similarly, all that (they) do to obtain greater justice, wider (communion), a more humane disposition of social relationships has greater worth than technical advances. For these advances can supply the material for human progress, but of themselves alone they can never actually bring it about.

Advancement without a heart: this is not progress, according to the Church.

Hence, the norm of human activity is this: that in accord with the divine plan and will, it harmonize with the genuine good of the human race, and that it allow (people) as individuals and as members of society to pursue their total vocation and fulfill it.

The final result is that individuals must be free to discern and pursue their path in life. The more human beings do this, the more advanced society becomes. Lacking such opportunities, we cannot truly say the world is better off today than fifty or a hundred years ago.

CPTers freed!

2006-03-23T22:19:00.000-05:00

U.S., British Forces Rescue Iraq Hostages - Yahoo! News

The feet of those who brought good news were beautiful indeed as we learned that Norman Kember, Harmeet Sooden and Jim Loney have been freed.

Yes, it was a multi-national military force that freed them, though without firing a shot. But, unlike the reporter stated on ABC World News Tonigh t, CPT is not without gratitude for those who freed them.

We are grateful to the soldiers who risked their lives to free Jim, Norman and Harmeet. As peacemakers who hold firm to our commitment to nonviolence, we are also deeply grateful that they fired no shots to free our colleagues.

As Rose Marie Berger points out,

It would be easy to pit the peacemaker against the soldier - but it would be wrong to do so. There are soldiers who serve "the least of these" in Iraq. It was an unknown American soldier who decided to drape Tom Fox's casket with a flag to honor his sacrifice. And there are peacemakers who thrive more on their own anger, self-righteousness, and personal purity, than on authentic deeply rooted sacrificial love.

We thank you, Most Holy Trinity, that our friends are free tonight. We thank you for all those who worked to bring about their freedom. We continue to pray for the soul of Tom Fox, who gave his life following your commands. We also continue to pray for the many, many Iraqis and foreigners who have been kidnapped, for the many Iraqis who have been arrested without cause, for the soldiers who are in danger, and most of all, for peace and an end to all violence.

Gaudium et Spes 34

2006-03-23T10:39:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 34 raises an important consideration:

Throughout the course of the centuries, (people) have labored to better the circumstances of their lives through a monumental amount of individual and collective effort. To believers, this point is settled: considered in itself, this human activity accords with God's will. For (people), created to God's image, received a mandate to subject to (themselves) the earth and all it contains, and to govern the world with justice and holiness; (cf. Gen. 1:26-27; 9:3; Wis. 9:3) a mandate to relate (themselves) and the totality of things to Him Who was to be acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all. Thus, by the subjection of all things to (humankind), the name of God would be wonderful in all the earth. (cf. Ps. 8:7 and 10)

The concern in many minds is over this subjection. In the ancient world, people were at the mercy of weather, disease, famine, and other natural disasters to a far greater extent than they are today. Triumph over the wilds of nature was seen as a victory over evil. But human beings are considerably stronger than they were in biblical times. This mandate today would seem to shift from a victory by strength to a stewardship of wisdom, as the governance of the world "with justice and holiness" seems to indicate.

This mandate concerns the whole of everyday activity as well. For while providing the substance of life for themselves and their families, men and women are performing their activities in a way which appropriately benefits society. They can justly consider that by their labor they are unfolding the Creator's work, consulting the advantages of (others), and are contributing by their personal industry to the realization history of the divine plan. (cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), p. 297)

I'm not forwarding the notion that everyday lay activity is "ministry," but I think believers can see their work as participating in God's saving plan. This would be part of the root of the Church's philosophy of work.

This next part is important. I think it reveals a healthy approach to human development, namely that modern developments such as rationalism or technology or science are not by nature in opposition to God. The believer recognizes God's grace in the work of the world. Through daily work, the believer is also "bound" to put extra effort into evangelization and witness. Improving the life of a person, or the lives of people as a whole are seen as a participation in God's plan:

Thus, far from thinking that works produced by (human) talent and energy are in opposition to God's power, and that the rational creature exists as a kind of rival to the Creator, Christians are convinced that the triumphs of the human race are a sign of God's grace and the flowering of His own mysterious design. For the greater (humankind's) power becomes, the farther ... individual and community responsibility extends. Hence it is clear that (people) are not deterred by the Christian message from building up the world, or impelled to neglect the welfare of (others), but that they are rather more stringently bound to do these very things. (cf. message to all (humankind) sent by the Fathers at the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, Oct. 20, 1962: AAS 54 (1962), p. 823)

Gaudium et Spes 33

2006-03-23T00:25:00.000-05:00

It's the start of a new chapter for the Pastoral Constitution: "(Human) Activity Throughout the World." This is the last chapter before the Church turns to its own role. After that, particular issues will be covered in the last half of Gaudium et Spes.

Through (their) labors and (their) native endowments (humankind) has ceaselessly striven to better (their) life. Today, however, especially with the help of science and technology, (they have) extended (their) mastery over nearly the whole of nature and continues to do so. Thanks to increased opportunities for many kinds of social contact among nations, a human family is gradually recognizing that it comprises a single world community and is making itself so. Hence many benefits once looked for, especially from heavenly powers, (humankind) has now enterprisingly procured for (themselves).

A straightforward assessment of the improvement of the material situation for the world's people--many of them, at any rate.

In the face of these immense efforts which already preoccupy the whole human race, (people) agitate numerous questions among themselves. What is the meaning and value of this feverish activity? How should all these things be used? To the achievement of what goal are the strivings of individuals and societies heading? The Church guards the heritage of God's word and draws from it moral and religious principles without always having at hand the solution to particular problems. As such she desires to add the light of revealed truth to mankind's store of experience, so that the path which humanity has taken in recent times will not be a dark one.

Nothing surprising here. Human progress can only find meaning in light of God. The Church admits answers are not always forthcoming, but faith would tell us the search for the truth lies not exclusively in human betterment, but in the heritage of faith.

Gaudium et Spes 32

2006-03-21T17:38:00.000-05:00

Section 32 concludes Chapter 2 of Gaudium et Spes, which was titled "The Community of (Hu)mankind." If there has been a bias toward the greater social needs in sections 23-32, it was because of the overall thrust of the chapter, not necessarily because of any kind of a reorientation to extroversion and public social work.

We have a theological and historical reality, namely that God saves people in communities:

As God did not create (people) for life in isolation, but for the formation of social unity, so also "it has pleased God to make (people) holy and save them not merely as individuals, without bond or link between them, but by making them into a single people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness."(cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter II, n. 9: AAS 57 (1965). pp. 12-13) So from the beginning of salvation history He has chosen (people) not just as individuals but as members of a certain community. Revealing His mind to them, God called these chosen ones "His people" (Ex. 3:7-12), and even made a covenant with them on Sinai.(cf. Exodus 24:1-8)

Consider the Scriptural witness; it contains interwoven stories about individuals called by God to intervene in human affairs and lasso a group of people into God's grace. Consider Abraham and his descendants, Joseph and famine relief, Moses and the freedom from slavery, Judith and her besieged city, and so on. Even the non-action figures wrote whole books on their meditations--Wisdom, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes were all penned by wise and spiritual authors who intended (it seems) to share their advice with a larger group of persons.

Jesus is naturally the example par excellence:

This communitarian character is developed and consummated in the work of Jesus Christ. For the very Word made flesh willed to share in the human fellowship. He was present at the wedding of Cana, visited the house of Zacchaeus, ate with publicans and sinners. He revealed the love of the Father and the sublime vocation of (humankind) in terms of the most common of social realities and by making use of the speech and the imagery of plain everyday life. Willingly obeying the laws of his country He sanctified those human ties, especially family ones, which are the source of social structures. He chose to lead the life proper to an artisan of His time and place.

More than his life's example, Jesus also preached community:

In His preaching He clearly taught the (children) of God to treat one another as (sisters and) brothers. In His prayers He pleaded that all His disciples might be "one." Indeed as the redeemer of all, He offered Himself for all even to point of death. "Greater love than this no one has, that one lay down (their) life for (their) friends" (John 15:13). He commanded His Apostles to preach to all peoples the Gospel's message that the human race was to become the Family of God, in which the fullness of the Law would be love.

I think of the witness of Christian saints in this light. Many saints led rather ordinary lives. But their example is promoted for imitation, itself a broadening of the individual calls each of them received from God. Jesus himself intended for a human community to be formed. It was to be a group of people more closely bonded than any other. Indeed, Christ's own body was upheld as an early prime example of the way in which this new community would function.

As the firstborn of many (sisters and brothers) and by the giving of His Spirit, He founded after His death and resurrection a new ... community composed of all those who receive Him in faith and in love. This He did through His Body. which is the Church. There everyone, as members one of the other would render mutual service according to the different gifts bestowed on each.

The role of the individual is to play her or his part. More than that, the Church is to consider itself always in need of reform, of greater perfection, of better effort, of striving for the ideal, which without God is unreachable.

This solidarity must be constantly increased until that day on which it will be brought to perfection. Then, saved by grace, (people) will offer flawless glory to God as a family beloved of God and of Christ their Brother.

Thoughts?

Gaudium et Spes 31

2006-03-21T17:18:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 31 approves of education, social service, and civic involvement. We need great souls, too. Isn't it the truth?

In order for individual(s) to discharge with greater exactness the obligations of their conscience toward themselves and the various group to which they belong, they must be carefully educated to a higher degree of culture through the use of the immense resources available today to the human race. Above all the education of youth from every social background has to be undertaken, so that there can be produced not only men and women of refined talents, but those great-souled persons who are so desperately required by our times.

The Council bishops are biased in favor of people of destiny. Heaven knows we need more such people, but I don't think this emphasis necessarily excludes the millions of quiet souls who work in their own small way for the Reign of God.

Now a (person) can scarcely arrive at the needed sense of responsibility, unless ... living conditions allow him (or her) to become conscious of his (or her) dignity, and to rise to destiny by spending him (or her-)self for God and for others. But human freedom is often crippled when (people) encounter extreme poverty just as it withers when (they) indulge in too many of life's comforts and imprison (themselves) in a kind of splendid isolation. Freedom acquires new strength, by contrast, when (people) consent to the unavoidable requirements of social life, take on the manifold demands of human partnership, and commit (themselves) to the service of the human community.

The Church is clearly saying we need to encourage a strong, public witness. Now more than ever.

Hence, the will to play one's role in common endeavors should be everywhere encouraged. Praise is due to those national procedures which allow the largest possible number of citizens to participate in public affairs with genuine freedom. Account must be taken, to be sure, of the actual conditions of each people and the decisiveness required by public authority. If every citizen is to feel inclined to take part in the activities of the various groups which make up the social body, these must offer advantages which will attract members and dispose them to serve others. We can justly consider that the future of humanity lies in the hands of those who are strong enough to provide coming generations with reasons for living and hoping.

Comments?

Gaudium et Spes 30

2006-03-20T17:26:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 30 starts with a caution of no more me-and-Jesus:

Profound and rapid changes make it more necessary that no one ignoring the trend of events or drugged by laziness, content him (or her-)self with a merely individualistic morality. It grows increasingly true that the obligations of justice and love are fulfilled only if (people), contributing to the common good, according to (their) own abilities and the needs of others, also (promote and assist) the public and private institutions dedicated to bettering the conditions of human life.

The betterment of the conditions of society: a task we share not as Christians only, but also as human citizens of the planet. The council bishops also were realists:

Yet there are those who, while possessing grand and rather noble sentiments, nevertheless in reality live always as if they cared nothing for the needs of society. Many in various places even make light of social laws and precepts, and do not hesitate to resort to various frauds and deceptions in avoiding just taxes or other debts due to society. Others think little of certain norms of social life, for example those designed for the protection of health, or laws establishing speed limits; they do not even avert to the fact that by such indifference they imperil their own life and that of others.

Let everyone consider it (a) sacred obligation to esteem and observe social necessities as belonging to the primary duties of (the) modern (person). For the more unified the world becomes, the more plainly do the offices of (people) extend beyond particular groups and spread by degrees to the whole world. But this development cannot occur unless individual(s) and their associations cultivate in themselves the moral and social virtues, and promote them in society; thus, with the needed help of divine grace (people) who are truly new and artisans of a new humanity can be forthcoming.

A reiteration of a previous theme: human beings cannot hope to make substantial progress in bettering humanity without attention to virtue. For the Christian, that also means attention to the relationship with God. We believe that God makes such things possible. It is God who allows us to disentangle ourselves from the consequences of sin (not to mention human error) and thus cooperate with the divine vision of the Reign of God.

Gaudium et Spes 29

2006-03-20T17:13:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 29 seems tame, though there was a day when it would have read radical:

Since all (people) possess a rational soul and are created in God's likeness, since they have the same nature and origin, have been redeemed by Christ and enjoy the same divine calling and destiny, the basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition.

Hmm, all are redeemed. Okay. The basis of human rights is in the spiritual nature of the human being, as well as our creation in God's image. According to the Church, it holds true for women as well:

True, all (people) are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent. For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored. Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men.

And an issue is raised: inequity amongst the world's people as a whole and within nations or groups. One could rightly ask the question if or when economic differences indeed cause scandal and thwart social justice. Our experience of the past several decades shows that social differences are indeed a factor that destabilizes society. A fearless and truthful diagnosis is needed to assuage (or overcome) the objections of those who claim that wealth is an earned right.

Therefore, although rightful differences exist between (people), the equal dignity of persons demands that a more humane and just condition of life be brought about. For excessive economic and social differences between the members of the one human family or population groups cause scandal, and militate against social justice, equity, the dignity of the human person, as well as social and international peace.

In the sphere of the laity, our task is laid down for us:

Human institutions, both private and public, must labor to minister to the dignity and purpose of (humankind). At the same time let them put up a stubborn fight against any kind of slavery, whether social or political, and safeguard the basic rights of (people) under every political system. Indeed human institutions themselves must be accommodated by degrees to the highest of all realities, spiritual ones, even though meanwhile, a long enough time will be required before they arrive at the desired goal.

Accommodation is a difficult road for the impatient. I don't think that believers can pussyfoot around ultimate goals in the dialogue with those who would tend to oppress human beings. But there is a wish to accomplish something substantive to improve the quality of human life in some way.

The prudential judgment on how fast is fast enough--this is a tough one. On the ever-present abortion issue, do believers accommodate a compromise which would save unborn lives, but keep legal abortion on the books? Gaudium et Spes would seem to suggest this is possible.

Commentary?

Gaudium et Spes 28

2006-03-18T08:27:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 28 turns our attention to something of the questions raised about the last few posts on my blog site. It reminds me of the practical (and more charitable) approach we used with a family that kept applying for parish funds. Their real problem was not their limited income, but their inability to keep to a budget. So a parishioner volunteered to assist me and them in sitting down and managing their funds. It was a bit more complicated than handing them an envelope with a check--the maintenance of a band-aid solution for their woes. It was also declined. So we felt to particular obligation to give them money, and that was the end of it. People are free to decline a charitable act.

A person who engages in charity does have a responsibility to make the gift that would be most needed. Presumably, the person benefitting has some appropriate input. At a soup kitchen, one can hand out peanut butter sandwiches, for example. If one person claims a nut allergy, then maybe there's some cheese or jelly or a bit of cold cuts that will suffice. A suggestion to make a special pot of soup or grill a piece of steak wouldn't seem within the bounds of charity in most cases.

Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.

"Knowing" a person is scrounging off charity isn't enough. Knowing why would seem to place the giver in a more Christ-like place.

This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.(cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), p. 299 and 300) God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.(cf. Luke 6:37-38; Matt. 7:1-2; Rom. 2:1-11; 14:10 14: 10-12)

This is the distinction for which one of my Catholic Sensibility commentators might be searching. Charity is not blind to error, but it is blind to judgment; its mission is to assist with love (caritas et amor). On that note ...

The teaching of Christ even requires that we forgive injuries, (cf. Matt. 5:43-47) and extends the law of love to include every enemy, according to the command of the New Law: "You have heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy. But I say to you: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you" (Matt. 5:43-44).

Thoughts?

reaffirming preemption

2006-03-16T15:51:00.000-05:00

In his September 13, 2002 letter to President Bush, then US Catholic Bishops Conference President Bishop Wilton D. Gregory asked some very prophetic questions:

Is it wise to dramatically expand traditional moral and legal limits on just cause to include preventive or preemptive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Should not a distinction be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government's existence? ...

Would preventive or preemptive force succeed in thwarting serious threats or, instead, provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent? How would another war in Iraq impact the civilian population, in the short- and long-term? How many more innocent people would suffer and die, or be left without homes, without basic necessities, without work? Would the United States and the international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of ensuring a just peace or would a post-Saddam Iraq continue to be plagued by civil conflict and repression, and continue to serve as a destabilizing force in the region? Would the use of military force lead to wider conflict and instability?

Why do I bring this up? Because I read in the Washington Post that our President has deemed fit to mark the 3rd Anniversary of the Iraq invasion by reaffirming our national commitment to the "doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons," as teh Post article says, "despite the troubled U.S. experience in Iraq."

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document continues. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."

It seems so clear to me that the only dangers in question are dangers to OUR citizens on OUR soil. Who cares if we throw the rest of the world into chaos and turmoil?

From the Catholic perspective this is wrong at its core … our brothers and sisters are ALL God's children, not just those with a US passport. But from a broader perspective it is also short sighted and counter productive. One need only look at the experience these past 3 years in Iraq (foreshadowed in Bishop Gregory's prophetic questions) to wonder if maybe, just maybe, our President's plan is not so wise, let alone just or even humane:

"We fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country. We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy."

Is that what we've done, influenced events for the better? From this distance, it's hard to see how the daily lives of Iraqis are any better today than they were 3 years ago. And while massive terrorist attacks have not yet hit American soil, they will. And perhaps because of not in spite of our activities in Iraq. That's what I thought yesterday when I read this in an Associated Press Article:

The question of who is to blame for the Iraqi deaths has long been controversial. Some critics argue that with the United States and its allies unable to maintain order, Iraq has become a deadlier place for ordinary civilians than it was under Saddam Hussein. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman, acknowledged that possibility, but said future generations would enjoy better lives because of Iraq’s current hardships.

Hmmm… well if your home, neighborhood, school, workplace, family, friends, etc… were destroyed by American bombs and you faced chaos, death and destruction each day from the civil unrest left behind, I think it might be hard to think that way. Instead I think you'd be inclined to think like Sarmad Ahmad al-Azami, a 35 year old engineer quoted in the article.

His father died of a heart attack suffered during the U.S. bombing of a government palace next to his home in Baghdad’s Azamiyah section. A year later, al-Azami’s mother, 59, was killed in a car bombing. “Our family has been devastated,” al-Azami said. “Iraqis were living hard lives before this, but now things are much worse.”

Preemptive war …. something worth reaffirming?

Gaudium et Spes 27

2006-03-15T18:22:00.000-05:00

The question was asked in a comment box on Catholic Sensibility about our duty to a neighbor who is able to work, but refuses. Such a thing might be offensive to a sense of fairness, but there are two problems with the example.

First, knowing that the person is indeed unwilling to work implies a relationship with knowledge. It is not something one can presume to judge from distant observation. And second, the act of charity is not wholly about the rendering of service to another in need. It is also about the journey to holiness of the giver.

Gaudium et Spes 27 teaches with the caution of hellfire and eternal suffering to back it up:

Coming down to practical and particularly urgent consequences, this council lays stress on reverence for (humankind); everyone must consider (their) every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all (their) life and the means necessary to living it with dignity,(cf. Jas. 2, 15-16) so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus.(cf. Luke 16:18-31)

The present day is seen as a "special" circumstance where justice and charity are concerned. Over and over, the Vatican II documents discuss technological advances, communications breakthroughs, the political interconnectedness of nations, the threat of war and destruction. These circumstances merit a fresh look at the responsibilities and duties of the believer:

In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception and of actively helping (them) when (they come) across our path, whether he (or she) be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he (or she) did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my (brothers and sisters), you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40).

Jesus is no less direct and forthright in Matthew 25 than he is in John 6. And just as the Real Presence of Christ is nourishment and inspiration to believers, so too is the encounter with Christ in the poor intended for our benefit as well. Part of the benefit is the notion that the uplifting of the poor and needy portion of the human race uplifts us all. And part is that we who lack few material things are in a position to relieve suffering. Or is our response that of Peter: denial followed by flight?

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where (people) are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

I think a Catholic can make a valid prudential choice to avoid voting for a politician who supports abortion. But I think those who do will be hard-pressed not to make a similar assessment of politicians who support torment, coercion, insult, and arbitrary imprisonment.

The world today, more than ever, is in need of fearless and honorable leaders who will take the right stand and apply it though it would seem to weaken them.

Gaudium et Spes 26

2006-03-14T17:59:00.000-05:00

I'll warn you if you're not ready, the Church includes in section 26 a "bill of rights and duties." Watch for it.

Every day human interdependence grows more tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world. As a result the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment, today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family. (Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961) )

That seems clear: every group has concerns outside of its own population, including the human race as a whole.

At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since (the person) stands above all things, and (the person's) rights and duties are universal and inviolable.

Here's the bill, though:

Therefore, there must be made available to all (people) everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as ...
- food, clothing, and shelter;
- the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family,
- the right to education,
- to employment,
- to a good reputation,
- to respect,
- to appropriate information,
- to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience,
- to protection of privacy and rightful freedom, even in matters religious.

Not a bad list; the rights to a good reputation and to respect are interesting, aren't they?

Hence, the social order and its development must invariably work to the benefit of the human person if the disposition of affairs is to be subordinate to the personal realm and not contrariwise, as the Lord indicated when He said that the Sabbath was made for (people), and not (people) for the Sabbath. (cf. Mark 2:27)

The theological realist would concede there is no hope for perfection on earth, but the Church insists that working to improve the human condition is not in vain. Indeed, the improvement and reform of society is an expected consequence of a progressive society:

This social order requires constant improvement It must be founded on truth, built on justice and animated by love; in freedom it should grow every day toward a more humane balance. (cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), p. 266) An improvement in attitudes and abundant changes in society will have to take place if these objectives are to be gained.

GS 26 concludes with the statement that God is concerned with our welfare, even those non-believers among us. The Church's concern is not rooted in some vague application of charity, but is impelled by Christ himself.

God's Spirit, Who with a marvelous providence directs the unfolding of time and renews the face of the earth, is not absent from this development. The ferment of the Gospel too has aroused and continues to arouse in (the human) heart the irresistible requirements of (human) dignity.

Comments?

Magnifying God

2006-03-14T16:17:00.000-05:00

Cross-posted to the Christian Alliance for Progress...

"My soul magnifies the Lord..." (Luke 1:46) This is a famous phrase among Christians and especially among Catholics like me. It's the beginning of the Canticle of Mary, traditionally referred to as the Magnificat, the song of praise that Mary offered to God proclaiming his fidelity to the promises of justice and mercy that he had made to Abraham and his descendants.

I couldn't help but think of Mary's Magnificat recently when I went to a free health clinic with a female relative who was trying to get help with buying her rather expensive medication. When we walked in, the first thing that struck me was how many women there were among the waiting patients. Since we were walk-ins and didn't have an appointment, we had to wait for quite some time, and I observed that an overwhelming majority of the patients who came and went were women. Many of these women were working women, some of them were disabled and couldn't work. A few of them were young women who had children with them, and a few of them were elderly women.

They join the 15% of American women who have no health insurance coverage, and many of them may be part of the 9.4% of American women who don't have a usual source of health care. Some of them may be among the 30% of women who have not recently had a mammogram or among the 21% of women who have not recently had a pap smear. I encourage readers to visit a free health clinic sometime soon; maybe you can volunteer some of your time, or find out if there's anything you can donate to help with the work they're doing. While you're there, be sure to look at the waiting patients and see those who give faces to the statistics I've presented here. These people are living human beings. They are our neighbors who we are not loving even as much as we love ourselves, and certainly not as much as God has loved us.

"My soul magnifies the Lord." To some, it would have been a scandalous thing for Mary to say. What is it about a Galilean peasant woman, the newly betrothed mother of a child who society will always look upon as having been conceived illegitimately, that could possibly magnify God? "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" (John 1:46) If Mary had been speaking to the wealthy elite in Sepphoris, in Jerusalem, or in Rome, they would have laughed her all the way out of town. But she speaks to them and to generation after generation. She speaks of a God magnified by the poor, the marginalized, the socially insignificant. She speaks of a God magnified by women sitting in our free health clinics every day struggling to meet their own most basic health care needs and those of their families.

It should come as no surprise to us that the Son of Mary who we worship as God in the flesh would later say that "when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him," he will separate those who cared for "these least ones" from those who did not because the latter did not care for him. Those who did not care for the least ones will ask him when they did not care for him, and he will answer: "Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me" (Matthew 25:31-46). We see echoes of the Magnificat in Jesus Christ's parable about the judgement of the nations; we see a God who is magnified by those who have no food, no drink, no shelter, no clothing, no friends, no health care, and no hope. We see a God who is magnified in the poor and vulnerable, in people who live in conditions just like the circumstances that Mary and her divine Son lived in. The Magnificat is the Gospel, and the Gospel is the Magnificat.

So what does it say about our so-called Christian nation that God in disguise is allowed to sit in free health clinics for hours, maybe to get a little bit of help or maybe to be turned away because she isn't quite destitute enough? You be the judge. In fact, we'd better all start being the judges -- because if we wait for God to judge our indifference and inaction, we might be hearing that unfortunate and surprising admonition: "Depart from me..."

Gaudium et Spes 25

2006-03-13T08:08:00.000-05:00

Our look at the pastoral constitution of Vatican II continues:

(Human) social nature makes it evident that the progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on one another. For the beginning, the subject and the goal of all social institutions is and must be the human person which for its part and by its very nature stands completely in need of social life. (cf. St. Thomas, 1 Ethica Lect. 1.) Since this social life is not something added on to (people), through (their) dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through ... dialogue (they develop all their) gifts and (are) able to rise to (their) destiny.

Dialogue is lauded as an essential task, and the appeal is to basic human sociology. A social life is not a graft onto an otherwise self-sufficient and independent individual. The Church teaches that dialogue is an essential part of the realization of full human potential. This would seem to be a rejection of the value of withdrawal from the world. Indeed, if the destiny of the Christian is evangelization to the ends of the earth (cf Matt 28:19-20) the outward thrust of dialogue is an essential component to the Christian life.

Among those social ties which (humankind) needs for (its) development some, like the family and political community, relate with greater immediacy to (its) innermost nature; others originate rather from (a) free decision. In our era, for various reasons, reciprocal ties and mutual dependencies increase day by day and give rise to a variety of associations and organizations, both public and private. This development, which is called socialization, while certainly not without its dangers, brings with it many advantages with respect to consolidating and increasing the qualities of the human person, and safeguarding (their) rights. (Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), p. 418. Cf. also Pius XI, encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno: AAS 23 (1931), p. 222 ff.)

Settings outside of the family and the political sphere: these too are tools for the advance ment of the human person. The implication is that no group is of itself problematic for human development. Advantages and disadvantages must be weighed in the balance. But in all, the Church would approve of associations outside of the home and government.

The problems of evil are rooted not in particular associations, but in the life circumstances of a person. It is there that temptations arise and that our human tendency to sin is uncovered and nourished:

But if by this social life the human person is greatly aided in responding to ... destiny, even in its religious dimensions, it cannot be denied that (people) are often diverted from doing good and spurred toward and by the social circumstances in which they live and are immersed from their birth. To be sure the disturbances which so frequently occur in the social order result in part from the natural tensions of economic, political and social forms. But at a deeper level they flow from (human) pride and selfishness, which contaminate even the social sphere. When the structure of affairs is flawed by the consequences of sin, (humankind), already born with a bent toward evil, finds there new inducements to sin, which cannot be overcome without strenuous efforts and the assistance of grace.

Thoughts?

America the Peasant Society

2006-03-12T13:37:00.000-05:00

I've been reading Elizabeth A. Johnson's historical-theological approach to the Virgin Mary, Truly Our Sister: A Theology of Mary in the Communion of Saints. I just finished reading her description of the social, economic, and religious circumstances of Mary's time, and this is what Johnson has to say about Mary's peasant society on pages 145-146 of her book:

The ruler was really in a class by himself, with proprietary rights to property, water, and crops throughout his domain. The governing class, comprised of the nobility and members of court as well as lesser officials, surrounded the ruler's administration with an ambience of power and glory. Although comprising about one percent of the population, these two top classes were awash in the wealth of the national income: "the governing class and ruler together usually received not less than half." The retainer class was made up of scribes and bureaucrats as well as military personnel, about 5 percent of the population; they supported and defended the ruler and governing class, making their very existence possible. The wealthy merchant class and the priestly class rounded out the ranks of the privileged, allied as they were with the governing class. Overall the upper class comprised about 10 percent of the population. Most often they lived in urban communities.

On the other side of the chasm was the peasant class, numerically the largest group of all. Peasants were the fundamental engine of production, working the land, either their own little plot or the estates of wealthy landowners. "The burden of supporting the state and the privileged classes fell on the shoulders of the common people, and especially on the peasant farmers who constituted the majority of the population; . . . the great majority of the political elite sought to use the energies of the peasantry to the full, while depriving them of all but the basic necessities of life." Even these necessities could be sacrificed.

At the time, although I could draw parallels between what was going on in rural Galilee under the rule of the Roman Empire and the Herodian Dynasty and what's going on in America under the rule of the Republicans and Democrats, I didn't think we were on our way to becoming a peasant society. I didn't think so, that is, until I read a post from Beppeblog that I had saved some time ago with statistics about poverty in America. I was stunned to discover that the wealthiest one percent of the population controls 32.7% (or about one third) of the net worth in the United States, while many of the most vulnerable Americans are even deprived of the basic necessities of life. We are indeed on our way to becoming a peasant society. No, we're not a society based on agricultural peasantry; this has been replaced by industrial peasantry. Our society is remarkably similar to the one condemned by Jesus and his mother for its treatment of the poorest and most vulnerable.

Catholics have always been inspired by Mary, but somehow her longest and most powerful statement in scripture has been pushed to the sidelines. It's time for us to reclaim the Magnificat, with the realization that it is not just a statement that applies to Mary's time; it applies directly to our own. Our society is well on its way toward becoming the kind of society that Mary spoke so critically of, the kind of society that she and so many others looked forward to filling with God's liberating presence. We must not wait for God to disperse "the arrogant of mind and heart" or to throw down "the rulers from their thrones" and lift up the lowly; as the Mystical Body of Christ, we must realize that God is calling us to do this in his name. We are charged with being God's liberating presence in the world.

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord,
my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.
His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him.
He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.
He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly.
The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy,
according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever (Luke 1:45-55).

"In grief we tremble before God..."

2006-03-11T00:46:00.000-05:00

(picture from electronic iraq)

It is the news that many of us who have been praying for the four members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams kidnapped in Iraq most feared: the absence of Tom Fox on the videotape released on Tuesday was indeed because he is dead.

"Why are we here?" Tom Fox asked before he and his colleagues were abducted.

We are here to root out all aspects of dehumanization that exist within us. We are here to stand with those being dehumanized by oppressors and stand firm against that dehumanization. We are here to stop people, including ourselves, from dehumanizing any of God's children, no matter how much they dehumanize their own souls.

Into your hands, O Lord, we commend to you the soul of your servant, Tom Fox. May you have mercy upon him, and may you have mercy upon all those who dehumanize and are dehumanized.

Please continue to keep Norman Kember, James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden in your prayers that they may be released soon.

Official Religion In Missouri? Show Me

2006-03-10T15:47:00.000-05:00

Some Missouri folks are concerned about legislation to make Christianity the "official religion" of Missouri. Nathan invited me to post on this. But first, I had to do a little digging. I discovered that it is not "legislation," per se, but a resolution. Here's the text:

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

Five statements of historical fact, followed by the actual resolution.

The sense of many people that there is widespread anti-Christian sentiment in the US is hard for me to take seriously. Christianity is and always has been the majority religion since the European invasion of America. Likely it will be for at least a few hundred more years.

The first part of the resolution also states a fact: that most Missouri citizens are Christian by self-consideration, and most of them agree with a "common sense" that the legislators outline further.

Voluntary prayer has always been a constitutional guarantee in schools. It is true that school officials have misunderstood this from time to time, erring on one side or the other. Telling student-led groups or individuals that they cannot pray is wrong. The understanding in such a group is that there is a wish for 100% compliance within the group. As such, any single non-Christian in the room is enough to scuttle a public prayer.

For example: a sports team wants to pray before a game. If the students all agree with active assent, and the adults present keep silent, then the prayer is appropriate. If one adult speaks up, or if one student does not actively assent, then free speech has been forfeited.

Second example: if a group of students wishes to meet for a Bible study, provide its own resources, and conduct the group within the policies and rules of any student group, the group should be morally free to continue.

For adults in a school, be they staff or parents or visitors, to take anything more than a passive role in such voluntary prayer is morally problematic.

Religious displays on public property ... ah. Here, you have a wider swath of citizens. It would seem to me that dialogue (as defined in Gaudium et Spes) might be employed fruitfully. Does one active dissenter sink a whole display? I can think of the theoretical of a public display of Wicca--would it take just one zealous non-Wiccan to cease? Is there a lack of private property in a locality to prevent a religious display from being erected? Is the objection to Christmas objections about maintaining tradition--the way we've always done it? Or is it also about a sense of entitlement?

The Missouri legislators are attempting to "resolve" what might be better settled by local brains at the community level. But one of the prices of having a legal-oriented society is that decisions tend to be made at the highest possible level, rather than the lowest. That such a resolution needs to be considered shows that American society has progressed to a post-civility state. That opponents of such a resolution have seen fit to misrepresent it is possibly supportive of the sentiment that led to its drafting in the first place.

Two generations ago, such a resolution would have been irrelevant. And today? Today, it has widened the chasm between neighbors and citizens a little bit more. That strikes me as being a little bit less American, a little bit less Christian.

Gaudium et Spes 24

2006-03-09T18:09:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 24 reminds us of the primacy of God's universal fatherhood:

God, Who has fatherly concern for everyone, has willed that all (people) should constitute one family and treat one another in a spirit of (family). For having been created in the image of God, Who "from one man has created the whole human race and made them live all over the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26), all (people) are called to one and the same goal, namely God Himself.

A Christian believer is obligated to extend her or his family values to the entire world. The presumption, a difficult one, is that lacking any reason to expel a person from the"family," a degree of honor, respect, and love, is to be assumed as a basic Christian expression. Love is a particularly needful value, and a particularly important choice to make, given the growing interdependence of the world's peoples. It's nowhere near less true in the cyber-age:

For this reason, love for God and neighbor is the first and greatest commandment. Sacred Scripture, however, teaches us that the love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbor: "If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.... Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law" (Rom. 13:9-10; cf. 1 John 4:20). To (people) growing daily more dependent on one another, and to a world becoming more unified every day, this truth proves to be of paramount importance.

John 17 is a useful reflection. Jesus does not limit his prayer for unity to believers alone. He reiterates his desire--and the Father's will--that all (not some!) will be one.

Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, "that all may be one. . . as we are one" (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God's sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that (humankind), who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find (itself) except through a sincere gift of (itself).(cf. Luke 17:33)

More than expressing a shallow or tepid unity, the human calling is to aspire to be like the divine relationship of the Trinity.

How are we doing?

Gaudium et Spes 23

2006-03-09T17:55:00.000-05:00

CHAPTER II of Gaudium et Spes is entitled "The Community Of (Humankind)." The first paragraph here sets out an important definition, that of "dialogue."

One of the salient features of the modern world is the growing interdependence of (people) one on the other, a development promoted chiefly by modern technical advances. Nevertheless ... dialogue among (people) does not reach its perfection on the level of technical progress, but on the deeper level of interpersonal relationships. These demand a mutual respect for the full spiritual dignity of the person. Christian revelation contributes greatly to the promotion of this communion between persons, and at the same time leads us to a deeper understanding of the laws of social life which the Creator has written into (human) moral and spiritual nature.

Play it again, Sam:

(D)ialogue among (people) does not reach its perfection on the level of technical progress, but on the deeper level of interpersonal relationships.

Dialogue is not, as many conservative commentators suggest, a sort of caving in to another's viewpoint. Nor is it a matter of casual or surface cocktail conversation. The bishops said it: good dialogue does not depend on the accurate representation of facts or truths, but on a deeper (presumably deeper than what has previously passed muster as sufficient) level.

I think Pope Benedict might grasp this better than his predecessor. At least if the fabled dinner with Hans Kueng and recent discussions with the SSPX are any indication. What the SSPX'ers, and much of St Blog's, fails to grasp is the importance of relationship. The internet makes it easy to divorce relationship from one's emotional toolbox. That's why, in part, anger and sarcasm are grafted into the character of the conversation.

The council bishops may well have had three years' experience in deepening their ties with their fellow bishops. If it worked for the council, why couldn't we dream it would work in the world?

Since rather recent documents of the Church's teaching authority have dealt at considerable length with Christian doctrine about human society,(cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter, Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961: AAS 53 (1961), pp. 401-464, and encyclical letter Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 257-304; Paul VI encyclical letter Ecclesiam Suam, Aug. 6, 1964: AAS 54 (1864) pp. 609-659.) this council is merely going to call to mind some of the more basic truths, treating their foundations under the light of revelation. Then it will dwell more at length on certain of their implications having special significance for our day.

So then, Gaudium et Spes is not meant to be in itself exhaustive, but building on tradition.

International Women's Day

2006-03-08T03:21:00.000-05:00

I have to admit, I've been struggling with the relationship the Church has had with women. I struggle with the lack of Church Mothers along with Church Fathers. I struggle with what feels like misogyny when I read certain portions of St. Paul. I struggle with decisions the Vatican continues to make about women's bodies when it will never have to live with the consequences of those decisions. I struggle with its refusal to include women in that decision-making process.

Of course, when I read the Gospels, I see Christ not denying the better portion to women. Refusing to condemn women who would otherwise be stoned. Talking to women -- and of a despised ethnic group at that -- like equals. Appearing to women after his resurrection before his male disciples.

And despite my struggles, I know that the Church honors as its greatest follower a woman (as opposed to the football players I saw venerated in my evangelical church as a child). That it works to liberate women from many of the evils that they continue to suffer from to this day such as slavery, poverty, and war.

So, on this International Women's Day, I encourage you to take a wander over to vegankid where she and almost 200 other bloggers are participating in Blog Against Sexism Day. There's plenty of food for thought. And prayer. And action.

Gaudium et Spes 22

2006-03-07T17:38:00.000-05:00

It's the conclusion of Gaudium et Spes Part 1, Chapter 1. It wraps up a long look at the dialogue with atheism with a brief treatise on christology, beginning with a basic Christian stance:

The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of (humankind) take on light. For Adam, the first (human being), was a figure of Him Who was to come,(cf. Rom. 5: 14. cf. Tertullian, De carnis resurrectione 6: "The shape that the slime of the earth was given was intended with a view to Christ, the future man.": P. 2, 282; CSEL 47, p. 33, 1. 12-13.) namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals (humankind) to (humankind itself) and makes (their) supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.

Christ is source of all truth; the "author of life," if you will. The language is strong, but it does not include a reverse statement, namely, those persons or philosophies that embrace "darkness" or what does not result in "roots or crown."

The human being, biological, psychological, and spiritual, is honored because of Christ's participation in human work, human thought, and human love:

He Who is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15),(cf. 2 Cor. 4:4) is Himself the perfect (human being). To the (children) of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled,(cf. Second Council of Constantinople, canon 7: "The divine Word was not changed into a human nature, nor was a human nature absorbed by the Word." Denzinger 219 (428); cf. also Third Council of Constantinople: "For just as His most holy and immaculate human nature, though deified, was not destroyed (theotheisa ouk anerethe), but rather remained in its proper state and mode of being": Denzinger 291 (556); Cf. Council of Chalce, don:" to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion change, division, or separation." Denzinger 148 (302)) by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every (person). He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice(cf. Third Council of Constantinople: "and so His human will, though deified, is not destroyed": Denzinger 291 (556)) and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.(cf. Heb. 4:15)

The "way of the cross" is one for imitation and for following:

As an innocent lamb He merited for us life by the free shedding of His own blood. In Him God reconciled us(cf. 2 Cor. 5:18-19; Col. 1:20-22) to Himself and among ourselves; from bondage to the devil and sin. He delivered us, so that each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God "loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20). By suffering for us He not only provided us with an example for our imitation,(cf. 1 Pet. 2:21; Matt. 16:24; Luke 14:27) He blazed a trail, and if we follow it, life and death are made holy and take on a new meaning.

The assumption is that Christians willingly and enthusiastically imitate Christ, thus coming to a deeper realization of the Paschal Mystery:

The Christian (person), conformed to the likeness of that Son Who is the firstborn of many brothers (and sisters),(cf. Rom. 8:29; Col. 3:10-14) received "the first-fruits of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:23) by which he (or she) becomes capable of discharging the new law of love.(cf. Rom. 8:1-11) Through this Spirit, who is "the pledge of our inheritance" (Eph. 1:14), the whole (person) is renewed from within, even to the achievement of "the redemption of the body" (Rom. 8:23): "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the death dwells in you, then he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also bring to life your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom. 8:11).(cf. 2 Cor. 4:14) Pressing upon the Christian to be sure, are the need and the duty to battle against evil through manifold tribulations and even to suffer death. But, linked with the paschal mystery and patterned on the dying Christ, (she or) he will hasten forward to resurrection in the strength which comes from hope.(cf. Phil. 3:19; Rom. 8:17)

Romans 8:32 is pretty clear, pro multis aside. Christ's death was an unconditional offering for the entire human race. Note the wording below: "we ought." The Church suggests we ought to approach the question of salvation with confidence, even if we can't see a logical path for the Holy Spirit to work.

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all (people) of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way.(cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 2, n. 16: AAS 57 (1965), p. 20) For, since Christ died for all men,(cf. Rom. 8:32) and since the ultimate vocation of (the human person) is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every (person) the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.

And a fine conclusion:

Such is the mystery of (humankind), and it is a great one, as seen by believers in the light of Christian revelation. Through Christ and in Christ, the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful. Apart from His Gospel, they overwhelm us. Christ has risen, destroying death by His death; He has lavished life upon us(cf. The Byzantine Easter Liturgy) so that, as (daughters and) sons in the Son, we can cry out in the Spirit; Abba, Father(cf. Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6; cf. also John 1:22 and John 3:1-2)

The suggestion is that non-Christians are liable to an overwhelming experience. If so, the Christian approach is one of charity and comfort, not condemnation.

Thoughts?

Catholic Democrats' Statement of Principles

2006-03-07T13:09:00.000-05:00

Although I'm no longer a Democrat, I found the statement of principles signed by fifty-five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives a very balanced approach to living Catholic social teaching in a pluralistic public square. Adding significance to the statement is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's endorsement. In any event, I thought I would share that statement of principles here.

Statement of Principles
By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives

As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose.

We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need.

We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion -- we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children's health care and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility.

In all these issues, we seek the Church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues.

As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties.

As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours.

Understanding the fears of others

2006-03-07T01:01:00.000-05:00

AlterNet: The Peace Movement's Plan For Iran

Finally, an analysis about the situation in Iran that states the obvious: Iran wants the bomb because it is threatened by the United States on all sides.

Iran finds itself surrounded on all four sides by American military power -- Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east, U.S. bases in Central Asia to the north, and the mighty US Navy in the Persian Gulf to the south...Iran looks west, and sees an Iraq that opened itself to unprecedented international intrusions, did not in fact possess weapons of mass destruction, and got itself invaded for its trouble. Iran looks east, and sees a North Korea that built a nuclear arsenal in secret, and now appears to be successfully deterring any hint of American aggression.

What would you do, if you were Tehran?

And might I add, it looks east again and sees an India that has just been crowned regional superpower by the United States because it too has the bomb.

Now, while I'm sure the U.S. is "war gaming" different types of a potential attack against Iran as this Alternet article suggests, those war games are not looking good when it comes to our sabre-rattling -- and that was before Amahdinejad got elected.

Basically, our choices are we either accept that Iran is going to get the bomb, or we give it as many incentives as possible to remain nuclear-free.

If you threaten your adversaries, they'll threaten you back. If you make your neighbors more secure, you make yourself more secure. The basis of peace is understanding the fears of others

So, how do we make Iran more secure? Formal non-agression pacts. Restore diplomatic relations that were cut in 1979. Insist that Israel enter the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. And most important of all, lead by example and get rid of our own nuclear stockpile.

You know, planks in your own eye and specks in your brother's and all that.

walk of the cross

2006-03-04T13:17:00.000-05:00

Ours is a religion centered on a man who was convicted, sentenced to death and executed. He was crucified on a cross, a cross many of us wear around our necks or have up on our walls. Yet how often when we say those words, when we venerate that cross, do we think about what that really means?

I read in the paper today about a local man who was convicted of some pretty heinous crimes. Yesterday was sentenced to death, for the 3rd time. Reactions in the article reporting the verdict struck me deeply:

"We're extremely pleased now that 36 jurors have said the defendant deserves the death sentence," said the prosecutor.

"We went over (the evidence) piece by piece, witness by witness," said one of the jurors, who struggled to reconcile her Christian faith with her duty as a juror. "There just wasn't any evidence to support any other decision." Later this same juror said, "I don't think it's up to us whether a man lives or dies," adding that she was not pressured to change her mind.

As the verdict was read, one of the man's victims made a fist and pumped her arm. In 1987, she survived an attack by the convicted man. "I was frantic. I was terrified. I was squirming. I was screaming."

I am not condoning the crimes this man committed. I have no intention of belittling the feelings of the woman who narrowly escaped with her life. I sympathize with the inner struggle of the juror who has sentenced another human being to death. But being "extremely pleased" that another human being is going to die? Why does that make me think back to the crowds 2,000 plus years ago shouting "Crucify Him!". Why does it seem to me more like blood lust than a search for justice?

“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.” -Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae), 1995, #s 27-28.

There may be hope in the increasing recognition of the dignity even of the lives of those who have done great evil. But reading this article over my coffee this morning made me realize how very far we in America have to walk.

This Lenten season I pray for a conversion in the heart of the American people on this issue.

Terrorism at Church of the Annunciation

2006-03-03T17:53:00.000-05:00

Apparently, three Israeli Jews set off firecrackers and planned to set off gas canisters at the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth earlier today. Nazareth is the largest Arab town in Israel. Israeli Internal Security Minister Gideon Ezra says that "this was not a (terrorist) attack."

Really? A Jewish man with a history of threatening to attack Christian churches goes into one of the most important Christian churches in the Holy Land with two women and sets off firecrackers. His plans to set off gas canisters are thwarted. And this all takes place in the largest Arab town in Israel. But it isn't a terorrist attack. What if the situation were reversed? What if an Arab man with a history of threatening to attack Jewish synagogues had gone into one of the most important Jewish synagogues in Israel with two Arab women and set off firecrackers with plans to set off gas canisters? Are we really supposed to believe that the Israeli government would say that it would not be considered a terorrist attack in those circumstances?

Governments don't just get to arbitrarily decide when terrorist acts are or aren't terrorism. This was an act of terrorism just as it would have been an act of terrorism if it had been an Arab walking into a synagogue. The Israeli government should recognize it as such.

Gaudium et Spes 21

2006-03-02T17:33:00.000-05:00

Sorry to be tardy in posting this on SRS. I knew Nathan had requested we keep the site clear on Monday for our guest blogger, and the last two days have been rather busy. Gaudium et Spes 21 is a bit lengthy, but bear with it. It capsulizes a wise approach in dealing with atheism and some of the problems often thrown in the face of the Church.

In her loyal devotion to God and (humankind), the Church has already repudiated (cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937: AAS 29 (1937), pp. 65-106; Pius XII, encyclical letter Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958: AAS 50 (1958) pp. 601-614; John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra May 15, 1961: AAS 53 (1961), pp. 451-453; Paul VI, encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, Aug. 6, 1964: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 651-653) and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone (humankind) from (their) native excellence.

Okay. First, we Christians hold that faith is ennobling. The overall thrust and result of Christianity is a heightened sense of "excellence" as the council bishops taught it. The sense that faith exists to denigrate (or drug) the masses must be vehemently disproved.

Still, she strives to detect in the atheistic mind the hidden causes for the denial of God; conscious of how weighty are the questions which atheism raises, and motivated by love for all (people), she believes these questions ought to be examined seriously and more profoundly.

Typical Vatican II optimism: know the questions raised by one's philosophical adversary. Answer the questions on the terms given in the public debate. Those who seek the title "apologist" might do well to consider this tack.

The Church holds that the recognition of God is in no way hostile to (human) dignity, since this dignity is rooted and perfected in God. For (a person) was made an intelligent and free member of society by God Who created him (or her), but even more important, he (or she) is called as a son (or daughter) to commune with God and share in His happiness.

Human happiness, not human suffering is God's will.

She further teaches that a hope related to the end of time does not diminish the importance of intervening duties but rather undergirds the acquittal of them with fresh incentives.

Christians possess a duty in the earthly life. Most of all, the duty is to work as an agent of charity and justice, lest believers be betrayed by a false passivity and non-believers be scandalized by unconcern:

By contrast, when a divine instruction and the hope of life eternal are wanting, (human) dignity is most grievously lacerated, as current events often attest; riddles of life and death, of guilt and of grief go unsolved with the frequent result that (people) succumb to despair.

Go to God with questions say the bishops:

Meanwhile every (person) remains to him (or her-)self an unsolved puzzle, however obscurely he (or she) may perceive it. For on certain occasions no one can entirely escape the kind of self-questioning mentioned earlier, especially when life's major events take place. To this questioning only God fully and most certainly provides an answer as He summons (people) to higher knowledge and humbler probing.

Atheism is treated as an illness, and the remedy is twofold:

The remedy which must be applied to atheism, however, is to be sought in a proper presentation of ...

(1) the Church's teaching

(2) as well as in the integral life of the Church and her members.

The understanding is that apologism is two-fold: not just imparing information, but living the faith.

For it is the function of the Church, led by the Holy Spirit Who renews and purifies her ceaselessly,(cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter I, n. 8: AAS 57 (1965), p. 12) to make God the Father and His Incarnate Son present and in a sense visible.

Not just real presence, but a visibly evident one as well. Consider this advice:

This result is achieved chiefly by the witness of a living and mature faith, namely, one trained to see difficulties clearly and to master them. Many martyrs have given luminous witness to this faith and continue to do so. This faith needs to prove its fruitfulness by penetrating the believer's entire life, including its worldly dimensions, and by activating (the believer) toward justice and love, especially regarding the needy. What does the most reveal God's presence, however, is the ... charity of the faithful who are united in spirit as they work together for the faith of the Gospel (cf. Phil. 1:27) and who prove themselves a sign of unity.

Social gospel Catholics should be cheered by this assessment, which is a true one, I believe.

While rejecting atheism, root and branch, the Church sincerely professes that all (people), believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which all alike live; such an ideal cannot be realized, however, apart from sincere and prudent dialogue.

Shared goals imply the dialogue needed to get things done. Also, freedom is to be a given, as we read in the earlier document Dignitatis Humanae:

Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person. The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God's temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.

The concern shared with all people is for human dignity. The Church of Gaudium et Spes possesses a quiet confidence about faith, belief, and purpose. I can see how this message would be heartening to Third World or other oppressed persons. It's a matter of right perspective, but I agree that Christian faith must be evident to non-believers, especially in the way faith is practiced publicly and how believers interact with the needy.

Above all the Church knows that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart when she champions the dignity of the human vocation, restoring hope to those who have already despaired of anything higher than their present lot. Far from diminishing (humankind), her message brings to (their) development light, life and freedom. Apart from this message nothing will avail to fill up the heart of (the person): "Thou hast made us for Thyself," O Lord, "and our hearts are restless till they rest in Thee."(St. Augustine, Confessions I, 1: PL 32, 661)

Pro-Life, Pro-Family . . . Anti-Adoption?

2006-03-02T01:39:00.000-05:00

I have an article in the March/April edition of Whosoever, discussing the anti-gay adoption bill recently introduced into the Ohio House of Representatives. In the article, I write:

It is clear that the fight against H.B. 515 is not just a fight for GLBT Ohioans and our straight allies. The fight against H.B. 515 must be fought by all Ohioans who believe that pro-life and pro-family values mean opening every available home with loving and willing families to Ohio's adoptive and foster children. The fight against H.B. 515 must be fought not only by secular liberals and liberal people of faith, but by all individuals and all people of faith who are unwilling to throw Ohio's children away: either in abortion clinics, or in an adoptive and foster care system that will become a bottomless pit from which some of Ohio's children will never emerge.

I hope you'll check it out and let me know what you think. If you like the article, feel free to share it with others. I also want to thank Damien Scott (Damien's Spot) and G.B. (Geek Boi - Uncensored) for proofreading the article for me and offering their thoughts.

Guest Blog: The Hungry Multitude in the Age of Mass Culture

2006-02-27T00:00:00.000-05:00

Witnessing in a crowd has a particular role to play. As when Jesus dispensed the five loaves and two fishes that fed the crowd of hundreds, sharing actually proliferates and foments grace among individuals until it affects the people around them. The miracle is that in sharing, good things actually multiply until they fill every hungry mouth.

If you believe an active group can accomplish more than individuals in isolation, that it can build up individual courage, and allow individual talents to shine, then you believe in aggregated witness.

So I'd like to share two examples from my own work.

The first has to do with bloggers and readers, just like the guest blog you're now reading. The Internet allows a special kind of witness, making it possible for you, the reader, to create your own witness in response to mine, instantly.

The second has to do with activities afoot right now among Progressive Christian activists, by which I mean both those concerned about addressing issues like poverty from within church congregations, and those who would prevail upon Christians to make issues like poverty matter once more in American politics. Their witness intends to begin direct and tangible appearances in American society within the next year.

For the hunger that haunts America is at once physical hunger in the shape of the 37 million Americans who live in poverty, the one million added each year, those who live down the very street each of us live on who by some accident, injury, or mistake will be unable to feed their families -- and a spiritual hunger, in the form of fake religion, fake compassion, fake values, fake diplomacy, and fake dialogue.

Both hungers are worsened in the age of mass media, where it has been, until recently, all but impossible for voices of compassion to break through the white noise of fake Christians, empty values, and the politics of blind-eye-turning to human cruelty.

Witnessing on the Internet

When witnesses come to town, souls wake up. The Internet brings witness to everyone's town. Bloggers serve a role that itinerant ministers played in the age of John Wesley.

Wesley's Methodist circuit riders took the gospel by horseback to poor miners and farmers who never before had the opportunity to engage Christian teachings. The long-term result of their work was what we call the Progressive Era of politics, a sudden boom of concern for the poor. Progressive politicians got poor children out of the mines and into schools; they passed acts to protect divorced and abused women; they legalized unions, and laid the foundations for Civil Rights.

Spreading information to people who don't have access to it creates the possibility for working together among people who have hitherto been suppressed by powerful, entrenched interests.

Bloggers write because they've been transformed. People respond because they're moved by witnessing such a transformation. Street Prophets, the major discussion board for progressive religion, regularly gets fifty comments to a single post, of which there may be twenty a day. The newspapers of America regularly report on the expansion of bloggers and blog-readers -- getting and sharing information this way is becoming part of everyday life for many people. The bloggers at Sollicitudo Rei Socialis and throughout the Progressive Christian Bloggers Network are actively testifying to the power of witness, so much so that the stranger who googles the phrase "Christian Blogger" learns first about Progressive Christians at work, not about Pat Robertson. As the patterns of reading and sharing on the Internet expand, the power of this form of witness will continue to expand.

Aggregating the Witnesses

Sneaking links into this information is powerful: it means that if you find one blog, soon you know that there's a movement, whether or not the blog explicitly tells you so. Information in the same place is also good for encyclopedia-like power to search under topics -- that's what Google did for all the information on the Net, but also what Progressive Christians could do for Progressive Christian sermons and blogs.

Finally, shared information means helping collaborate in the most basic senses -- at the moment, the National Council of Churches and Sojourners only know about each other's events, lobbying, press releases, and mailing lists haphazardly. To plan for greater numbers at their turnouts, greater participation in their conferences, and greater effect behind their important lobbies, they, as well as smaller groups and tiny blogging communities and Sunday School clubs, need to share.

CrossLeft.org is one example of an aggregator that seeks to network Progressive Christian work. CrossLeft newsstreams pull together hundreds of Progressive Christian blog headlines into a dozen different streams (clergy's personal stories, just politics, mostly theology, etc.), so that after an event like the horrible bombings in Samara, you can literally watch as reactions spread through the Progressive Christian community: prayers are posted, political Jeremiads are delivered, proposals for relief mooted, all by bloggers and their readers.

Aggregation is powerful because it enables individuals to feel that they're not alone, and shows strangers that we inhabit a neighborhood of other people with similar experiences.

CrossLeft is only one form of aggregation. Co-blogging, like the Sollicitudo Rei Socialis guest blog and the regular Progressive Faith Blog Carnival, is another way. This form of aggregation brings strong voices into the same room, and offers real quality to readers. Discussion boards like StreetProphets are yet another way of showing numbers and solidarity. Linking to each other's sites is also a good way for people with weblogs to testify to the fact thay they're in community with other people whose work they value.

For people who run organizations, conference calls are another way of sharing. Live conferences for denominations is another.

Individuals can also share information, wisdom, and experience, just by letting others know what they're up to. Even without a blog, you can share sites and articles you found valuable, by noting what you've been looking at with the tag PROCHRIST (PROgressive CHRISTian) on information sharing sites like Del.icio.us and Flickr, which let individuals tell the world which websites or pictures they're looking at. Going to a local church where there are people you feel comfortable with is another great way to share. There's no one way to share, but the sharing is vital to our life as a community.

In the faces of other members of the church, we see Christ's own features; in the charitable works of their hands, in every loving word or comment exchanged, we feel the loving touch of Christ's own hands.

From Aggregation to Agenda: The Progressive Christian Leadership Summit, Feb. 4-5, 2006

In the name of aggregation, CrossLeft recently held a summit of activist leadership in San Francisco.

We had fifty leaders of Progressive Christian organizations; new groups in Nevada and Oregon; solid think tanks from the Washington, D.C. beltway; ninety-year-old crowds like the million-person California Council of Churches.

Our goal was to put on the table the values, issues, and actions that Progressive Christians are working toward. We wanted to find the political issues and cultural ideas that had the greatest purchase in American culture.

We wanted to review what everyone was doing, and to choose a couple of big actions for collaboration that represented issues everyone cared about. We wanted to get as many organizations as possible to sign up to help participate in these actions.

You can read an overview of the values, issues, and actions we talked about on the CrossLeft site. You will eventually be able to access a database of groups' strengths, weaknesses, and contact information.

Essentially, the summit allowed us to point to what, to the best of our knowledge, represents the five big actions the Progressive Christian Movement will be working on in 2006. These are:

To elect Progressive Christians to office, principally through the distribution of Christian Values Voting Guides;

To oppose the Iraq War, especially through church school programs and adult study toolkits;

To map moderate-to-progressive churches and Progressive Christian organizations;

To establish a national network of Progressive Christian groups on college campuses;

To engage in protests and lobbying focusing on the budget as a moral document.

CrossLeft suggested, and will promote, a very straight-forward plan for accountability. On top of each action is one coordinator, a representative from some activist group. The coordinator's job is to keep calling and writing all groups, from Sojourners to the local church, who are involved with the coordinator's particular project. The coordinator will ask them to brainstorm together, share resources, think about areas where their work is redundant, and think about what still needs to be done.

Our disorganization and isolation is the single biggest factor working against the Progressive Christian Movement. Collaboration across organizations is difficult, and it's never really been tried before in the Progressive Christian Movement, where Methodists work with Methodists and not Episcopalians, and peace activists work with peace activists and not homeless advocates.

The reason we're so dispersed is a throwback to the sudden way we came to meet each other: many participants in the summit confessed that they had an "aha" moment on or around 9/11. Thus, many of the organizations that showed up are only a year old or less, although some are already powerhouses like the above-mentioned California Council of Churches. The flourishing of a new generation of activists is a testament to the times, and a witness to growing interest in the movement and its work.

The new generation needs to learn how to work together. Only when we understand who's out there and what they're working on will these attempts to put together large movement-wide collaboration come together.

Only with the best and brightest of all backgrounds can we really begin to develop strategies to win cultural battles, to break through the fortress of the media, to defeat the idiom of right-wing pseudo-Christian politics for good, and to win back real territory for Christian values.

That's why we need you to read and to witness, in whatever form your calling takes you. Witnessing is the work that brings the broken pieces of God's body together.

Let that witness be about sharing information, spreading the loaves and fishes through the entire crowd, until so great a multitude is transformed that the faith will last another thousand years.

A Call to Witness: Lent

The last month's several shared blogs and the San Francisco summit both set the course for an experiment in movement that will be taking off in the next several weeks, even while the church invites Christians to participate in one of the great religious rituals of collective discernment through Lent.

Lent is an invitation for the individual to take some comfort and offer it up to God. That action, in its act of pure, arbitrary will, makes room for the individual to change according to a greater plan.

There are many individual readers who feel discouraged and isolated, fed up with American politics and the culture of the self, hungry for political change, and unsure of where to give their talents. Even among bloggers and organizers, there is legitimate concern about how to best strategize with each other, that our poor, solitary efforts should amount to more than a futile series of protests.

Let me therefore offer, in the spirit of sharing and inspiration, a very small spiritual practice in the form of a meditation, which may be engaged as part of a Lenten discipline.

What issues do I personally feel most moved about?

What is it that the movement itself needs to succeed, regardless of where my own talents or inclinations lie?

What form of working with others allows me to share the most good?

The first question is extremely personal, the innate emotional pull of where an individual is at the moment. The second is detached and political, even theoretical -- what form of action would produce the desired change, by any means, at any cost? The last question, of where the individual fits, moves back to what the individual in question can do to change at this very moment.

This is a circular movement, from the personal to the selfless and back to the personal. It mirrors a form of Lenten practice in confession, self-denial, waiting for discernment, and final return to a re-awakened everyday practice.

Sharing relies on noting the self and leaving the self, then leaving the strategy to return back to life. This is a form of witness to which the Progressive Christian Movement, on the Internet and in the board room, immediately aspires.

May we enter then, together, into this season of Lent, conscious of the great multitude which waits to be fed, conscious of our own hunger, as of our talents, and of the miracle of sharing, manifesting even now among us.

- - -

Jo Guldi is the Communications Director for CrossLeft, a strategy clearing-house and central hub for grassroots activism among Progressive Christians. She is a PhD student in history at Berkeley, a former Gates Scholar at Trinity College Cambridge, and a graduate of Harvard College. Jo is a member of the Episcopal Church of the Advent of Christ the King in San Francisco.

Gaudium et Spes 20

2006-02-23T22:36:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes continues its analysis of atheism:

Modern atheism often takes on a systematic expression which, in addition to other causes, stretches the desires for human independence to such a point that it poses difficulties against any kind of dependence on God. Those who profess atheism of this sort maintain that it gives (people) freedom to be an end unto (themselves), the sole artisan and creator of (their) own history. They claim that this freedom cannot be reconciled with the affirmation of a Lord Who is author and purpose of all things, or at least that this freedom makes such an affirmation altogether superfluous. Favoring this doctrine can be the sense of power which modern technical progress generates in (humankind).

I think there is the lure of technology, yes. I wonder how much reliance on human independence is a staking out of personal independence in response to the experience of injustice. In other words, "Now that I'm finally free of my ... abuser/corrupt government/the people who tried to keep me down"--fill in the blank--" and God wasn't with me in any of this, why should I lean on him now?"

Not to be overlooked among the forms of modern atheism is that which anticipates the liberation of (people) especially through his economic and social emancipation. This form argues that by its nature religion thwarts this liberation by arousing ... hope for a deceptive future life, thereby diverting him from the constructing of the earthly city. Consequently when the proponents of this doctrine gain governmental rower they vigorously fight against religion, and promote atheism by using, especially in the education of youth, those means of pressure which public power has at its disposal.

They're talking marxism, right?

The marxists certainly hammered away on the passive approach to life's problems: "Just wait till you die and heaven awaits in the next life." Of course that would be unsatisfactory. Not necessarily from a selfish view, but even from the view of wanting a better life for one's neighbors, friends, and even one's children.

Blind spots and black holes

2006-02-23T19:55:00.000-05:00

Great op/ed piece by David Hirst, the Guardian reporter from the Middle East for like, a gazillion years, about how the Hamas victory exposed a giant blind spot in U.S. foreign policy.

It has long been said that in so far as Arabs and Palestinians ever formally accommodated themselves to Israel it was Arab despotism, not democracy, that made it possible. To be sure, Arab public opinion might have been moving away, if only in the weariness of repeated defeat, from the all-pervading "rejectionism" of the conflict's earlier stages, but never far enough for those rulers who did make peace with Israel to do so with anything seriously resembling a popular mandate. "Israel," said Aluf Benn in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, "could always do business with Arab dictators, a barrier protecting it from the rage of the 'Arab street'. That was the basis of the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, Yasser Arafat and his heirs and the rules vis-a-vis Syria and Lebanon. But those days are over. Henceforth Israel will have to factor into its foreign policy something it has always ignored - Arab public opinion."

...If there is a chance of checking the resurgence of Palestinian and Arab rejectionism, it is by checking the persistent rejectionism of the other side and getting Israel to accept what in practice it never has: that very partial restitution of Palestinian national rights embodied in the Oslo accords and their two-state formula..."

I think a return to Oslo is fi mismish, as they'd say in Eygpt -- so not gonna happen. But Hirst's point that the US and Israel are going to have to stop their own rejectionism of Arab public will is well taken. Hamas may eventually get around to recognizing Israel, but not until they know they're going to get some real recognition in return.

And then there's a scary piece from Alternet about a new Army Corps of Engineers contract with Halliburton via KBR for the construction of detention centers in the U.S. in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

New programs? Dare I even ask? ::shiver::

Partial Birth Abortion

2006-02-21T16:43:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear Gonzales v. Carhart, a case on the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by the 108th Congress in 2003. Three lower courts have ruled that the ban is unconstitutional because it does not include an exception for the health of the mother, even though nine years of congressional investigations have revealed that partial birth abortion is never necessary for the health of the mother.

It's possible (perhaps even likely) that the Supreme Court will overrule the lower courts and uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The last Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion struck down a Nebraska state ban in Stenberg v. Carhart -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the deciding vote in that 5-4 decision, and it's likely that her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, will swing the court in favor of the dissent which held that Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion was constitutional. Of course, this is also dependent upon Chief Justice Roberts sticking with the dissenting opinion of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Planned Parenthood has responded to the Supreme Court's decision to hear Gonzales v. Carhart, referring to the decision as "a dangerous act of hostility aimed squarely at women's health and safety." Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, added references to "judges far outside the mainstream" and "anti-choice politicians" for safe measure -- even though most Americans oppose partial birth abortion. Unfortunately, Ms. Richards did not address the argument involved in Gonzales v. Carhart, that Congress has already determined that partial birth abortion is never necessary for the health of the mother and that a provision for the health of the mother would therefore be superfluous. Maybe far-left rhetoric will win the battle for partial birth abortion in the court of public opinion and maybe it won't, but I doubt that it will carry much weight with any serious jurist concerned about upholding the law rather than appeasing Planned Parenthood.

The fact of the matter is this: Almost a decade of congressional investigation has determined that partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of the mother, meaning that partial birth abortion is an unnecessary and barbaric abortion procedure which actually takes the lives of viable babies who could be brought to term and live. We cannot allow such a grievous and indefensible violation of the most important and fundamental human right, the right to life, to be protected by our nation's highest law and those responsible for interpreting it. A federal ban on partial birth abortion is long overdue, and it is time for the Supreme Court to uphold it and stop abusing the Constitution to protect the most serious abuse of human rights that our nation is currently engaging in. History will look back on Gonzales v. Carhart and see either a ruling which upholds the dignity of the human person like Brown v. Board of Education, or a ruling which denies the dignity of the human person like Dred Scott v. Sandford. It will be up to the justices what kind of history they're going to make.

In the meantime, while it is true that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act would put an end to a brutal abortion procedure, it is also important to point out that it would not prevent a single late term abortion. There are three other late term abortion procedures, all of which are more painful for the child and all of which are more painful and dangerous for the mother. If the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Congress cannot be satisfied -- it's time for a ban on all late term abortion procedures, all of which are flagrant violations of human rights and none of which are necessary to preserve the health of women. In the meantime, pro-life Catholics must work for both social justice and charitable endeavors which would reduce and eventually eliminate the factors which lead women to seek abortion so that we can truly create a culture of life in which all human life is welcomed and respected.

Gaudium et Spes 19

2006-02-20T12:22:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 19 begins with a basic religious tenet, then begins to address the phenomenon of atheism as well as some related notions.

The root reason for human dignity lies in (the) call to communion with God. From the very circumstance of (their) origin (humankind) is already invited to converse with God. For (people) would not exist were (they) not created by God's love and constantly preserved by it; and (they) cannot live fully according to truth unless (they) freely acknowledge that love and devote (themselves) to (their) Creator.

This would be the psalmist's thinking:

: When you take away their breath, they perish and return to the dust from which they came. When you send forth your breath, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth. (Ps 104:29b-30)

And the council bishops are careful to speak of two sets of folks: those who have never been exposed to God, and those who have rejected God:

Still, many of our contemporaries have never recognized this intimate and vital link with God, or have explicitly rejected it. Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this age, and is deserving of closer examination.

One might thnik a more accommodating view would be to see the phenomenon of atheism as an opportunity, rather than as a problem. But the council counts it as a "serious problem."

The word atheism is applied to phenomena which are quite distinct from one another. For while God is expressly denied by some, others believe that man can assert absolutely nothing about Him. Still others use such a method to scrutinize the question of God as to make it seem devoid of meaning. Many, unduly transgressing the limits of the positive sciences, contend that everything can be explained by this kind of scientific reasoning alone ...

The flip side of this would be those who insist that God can indeed be deduced by natural observation ...

... or by contrast, they altogether disallow that there is any absolute truth.

Yes, we have a recognition of relativism.

Some laud (humankind) so extravagantly that their faith in God lapses into a kind of anemia, though they seem more inclined to affirm (people) than to deny God.

And they mean a humanism? Just for the record, I think we need to take the liturgy scuffles over "we" songs with a grain of salt when it comes to this principle. A critic would be hard-pressed to get any singing parish, much less any composer to admit the liturgy is heading to a self-congratulatory state. That's an unverified criticism coming from many people who have their own ax to grind when it comes to the issues of art, leaderhsip, liturgy, and personal taste.

Again some form for themselves such a fallacious idea of God that when they repudiate this figment they are by no means rejecting the God of the Gospel. Some never get to the point of raising questions about God, since they seem to experience no religious stirrings nor do they see why they should trouble themselves about religion.

Yes, the notion of raising questions: that's a difficult one for some non-atheistic folk. GS 19 notes that some people bring laudable values to their personal approach, but falter when such values are elevated to the level of God. Recent human experiments in marxism, capitalism, and other non-Christian philosophies.

Moreover, atheism results not rarely from a violent protest against the evil in this world, or from the absolute character with which certain human values are unduly invested, and which thereby already accords them the stature of God. Modern civilization itself often complicates the approach to God not for any essential reason but because it is so heavily engrossed in earthly affairs.

Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation.

In a document addressed primarily to Christians, if not Catholics, it's appropriate for us to examine the ways in which we fail at evangelization, or worse, we succeed in a sort of anti-evangelization. Chasing people away, that is. Or as one of my commenters so brilliantly put it, SCGS*.

For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism.

"More than a little" is a generous statement.

To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.

This is very much in the "spirit," if you will, of Vatican II. An acknowledgement that we have a "serious problem" in the world. A corollary acknowledgement that Christians bear partial responsibility for it. And a challenge to renew the Church so as to address our culpability.

When I read sections of Gaudium et Spes or other council documents, I find a deep sense of sin -- something which I'm not altogether sure has vanished from the Church. I think certain Catholics have certain blind spots in this regard. The challenge of Vatican II was clearly not a condemnation from the bishops, but a challenge to believers to work more faithfully in the realm of religion and the spiritual.

* Small Church Getting Smaller

A Retraction, Re: Sen. Brownback and "Fruits"

2006-02-19T18:43:00.000-05:00

On January 27, I made the ill-advised decision to believe everything I read in magazines. I posted about a quote by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) which was taken out of context in an interview with Rolling Stone, so that it appeared that Sen. Brownback had referred to gays and lesbians as "fruits." Rolling Stone has since retracted its "interpretation" of Sen. Brownback's remarks, and I also issued a retraction on January 30 after Sen. Brownback's press office clarified his comments.

But I also wrote something else which, up until now, I have refused to retract:

I also call upon all Catholics to think long and hard about supporting the bid for the presidency that Sen. Brownback is sure to make -- and ask yourselves, reading the article carefully and paying close attention to his words, if he is even really Catholic. I do not see a Catholic in his words, but a fundamentalist pseudo-Christian hiding behind the relative normalcy of the Catholic Church.

It was wrong for me to attack Sen. Brownback's faith and to call into question the authenticity of his conversion, especially as a convert myself who knows how hurtful it can be when other Catholics question your Catholic "credentials" over one issue or another. Sen. Brownback and I received the same sacrament of reconciliation, made the same profession of faith, and received the same Holy Spirit in the sacrament of confirmation. We have since been members of the same Body of Christ, each of us bringing our own gifts to the People of God. I have sinned against him by presuming to judge the authenticity of his faith, and I have sinned against the God of Love by attacking Sen. Brownback so personally and questioning his response to God's call. I retract and apologize for what I said -- and I ask Sen. Brownback, our readers, and God our Father for forgiveness.

Really pro-life?

2006-02-18T21:50:00.000-05:00

AlterNet: Did the Pro-Choice Movement Save America?

In keeping with Sexual Responsibility Week, I thought I'd post a link to this interview with Cristina Page, the author of a new book that looks at how well, or not so well, the pro-life movement has been doing at reducing the number of abortions in the United States. Much of it is most assuredly provocative, but there is a great deal of food for thought for pro-lifers who are willing to get past the inflammatory nature of her comments.

Locked up

2006-02-18T20:30:00.000-05:00

My sister has been spending the week here at Tyler Elementary School. Ninety percent of its pupils come from the Potomac Gardens housing project, a place infamous for its open air drug market, frequent gun shots, and just plain being "truly ugly".

The kids know her from their participation in Camp Heaven, a summer day camp at which my sister has been involved for the last two summers. Her boys from that first year have her absolutely enchanted. She spends all school year in Corvallis at Oregon State University dreaming of the time when she'll see them again. This week she's been interviewing with inner city teaching programs in DC and Baltimore. And her boys have been delighted to spend time with her as she's volunteered at Tyler. One jumped out of his classroom seat and ran to her the minute he saw her. Another, who recently moved in with his aunt and away from his abusive parents, clung to her when she gave him a hug.

As you might imagine, Tyler Elementary is not known for its exemplary academic record. The DC public school district has some of the lowest performance scores in the nation and Tyler some of the worst in the DC district. The school disctrict, like many around the country, is facing enormous budget deficits, and the talk is that they are thinking about closing Tyler and busing the kids elsewhere.

Which will mean a lot of those kids won't even bother with school.

A lot of kids across the country come from dysfunctional families, but how many have to deal with people getting stabbed and shot in their own home? So far two of Tammy's boys have. Their parents are often apathetic about education, or too wrapped up in their own drug-induced world, or just not there. One of her boys, when you ask him where his father is, will say in a matter-of-fact, slightly disdainful way, locked up! It's funny to hear the way he says it, yet of course it's heartbreaking at the same time.

One in three African-American males will spend time in prison at some point in his life. For young African-America males in our nation's capital the figure is close to 50%. Year- round unemployment for African-American males ages 20-64 is near 25%. Life expectancy is almost seven years less than white males. And Tammy's boys, at just seven and eight years old, know that they are not going to amount to much. As do the girls, like the one Tammy was helping with reading the other day. This girl was little Miss 'Tude, but as they worked through her assignment, she really did try. After struggling and struggling, she finally stopped and said under her breath, I'm just stupid. While Tammy can tell her she's not and celebrate with her when she does manage to get through her assignment, it will do little to counteract the negative reinforcement this girl gets everyday.

Taxpayers in DC complain that their school district spends more per student than most school disctricts throughout the nation. But frankly, it's because their students need more money than students from middle class suburban schools with parents who don't just make sure their kids get to school, but also to soccer practice and band concerts. As one community website pointed out, Tyler Elementary needs an "educational Marshall Plan."

But as Kanye West so aptly put it a few months back, George Bush doesn't care about black people. And I would add, neither do most white Americans. Not enough to do more than donate some canned goods and feel a moment of sympathy on their way to the Gap.

Cardinal Martino and his Common Ground on Four Points of Social Justice

2006-02-18T14:34:00.000-05:00

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, spoke in Havana on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Cuban National Ecclesial Meeting:

(The Church's social doctrine is) a formidable instrument of openness and dialogue with believers of other religions and with all (people) of good will.

His four point plan, as reported by Zenit:

1. Life must be protected from conception to its natural end. He emphasized the importance of the family in this area, and said that the family is the key to the future of humanity.

2. Hunger and poverty must be eliminated, and this requires effort on the part of wealthy countries, and honest and intelligent cooperation on the part of developing countries.

3. Peace must be attained through the attainment of justice, reconciliation, dialogue and an end of the arms race.

4. Freedom, especially religious freedom, the foundation of all other freedoms, must be granted to all.

Sexual Responsibility Week

2006-02-17T17:23:00.000-05:00

As noted on our sidebar, this week has been Sexual Responsibility Week. I would like to conclude the week with a few statistics on HIV/AIDS and other STIs, pregnancy, abortion, and their relationship to sexual protection -- followed by some brief thoughts on Catholic moral and social teaching in a less than ideal world. This post will focus primarily upon these issues as they relate to the United States.

It must first be pointed out that young people are having sex, and that abstinence education just isn't working. By their eighteenth birthday, 60% of young women and 70% of young men have engaged in sexual intercourse, and a sexually active teenager who does not use birth control has a 90% chance of becoming pregnant within one year's time. 75% of teenage pregnancies are unintended, and 25% of these end in abortion. The United States has a significantly higher teenage pregnancy rate when compared with nations that employ comprehensive sex education -- twice as high as Canada and the United Kingdom, and nine times as high as Japan and the Netherlands. American teenagers are also more likely to have shorter and more sporadic sexual relationships but less likely to use birth control than are their peers in Canada, France, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The Czech Republic, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden all have an abortion rate between 10-20 abortions per one thousand teenage women, and most of these nations employ comprehensive sex education. The United States has a rate of 29 abortions per one thousand teenage women, maintaining one of the highest abortion rates among developed nations (the Russian Federation has the highest at 56 per one thousand teenage women).

Because they have more sexual partners and use condoms less, American teenagers have higher sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates than their peers in other developed nations.

Catholic moral teaching is clear in its opposition to premarital sex and the use of sexual protection. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that we do not live in an ideal world, as we have just seen in the above statistics. It is true that Catholic moral teaching speaks strongly against premarital sex, but that doesn't change the fact that American teenagers are having premarital sex with multiple partners. It is true that Catholic moral teaching speaks strongly against sexual protection, but it is also true that such sexual protection could lead to a decline in the rate of unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions, as well as reducing the rate of HIV/AIDS and STIs.

The question is not whether or not we want our children to have premarital sex; for the vast majority of us, the answer is an unambiguous no. The question is not whether or not we believe in the use of sexual protection; among Americans, even among American Catholics, the answer to this question varies greatly and is complicated by a number of issues. The question is whether or not we want to continue watching our children suffer through unintended pregnancies, heartbreaking abortions, and life-shattering STIs. We do not want our children to have premarital sex, we may not believe in sexual protection -- but do we want our children to suffer, maybe even to die? This and this alone is the question we must ask ourselves when we discuss issues of sexual responsibility.

Gaudium et Spes 18

2006-02-15T14:47:00.000-05:00

Death: the inevitable mystery and our reaction to it provides the meat of the material of Gaudium et Spes 18

It is in the face of death that the riddle a human existence grows most acute. Not only is (a person) tormented by pain and by the advancing deterioration of (the) body, but even more so by a dread of perpetual extinction. (A person) rightly follows the intuition of (the) heart when he (or she) abhors and repudiates the utter ruin and total disappearance of his (or her) own person.

People also rightly follow their instinct of charity and justice by considering the death of others. That is why the passions are so aroused by life-and-death issues: war, abortion, capital punishment, and the like.

(People rebel) against death because (they bear in themselves) an eternal seed which cannot be reduced to sheer matter. All the endeavors of technology, though useful in the extreme, cannot calm ... anxiety; for prolongation of biological life is unable to satisfy that desire for higher life which is inescapably lodged in (the human) breast.

So what does this say about the end of life? That the desire to prolong life is natural, understandable, and instinctive. But it is not the greatest desire for the Christian. The hope is that we long for some "higher life."

Although the mystery of death utterly beggars the imagination, the Church has been taught by divine revelation and firmly teaches that (humankind) has been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly misery.

That blissful purpose seems to be an original quality of the human person, not an exclusive reward for the believer.

In addition, that bodily death from which (people) would have been immune had (they) not sinned(Cf. Wis. 1:13; 2:23-24; Rom. 5:21; 6:23; Jas. 1:15) will be vanquished, according to the Christian faith, when (humanity) who was ruined by (its) own doing is restored to wholeness by an almighty and merciful Saviour.

The completion of the plan of salvation, in other words.

For God has called (people) and still calls (them) so that with (their) entire being (they) might be joined to Him in an endless sharing of a divine life beyond all corruption. Christ won this victory when He rose to life, for by His death He freed (humankind) from death. Hence to every thoughtful (person) a solidly established faith provides the answer to ... anxiety about what the future holds ... . At the same time faith gives ... the power to be united in Christ with ... loved ones who have already been snatched away by death; faith arouses the hope that they have found true life with God.

If you are unfamiliar with Gaudium et Spes and operating on hearsay, you might be surprised by the philosophy and theology that dominates the reading of this document. I know I was the first time I read it. I had been led to believe that the peace and justice would be blaring from this constitution from word one. Instead, one can see a steady building up and a balance between affirmation of the human person with a serious acknowledgement of the reality of sin and evil. In this section, the reality of death as part of our fallen nature.

Comments?

Irresponsible democracies

2006-02-15T05:17:00.000-05:00

U.S. and Israelis Are Said to Talk of Hamas Ouster - New York Times

The United States and Israel are discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again, according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats.

So, destabilizing duly elected governments is what passes for responsible democracy these days? Yeah, I know. The U.S. has a long history of destabilizing duly elected governments -- or worse (Chile anyone?). But while the New York Times led with the above story, Ha'aretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, pointed out that

The Hamas military wing, Iz al-Din al-Qassam, has recently finished registering and collecting weapons used by its activists in the northern Gaza Strip, a process sources said began at the order of the Hamas political bureau, after Hamas' victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections last month.

Look, as distasteful an organization as Hamas might be, if you truly want peace, you will deal with whoever is actually capable of bringing that about. Abbas and Fatah are completely powerless at providing security for Israelis (not to mention Palestinians) whereas a deal with Hamas would actually stick. Almost a year ago Hamas agreed to a truce and has shown it has the discipline among its rank and file to maintain the truce - something neither Islamic Jihad nor Al-Aqsa Brigade (a Fatah offshoot) have managed.

And Hamas is even making progress in the direction of recognizing Israel. Their position as always been that they aim to liberate Palestine "min bahr ila al nahr" -- from the river to the sea. Yet now they are suggesting that they are willing to consider the 1967 borders. Yes, they need to renounce violence. But so also does Israel.

Both the people of Israel and Palestine want peace. One would hope the governments of the U.S. and Israel would do all they could to bring about that peace rather than act like petulant children who, in being so sulky and irresponsible are laying the groundwork for further bloodshed and suffering.

CBA Nominations

2006-02-14T21:24:00.000-05:00

I just wanted to let our readers know that Sollicitudo Rei Socialis has been nominated for Best Design in the 2006 Catholic Blog Awards. We're honored and we appreciate the nomination; we also appreciate any votes we receive, and we wish the other nominees the best of luck.

I also wanted to point out that our own Susan Rose Francois has had her Musings of a Discerning Woman nominated for Best Blog by a Woman. She faces some tough competition, but we have all the confidence in the world that she'll give them a run for their money. Finally, I wanted to point out that friend and frequent commentator Christopher Blosser, contributing editor for Catholics in the Public Square, has had his Against the Grain nominated for Best Presentation.

Polls are open until noon on February 21. Go vote!

Gaudium et Spes 17

2006-02-14T09:53:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 17 comments on the quest for goodness:

Only in freedom can (people direct themselves) toward goodness.

... and notes how freedom is easily corrupted:

Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil.

So freedom is defined within a condition:

For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within (the person).

... and God hopes that the human longing for goodness and for the Divine will come to a fulfillment:

For God has willed that (people) remain "under the control of (their) own decisions,"(Cf. Sir. 15:14) so that (they) can seek (their) Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him.

That quote from Sirach is but part of a significant wisdom passage on free will, Sirach 15:11-20. It alludes to Moses' challenge before the people Israel toward the end of the Torah (Deut 30:15-20). Whether the choice is life or death (Deut. 30:15) or fire and water (Sir. 15:16) the choices are laid upon us mortals, and the wisdom figure chides those who would say, "This misfortune is God's will." (Cf. Sir. 15:11)

Hence (human) dignity demands that (people) act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. (People achieve) such dignity when, emancipating (themselves) from all captivity to passion, (they pursue their) goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and (procure for themselves) through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end.

The choice of the word "spontaneous" is interesting, don't you think? On one level it implies a free person--a truly free person--is so imbued with the longing for goodness that right choices come easily, spontaneously, if you will.

Since (human) freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God's grace can (they) bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each (person) must render an account of his (or her) own life, whether he (or she) has done good or evil.(Cf. 2 Cor. 5:10)

Whether a matter of spontaneity or struggle, individually we are called to account for our actions.

Gaudium et Spes 16

2006-02-12T16:41:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes 16 is a single paragraph, which begins:

In the depths of ... conscience, (humankind) detects a law which it does not impose upon itself, but which holds it to obedience. Always summoning (a person) to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to (the) heart: do this, shun that.

Is the urging of conscience so straightforward? I think so. Long deliberations may be more the result of the attempt to squirm away.

For (humankind) has in (its) heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of (humankind); according to it it will be judged.(Cf. Rom. 2:15-16) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a (person). There (the person) is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in (the) depths.(Cf. Pius XII, radio address on the correct formation of a Christian conscience in the young, March 23, 1952: AAS (1952), p. 271) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(Cf. Matt. 22:37-40; Gal. 5:14)

GS 16 reminds us that conscience is a point of congruence between Christians and non-Christians:

In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of (people) in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships.

And the conscience must be exercised, lest it lose its vigor:

Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a (person) who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

A direct and brief assessment of conscience, leading the way for upcoming discussion on goodness, life and death, and making moral choices for the betterment of the planet.

Pentagon Prepares for Strike Against Iran

2006-02-12T01:06:00.000-05:00

From Daily Kos and The Telegraph: The Pentagon is preparing for bombing raids against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" option to prevent the Iranian government from continuing its nuclear program, which may or may not include the development of nuclear weapons. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) are among the voices speaking up for a preemptive strike against Iran.

In their 2004 statement, Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, the American bishops expressed grave concerns over the preemptive use of force:

Catholic teaching calls on us to work to avoid war. Nations must protect the right to life by finding ever more effective ways to prevent conflicts from arising, to resolve them by peaceful means, and to promote post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation . . . While military force as a last resort can sometimes be justified to defend against aggression and similar threats to the common good, we have raised serious moral concerns and questions about preemptive or preventive use of force.

Both the late Pope John Paul II and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, have been similarly concerned about the preemptive use of force.

It is important to note that military action against Iran could not be construed to meet just war criteria as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2309):

The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

There must be serious prospects of success;

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

A military strike against Iran would not meet any of these criteria. Since Iran has not attacked any other nation, and certainly not our own, a military strike against Iran could not be interpreted as defensive rather than preemptive as some interpreted the war against Iraq. Given the fact that the United Nations and the international community have just begun to work on ending the diplomatic conflict over Iran's nuclear program, it would be difficult if not impossible to make the case that all other means have already been exhausted. The prospect for success in Iran is even more grim than it was in Iraq, and in fact there is a good chance that attacking Iran could ignite greater violence in the Middle East and destabilize the entire region -- thus violating the fourth criterion of just war teaching.

My hope is that Catholics and other Christians who supported the Iraq War will think long and hard about lending their support to a military strike against Iran, which would be an even clearer violation of just war teaching than the Iraq War has been.

Budgets as Moral Documents

2006-02-08T21:32:00.000-05:00

"Faithful citizenship calls Catholics to see civic and political responsibilities through the eyes of faith and to bring our moral convictions to public life." - Faithful Citizenship, A Call to Political Responsibility, US Bishops 2004 Statement

There was much fanfare and hullabaloo during the 2004 election in the media coverage and general public discussion of the Catholic political controversies … namely a few bishops deciding who does and doesn't get to participate in the Eucharist based on their political beliefs and actions. But our responsibility as faithful citizens does not end on election day. We have a responsibility to speak up and bring the perspective of our faith to the civic table.

Right now there are MAJOR decisions being made in Washington as the Federal Budget is crafted and discussed. Our president has proposed massive cuts, looking to cut 141 domestic programs to save $15 billion dollars out of $2.77 trillion dollar federal spending plan for next fiscal year. Congress recently voted to cut $49.9 billion in “savings” that will slash programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loans.

As Catholics and as Americans, the questions we need to be asking are how do these budget proposals affect the least among us? Do our spending priorities reflect our values? How do they affect our neighbors, our brothers and sisters across the globe? The US Bishops conference is asking these questions. But of course no one seems to be paying any attention.

“The federal budget is more than a matter of accounting: it reflects our values and priorities as a nation. The budget choices you make in the coming days will directly affect the lives of real people, especially "the least of these" in our midst. This is a time for a genuinely bipartisan commitment to focus on the common good of all, and on the special needs of the poor and vulnerable in particular. On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I urge you to make that commitment by working for a budget that does not neglect the needs of the most vulnerable among us.” - December 13, 2005 letter from the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop William S. Skylstad, to both Houses of Congress.

What can you do?

Pray for our elected leaders to make good moral choices as they craft the budget.
Pray that the least among us will not be made more vulnerable by our spending choices.
Learn more about the federal budget and its life and death effects on the poor.
Contact your elected officials and tell them you care and you are watching them during this off-election year. The Network Lobby Legislative Action Center makes it super easy to drop them a line.

Evangelical Climate Initiative

2006-02-08T21:14:00.000-05:00

From TalkingDonkeys: More than 85 evangelical Christian leaders have come together to form the Evangelical Climate Initiative, addressing the morally imperative issue of global climate change. They have signed a statement called "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action." Although written by and primarily for evangelical Christians, the statement is rooted in biblical teaching that should ring true with Catholics as well. It reads, in part:

While we cannot here review the full range of relevant biblical convictions related to care of the creation, we emphasize the following points:

Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God's world, and any damage that we do to God's world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).

Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).

Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28).

Love of God, love of neighbor, and the demands of stewardship are more than enough reason for evangelical Christians to respond to the climate change problem with moral passion and concrete action.

The statement also points out that "the consequences of climate change will be significant, and will hit the poor the hardest." In Catholic terms, climate change doesn't just touch upon the Catholic social principle addressing stewardship of God's creation; it also touches both directly and indirectly upon the dignity of the human person, common good and community, the preferential option for the poor, our rights and responsibilities, the role of government, economic justice, the promotion of peace, social participation, and global solidarity. In short, every principle of Catholic social teaching indicates to the faithful that global climate change is a morally imperative issue that should matter to all Catholics.

Catholic State of Our Values

2006-02-07T21:34:00.000-05:00

Following President Bush's State of the Union address on January 31, people of faith have come together to deliver diverse reflections upon the state of our American values. As American Catholics, we have a distinct values system based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching -- principles which find their roots in the constant tradition of the Church, articulated so well by popes and bishops before and after the Second Vatican Council. It would be foolish not to recognize the contribution made to American Catholic values by the late Pope John Paul II, who constantly exhorted both Church and State to see and respect the image and likeness of God in every woman and man. We look forward to living the legacy of his pontificate, in communion with his successor Pope Benedict XVI, who has so recently made the most bold declaration of all: God is Love.

As Catholics living in America's religiously pluralistic society, our values have been formed in dialogue with our sisters and brothers in other Christian Churches and non-Christian faith communities. Our values draw strength from the example left to us by the late Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King, who have recently departed this world to behold the face of God and live in his love forever. Although not Catholic, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King lived the most fundamental of our social teachings every day. For the courage and the strength they have imparted to the movement for peace and social justice, we owe them a debt that can never truly be paid; but we must begin by taking up the cause they've left us, the cause of respecting the dignity of every human being and giving each human being equal respect under the law.

In many ways, the state of our American Catholic values is strong. We have seen the strength of our values especially in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when Catholics from across the nation have left home and family and livelihood to help their sisters and brothers in the Gulf Coast to recover from devastation unlike anything America has ever seen. We have seen the strength of our values when we have seen bishops working side by side with laypeople, seeing to the works of mercy and caring for Christ in the poor and suffering. We have found the strength of our values in the hearts of ordinary American Catholics doing extraordinary things, revealing a God who is not to be found in the devastation of natural disasters but in the human compassion afterward. We have found the strength of our values in the women and men who have shown the American people that our God is a God of love, not a God of wrath.

Nevertheless, it is also true that American Catholic values are under attack and being weakened by those who would reduce them to partisan talking points for political gain. It is difficult but necessary to acknowledge that some of these partisan activists are our own Catholic sisters and brothers, manipulating the truth of our faith to exert influence over the nation's conscience for the gain of their political allies.

We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's most sublime teachings on the dignity of the human person reduced to four or five "non-negotiable issues," all designed to benefit conservative politicians, usually from the Republican Party. We see that the dignity of the human person is under attack by those who claim to be its most dedicated champions when they condemn abortion but embrace the unjust war in Iraq and the escalating conflict with Iran. We see that the dignity of the human person is under attack when Catholics adamantly condemn assisted suicide and euthanasia but turn a blind eye to the burdens of health care costs and prescription coverage for the poor, disabled, and elderly. We see that the dignity of the human person is under attack when Catholics beat their breasts about the taking of innocent life in the womb, but turn away in apathy when lives brought to term are later crushed under the burdens of poverty and ignorance.

We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on common good and community distorted and turned into partisan wedge issues to divide Americans over issues like gay marriage. We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on the preferential option for the poor ignored, as Catholics turn a blind eye to one heartless budget after another. We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on rights and responsibilities ignored, as Catholics give their silent approval to our government's violation of human rights abroad and civil rights at home. We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on the role of government and subsidiarity perverted, used as a justification by some Catholics for abandoning the poor and vulnerable, for ignoring the demands of the common good, and for violating every American's right to religious liberty.

We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on economic justice ignored, as Catholics refuse to stand up for human rights like a living wage or the just treatment of immigrants. We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on the stewardship of God's creation carelessly ignored, as Catholics continue to turn a blind eye to the destruction that our government is bringing to that which God has created for us. We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on the promotion of peace and disarmament ignored, as Catholics continue to defend non-diplomatic aggression toward other governments, the torture of war prisoners, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the militarization of our budget at the expense of our most pressing domestic needs. We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on political participation ignored, as Catholics defend the erosion of our own political participation in election fraud and irregularities even while defending our government's decision to reject the political decisions of people like the Palestinians who have chosen governments that are not to our liking. We see that our values are under attack when we see our Church's teachings on global solidarity and development ignored, as Catholics allow our government to spend more on killing people abroad than it does on saving lives, as Catholics turn a blind eye to the crushing conditions of the developing world in places like Sudan and Kenya.

But I believe that for every Catholic who would reduce the dignity of human life to a few wedge issues, there is another Catholic who embraces a consistent ethic of life. For every Catholic who would pervert our belief in the common good in order to divide America, there is another Catholic working to unite Americans in the common pursuit of justice and peace. For every Catholic who would sacrifice the poor on the altar of political expediency, there is another Catholic who sees Christ in all of the vulnerable and who is working for his liberation. For every Catholic who is willing to sacrifice the rights of others for his or her own self-centered political goals, there is another Catholic who will stand up for the rights of each human sister and brother. For every Catholic who would pervert the principle of subsidiarity and turn it into a principle of indifference or communitarian tyranny, there is another Catholic who realizes that subsidiarity does not and cannot conflict with the common good and human rights.

For every Catholic who is willing to abandon the worker and the immigrant, there is another Catholic fighting for their rights. For every Catholic who devalues God's creation, there is another Catholic who sees its beauty and works to preserve it. For every Catholic who defends aggression and weapons proliferation, there is another Catholic who values diplomacy and demilitarization. For every Catholic who believes in tyranny rather than democracy, there is another Catholic who believes that all people deserve to be free. For every Catholic who sees no brothers and sisters outside his own borders, there is another Catholic who sees sisters and brothers in every woman and man on earth.

Like America itself, the American Catholic Church has been lamentably divided, and American Catholic values along with it. We have been divided by political partisanship and bitter ecclesiastical disagreements. We have been divided by our own selfishness. If the state of our American Catholic values is still strong in the hearts of American Catholics, it is only by God's grace that this is so. We must turn, therefore, to he who is the only one capable of uniting what has been fractured by sin. We must turn to God our Father and ask him with all our hearts to answer the prayer of his beloved Son: that we may all be one -- for the United States of America, for the American Catholic Church, for the entire Catholic Church, and for our broken world. Come, Holy Spirit! Amen.

When cartoons aren't funny

2006-02-07T21:27:00.000-05:00

A friend and I were discussing the other day the recent violent demonstrations over the Danish cartoon about Muhammad. "It's a lot like this friend of mine who is really sensitive so that I have to watch what I say," she said. "But I resent that I can't say what I think. I hate having to deal with someone else's problems."

And lately it's Denmark who has been having to deal with other people's problems -- sorta.

So, why are Muslims so outraged? Why are they being so darn overly sensitive about something so trivial as a cartoon in an obscure Danish newspaper?

First, this isn't about the West versus Islam specifically, but rather a secular society versus a traditional one. If you would have dropped Andres Serrano’s "Piss Christ," a photograph of a crucifix dipped in the artist’s own urine, in much of Europe or the United States a hundred years ago, I venture there would have been a fair bit of violence. Less than twenty years ago the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, provoked enormous outrage in supposedly secular Europe and North America, including the bombing of a cinema in Paris that resulted in several badly burned people. Even that same provocative Danish newspaper that published the cartoons of Muhammad chose not to publish cartoons lampooning Christ for fears that it would offend some of its readers.

The Qu'ran itself does not prohibit physical depictions of people (though, just like Catholicism, Islam is not a "sola scripture" religion -- hadith or sayings of the Prophet, as well as tradition all play a big role in Islamic theology), but the tradition developed during the founding of Islam as part of the Semitic fear of graven images. It hasn't always been adheared to. In Ottoman or Mughal art, you do see paintings and drawings of people, though I can't think of any offhand that had anything to do with the Prophet or other figures of Islamic reverence. But mostly it's a lot of animals and arabesque art along with lots and lots of flowing Arabic calligraphy. Christianity also struggled with this in the Iconoclast controversies, and more recently during the Protestant Reformation. While Christ nor the Bible ever encouraged icons or statues, needless to say, it has become a very important part of Christian worship and reverence.

And even though we praise freedom of speech in our society (as I'm glad we do), there is still some speech that we deem so offensive that it would elicit a huge uproar or worse in our tolerant, secular society. If the cartoons were making fun of abused women, blacks or Jews, there would be tremendous outrage (as well there should). In some European countries it is illegal to deny either the Holocaust or Armenian genocide (something Iran is well aware of and has now decided to see just how we'll respond when the tables are turned on us). And if you dress up as a suicide bomber as a means of protest, or joke about blowing up a plane in an airport, you will also probably find yourself arrested, if not shot under certain circumstances.

Second, and probably most significantly, I doubt this would have turned as vicious as it did if it weren't for the fact that the United States currently occupies two Muslim countries (Iraq and Afghanistan), transplanted Europeans and Americans occupy another (Israel), and the United States and Europe are threatening yet another with economic conflict or worse (Iran and sometimes Syria). Along with that has been two hundred years of British, French, Dutch, Russian, and Italian colonialism and occupation in which natural resources were diverted from the indigenous to fuel European economies and those who protested against this theft were thrown in prison, tortured, starved, executed and/or blown to smithereens. When there wasn't direct military rule, there was economic domination, such as the European takeover of the Ottoman economy after 1875 (imagine some guy in, say, France deciding what the U.S. Congress can and cannot spend -- while there are moments I might find some merit in the thought, most Americans would find it terribly demeaning).

For over two hundred years Muslims have felt humiliated as the West has raided and dominated their lands when Islamic empires throughout the millennia in Spain, Damascus, Baghdad, Constantinople, and Agra had been superior technologically and seemed more enlightened when compared to medieval Europe. Somewhat like an older relative who resents being treated like a child simply because he isn't as spry as he used to be. And now that we have dominated him militarily and economically, we are casually spitting on what he holds most dear.

Third, the Muslim world has become increasingly conservative in the last thirty years and, in addition to the reaction against imperialism, a lot of that is due to Saudi Arabia. Imagine for a moment that John Calvin and his theocratic state of Geneva was still around and suddenly came into unimaginable wealth. Then took over a lot of the Vatican, most Protestant seminaries, as well as started many, many more throughout the developing world. That's what's been happening in a lot of the Muslim world as the Saudis have been exporting their unique, reactionary form of Islam throughout the world. And frankly folks, we share complicity in this. Partly through our use of petroleum-based products, but also through our government's support of the Saudi family. It's one more reason for us to reconsider what our economic choices are doing to the world.

In any society, secular or traditional, dominant or controlled, people react emotionally to whatever grievance they have in ways that are often self-destructive. These protests have hurt Muslims far more than secular Danes as it has been Muslims dying during the violence. While I may not agree with some of their methods of protest, I do appreciate that I live in a secular society in which my country controls what goes on many of those countries where the protests are taking place, or is threatening violence against some of those it does not control. And because I live in a position of privilege, I know I have the choice to listen to what is happening behind the violence. Even if, on the surface, it might sound annoyingly hyper-sensitive.

Gaudium et Spes 15

2006-02-07T10:29:00.000-05:00

The fifteenth section of Gaudium et Spes begins:

(Human beings judge) rightly that by (their) intellect (they surpass) the material universe, for (they share) in the light of the divine mind. By relentlessly employing (their) talents through the ages (they have) indeed made progress in the practical sciences and in technology and the liberal arts. In our times (they have) won superlative victories, especially in (their) probing of the material world and in subjecting it to (themselves).

Despite our accomplishments in the material world, we also seek for something deeper. It is part of our God-given intelligence that we are able to probe and begin to perceive aspects of the universe that transcend "data alone," or science, if you will:

Still (they have) always searched for more penetrating truths, and find them. For (their) intelligence is not confined to observable data alone, but can with genuine certitude attain to reality itself as knowable, though in consequence of sin that certitude is partly obscured and weakened.

Sin is acknowledged as an aspect that thwarts not only our moral make-up, but impedes our ability to engage our intellect. Sin is a given for us, but the solution is the search for wisdom:

The intellectual nature of the human person is perfected by wisdom and needs to be, for wisdom gently attracts the mind of (a person) to a quest and a love for what is true and good. Steeped in wisdom, (a person) passes through visible realities to those which are unseen.

The Church recognizes the need for wisdom. Note that it is defined above as a human quality, not necessarily a religious one.

Our era needs such wisdom more than bygone ages if the discoveries made by (humankind) are to be further humanized. For the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser (people) are forthcoming. It should also be pointed out that many nations, poorer in economic goods, are quite rich in wisdom and can offer noteworthy advantages to others.

In addition to the fruits of wisdom, Christians recognize that God inspires an awareness of the "divine plan."

It is, finally, through the gift of the Holy Spirit that (humankind) comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan.(Cf. Sir. 17:7-8)

Comments?

Gaudium et Spes 14

2006-02-06T10:46:00.000-05:00

We begin Gaudium et Spes 14 with a rejection of dualism and an elaboration of a philosophy of the goodness of the created world:

Though made of body and soul, (the human person) is one. Through (their) bodily composition (they gather to themselves) the elements of the material world; thus (these elements) reach their crown through (human beings), and through (human beings) raise their voice in free praise of the Creator.(Cf. 1 Cor. 6:13-20)

Or as Jesus said, Even the stones would cry out (Cf Luke 19:40).

For this reason (people are) not allowed to despise ... bodily life, rather (are) obliged to regard (the) body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. Nevertheless, wounded by sin, (people experience) rebellious stirrings in (the) body. But the very dignity of (human beings) postulates that (they) glorify God in (the) body and forbid it to serve the evil inclinations of his heart.

If others are somewhat more familiar with JPII's Theology of thee Body, feel free to comment on this part.

Now, (people are) not wrong when (they regard themselves) as superior to bodily concerns, and as more than a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of (humanity). For by (their) interior qualities (they outstrip) the whole sum of mere things. (They plunge) into the depths of reality whenever (they enter) into (their own hearts); God, Who probes the heart, (Cf. 1 Kings 16:7; Jer. 17:10) awaits (them) there; there (they discern their) proper destiny beneath the eyes of God. Thus, when (they recognize) in (themselves) a spiritual and immortal soul, (they are) not being mocked by a fantasy born only of physical or social influences, but is rather laying hold of the proper truth of the matter.

If the human person is one, it is hard to separate the mutual relationship of the physical and the interior soul. It could be said that a crime against a person's body is an act against the human soul. Indeed if the interior nature of a person is harmed, it would be logical to assume that the crime is more seriously grave than a mere bodily transgression.

Particularly heinous in the Church's eyes would be aggression directed against the soul. Note that Church teaching does not differentiate between a Catholic and non-Catholic soul, or between believing and unbelieving souls. Actions which offend the spiritual sensibilities of anyone are considered grave.

You Pick Your Battles ... or, What's Really Important?

2006-02-05T23:25:00.000-05:00

Since I haven't been to the movies in a while, I thought I'd do a little posting on what kind of immoral trash they're circulating these days under the guise of "entertainment." So, two days later, here's what I recall being exposed to:

»»» Two non-extensive episodes of pre-marital sex
»»» Two shots of a woman's bare breasts
»»» A couple shots of a guy's backside
»»» Occasional use of the f-word as an expletive (as opposed to a common adjective)
»»» Some drinking and smoking, neither to great excess
»»» An extra-marital affair, occuring every couple years or so
»»» Perhaps two minor fist-fights
»»» A disemboweled sheep

I tell you, the garbage they're putting out these days in the movie theaters, it just makes me sick. Can you believe it? Can you believe that they were actually able to produce this movie, and make money on it? I mean, really! And they managed to do it with an R-rating. Incredible!

Because, if you think about it, there are PG movies out there "worse" than this. Whole heck of a lot more sex, drugs, violence, and language. As movies go today, this was a pretty clean film. And yet it was R?

Oh, that's right, I forgot to mention .... the "affair" involved two men.

Ah, what a difference gender makes.

Explain to me, please, why the "morality" of this film warrants more uproar than the "morality" of a film like "The 40-Year-Old Virgin."

I'm totally serious here. How many movies today (as well as TV shows and video games) glorify violence, and relay the message of "Shoot whoever gets in your way"? How many promote the idea that sex is for pleasure and if your spouse isn't cuttin' it, then feel free to look elsewhere? How many encourage the objectification of women (or men) as something to merely be used for one's own pleasure? How many support the attitude of "Money is Everything" and that it's completely OK to do whatever is necessary to get it?

And yet this film, with its minimal nudity, minimal violence, and minimal language, is the biggest threat to our society today?

OK, fine. You don't like homosexual activity being presented in such a fashion. You're entitled to your opinion. But please answer me this one question:

Is it the worst?

I remember when I worked at a boarding school; the motto of the principal I worked with was "You pick your battles." You can't fight everything, so you decide which is most important and/or most fixable, and focus on those issues.

And so I ask again:

That listing of "offensive content" with which I began this post .... does this listing demonstrate the most depraved content of American entertainment today?

I don't think so. Heck, if it was between a guy and a girl, it'd get a PG rating and no one would want to go see it because it's so clean-cut.

But putting the affair between two guys, all of the sudden it becomes worse than all the shoot-em-ups in the world.

Right.

I have a problem with this, because I have a problem with the priorities that it shows.

If you're choosing your battles, people, then how can this movie be the biggest battle? At least this movie doesn't encourage killing anyone. At least this movie doesn't glorify illegal substances. At least this movie doesn't turn people into things. But ... it does show an unattainable love.

Here's the deal, folks. There are gay people out there, whether you like it or not. You can argue nature versus nurture, you can debate if it's changable or not, but the fact of the matter remains. There are gay people out there.

And again I ask: Is this the worst problem facing our world today?

Then tell that to the parents of the 7-year-old girl who was shot at her daycare center in an upper-middle-class suburb of Washington, DC, last week. She was shot by an 8-year-old classmate whose father, a convicted felon, had shown him just the day before how to cock and release the hammer before pulling the trigger.

Tell that to the Southern Baptists of Bibb County, Alabama, who had no church to attend this morning, since someone had decided that torching five area churches would be fun.

And all the world-wide violence erupting over the Danish cartoon of Muhammad?

But no. Apparently, the biggest issue facing our world today is who is allowed to love whom.

Which, in and of itself, is thoroughly absurd. It's not like the world is overflowing with this massive surplus of love and we need to cut back or else we'll drown in a flood of kindness.

I'd put good money on even the most adament advocates against this movie knowing someone to whom this movie has spoken. They might not be aware of it, but I bet they know gay people. You know why? Cuz they're just like you and me. Oh, sure, some of them really buy into the "gay culture" and make a big deal out of it, but you know what? There are a lot more who are just normal people, living with the one they love. Heck, I've got some different friends where I'm not even sure. Are they just good friends and roommates, or are they "good friends" {wink wink nudge nudge}?

Does it even matter? In the grand scheme of the world, does it even matter?

What I've found rather interesting in the last week or so of blog-surfing is discovering people's shifting understanding of gays and lesbians. Faggots on the Third Floor have been detailing the major health issues of their son, The Chuzzle, and the illegalities of the donor bank with whom they worked. Here is a brief snippet of an e-mail Estelle recieved from an unknown lurker:

I'm guessing you & I could not be more different, I am a married, conservative, Christian, rebublican wallflower. I honestly always dissaproved of children being raised by same sex couples & I never considered the woman who did not bear the child a mom. Until you. I read your blog to learn about Charlie's rash & I found myself desperate to take the pain away from your son. .... As I continued to read, my sympathy grew for you as well. I could also feel your pain in your words and it hit me: this is a mommy desperate to help her child, who cares that their family is different then mine? This woman is fighting so hard to help her family, just as I would. ... Wishing you all health, happiness, and the joy that only mommy's and their sons can share.

ham & cheese on wry has also been posting an episodic presentation of a friendship that, much to her surprise, became much more than "just" a friendship; one of the comments on Part V said:

Very, very nice piece of writing Curly. I've never had those feelings, and honestly, couldn't see how two females could fall in love. I feel ashamed to think that I was so naive to think that love didn't "happen" the way it did with straight people. You've opened my eyes and changed my perception and I am grateful for that.

Heck, even Focus on the Family editor Gary Schneeberger has a bit of a conversion of heart. Granted, he's ultimately promoting the "We Can Change Them" program, but he still brings up an excellent point:

It's only been in the last couple of days that I've realized where this kind of thinking had illogically led me: to the conclusion that I have all the moral high ground. And it's only been in the last several hours, as I've wrestled with getting these thoughts out of my head and onto the computer screen, that I've realized how dangerous — and shameful — such thinking is.
In the cultural and policy battles we fight every day, particularly on issues like the normalization of homosexuality and the availability of abortion, it's easy to take on airs of superiority like those I've been wearing. Maybe it's because we have the truth of Scripture on our side; maybe it's because we're fallen human beings prone to arrogance and pride and every other sin under the sun — just like those on the other side of the ideological aisle. Most likely, it's a combination of the two.
Whatever causes it, though, there is no disputing it cripples our witness for Christ — no matter how we wind up faring on the Culture War scorecard. A victory won gracelessly or gloatingly is no victory at all; even if we eventually succeed in making abortion no longer legal, what have we really accomplished for the Kingdom if our tactics and attitudes drive the people who most need God further away from him?
To watch a film like "Brokeback Mountain" and react the way I did does not please the Lord. He loves those who laughed at that tragic scene I described earlier precisely as much as He loves me. He longs to heal their hearts. If I hope to be a tool He uses to do so, and that ought to be my goal as someone who has felt called to work at a Christian ministry, I've got to do more than sniff at the insensitivity and immaturity of those gay men and women I watched the movie with. I've got to do more than be disgusted at the subject matter of the film. I've got to consider why they laughed — and, in the larger context, why they view this film as such a watershed moment for themselves and their movement.

And so again I ask .... is this truly the biggest issue facing our world today? Are these people like Estelle and Curly single-handly contributing to the downfall of Western Society as we know it?

One of the couples who got married when the whole thing first exploded in either San Francisco or Boston was these two women who had been together for 54 years.

Explain to me how their committed relationship does more damage to the idea of "marriage" than Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage -- brief enough that the headline includes both the wedding and annulment.

I have one student who, in her introductory paper for me, explained that her parents and stepparents have all been divorced, her uncles are all divorced, one brother is divorced and the other is in the process of getting divorced. During Vocations Awareness Week, one of our sisters was asking her kids about the four vocations (priest/deacon, religious brother/sister, married, single) ... except the four they remembered were "priest/deacon, religious brother/sister, married, and divorced." Hmmm. And the 54-year commitment of those two women caused this?

I'm all about making marriage mean something. But shouldn't we start with the pre-nup? The "I'll say I'm doing this for life, but when we split up, I'll get this and you can have that." The quickie Vegas chapels? The overabundance of divorce attorneys? The media messages that say, "If it's broke, don't fix it. Just throw it out and buy a new model"?

An yet, even with all that, I find it hard to see "the sanctity of marriage" as the biggest issue facing our world today. I'm curious about the amount of time, energy, and money that is being spent on the idea to "change the constitution" so that its definition of marriage matches mine, or to say what movies can and can't be shown.

And is that really the best use of that time, energy, and expense?

There's no bigger need?

What about the troops who don't have the right armor? What about the folks in Missippi, also destroyed by Katrina but in the shadow of New Orleans? What about those on Medicaid who can't get their prescriptions right now because the kinks in the new system haven't been worked out yet? What about all the people living on the streets of our Nation's Capital -- supposedly the richest nation in the world? What about the rural kids getting way too involved in meth? What about the miners who have to risk their lives to put food on the table?

We're so worried about who can share a house that we don't consider those who don't have a house. We're so worried about who can share medical benefits that we don't consider those who don't have medical benefits. We're so worried about who can raise a child that we don't consider those kids who don't have someone to raise them. We're so worried about who can visit the hospital that we don't consider those who don't have someone to visit them.

Is that really where the focus should be?

I teach my Social Justice kids that we need to be meeting people's basic needs. Once the world has been clothed, and fed, and housed, and given their rightful dignity, self-worth, and value .... then we can worry about who's allowed to like whom. Until then ....

Let's worry about what really matters.

[cross-posted at Narrow at the Outset]

Synergy for peace

2006-02-05T17:09:00.000-05:00

With all the talk about Hamas and the Palestinian elections and terrorism, I thought I would post a link to an old post of mine over at my personal blog about non-violent protests in the West Bank.

People frequently ask, "why don't Palestinians work against the Occupation like Ghandi and King would?" The answer is that they are. Weekly, sometimes daily. Have you ever heard of the village of Bil'in in the West Bank? Or Rateb Abu Rahma?

Didn't think so.

But you do know who Islamic Jihad is. CNN makes sure of that.

However, Isrealis know about Bil'in and many of them are joining the Palestinians to protest the Wall.

My Palestinian friends say that it's up to the Israelis to take the moral high ground and do the right thing, which I'm usually inclined to agree with because the Israelis are also the ones in the position of power -- they have the high ground on everything. My Israeli friends, of course, look to the Palestinians to do the moral thing and non-violently protest the occupation. But what these demonstrations in Qalqilyah show is that it takes both sides to do the right thing in this situation. Both Palestinians and Israelis to stand up against the Wall and the Occupation. Both to create the synergy needed to confront the decades of hate and violence and dehumanization.

Many have been making the point that this Wall meant to separate Israelis and Palestinians is bringing them together in ways nothing else has managed. And well, as Christians we know that God causes all things to work together for good for those who love Him and are called according to his purpose. I can't think of a better way to show our love for God than by standing up for human life and dignity in a way that demonstrates human love and dignity.

The People Say: Let's Work With Hamas

2006-02-03T23:43:00.000-05:00

According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted January 26-29, 51% of Americans think that the Bush administration should engage in diplomacy with the Palestinian-Hamas government in hopes of changing its policy toward Israel, while only 37% of Americans think that the Bush administration should refuse to deal with the Palestinian-Hamas government until it renounces violence against Israel.

It's an interesting response from the public, when one considers poll numbers which have in the past been largely unfavorable toward the Palestinian Authority. (For instance, while 69% of respondents in a 2005 Gallup poll had a favorable regard for Israel, only 27% regarded the Palestinian Authority favorably). I think this has more to do with our own government than it does with the Palestinian-Hamas government; the public has grown tired of an aggressive and imperialistic foreign policy, and now expects our government to use diplomacy rather than scare tactics (some might say "terror tactics") like economic sanctions.

Corrupt Catholic Becomes Majority Leader

2006-02-02T16:59:00.000-05:00

According to Catholics in the Public Square, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) has become the new House Majority Leader. David Schrader is optimistic about Rep. Boehner's election, claiming that his "voting record on issues important to serious Catholics is very good" (emphasis mine). I don't know much about Rep. Boehner's voting record yet, but there is something in Rep. Boehner's past that might give a few serious Catholics pause.

According to The New York Times and Bloomberg, Rep. Boehner was a little bit naughty back in 1995. While Congress was considering the elimination of a tobacco subsidy, Rep. Boehner was handing out campaign checks from none other than tobacco industry lobbyists! It isn't surprising to learn from The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and others that Rep. Boehner isn't serious about cleaning up congressional corruption -- he even referred to a ban on private-paid travel as "childish." So I have to ask: Are there any serious Catholics out there who think that lying, bribery, scandal, and endless corruption are important?

Gaudium et Spes 13

2006-02-02T09:35:00.000-05:00

This section of Gaudium et Spes summarizes the Catholic approach to sin as it manifests itself in human beings. First the presumption that a state of holiness is a state of human liberty:

Although ... made by God in a state of holiness, from the very onset of history (human beings) abused (this) liberty, at the urging of the Evil One. (Humanity set itself) against God and sought to attain (their) goal apart from God. Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, but their senseless minds were darkened and they served the creature rather than the Creator.(Cf. Rom. 1:21-25) What divine revelation makes known to us agrees with experience. Examining (its) heart, (humanity finds that they have) inclinations toward evil too, and (are) engulfed by manifold ills which cannot come from (their) good Creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as (their) beginning, (people have) disrupted also (their) proper relationship to (their) own ultimate goal as well as (the) whole relationship toward (themselves) and others and all created things.

And so the Church rightly teaches that the search for holiness is central to curing the various ills sin has brought upon the world in the material realm: war, famine, poverty, and the rest.

What follows next is the description of the inner turmoil of human beings--the struggle between good and evil. The struggle is not a successful solo adventure:

Therefore (human beings are) split within (themselves). As a result, all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itself to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness. Indeed, (people find) that by (themselves they are) incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he (or she) is bound by chains.

And the answer? Jesus Christ.

But the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen (human beings), renewing (them) inwardly and casting out that "prince of this world" (John 12:31) who held (them) in the bondage of sin.(Cf. John 8:34) For sin has diminished (humankind), blocking (the) path to fulfillment.

The call to grandeur and the depths of misery, both of which are a part of human experience, find their ultimate and simultaneous explanation in the light of this revelation.

There is the temptation, even for Christians, that individuals can do it alone. The Church's wisdom would suggest not; that the individual human being is so tortured and conflicted that the darkness is an inevitable part of any undertaking.

"I have the best of intentions, but I fail so miserably"

This is one point of dialogue, for those in the world--Christian or non--who have reached this conclusion. If a person is convinced of the futility of individual or collective effort, the Church teaches that Christ is ready to "free" us (read: render holy) and fulfill our desires for good.

Comments?

2006 Catholic Blog Awards

2006-01-31T00:16:00.000-05:00

Nominations are open for the 2006 Catholic Blog Awards, and will remain open until 4:00 P.M. EST on Friday, February 3. I'm not going to nominate Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, but I'm not above letting our readers know that there are categories for Best Blog by a Group, Best Political Analysis, and Best Social Commentary Blog. Do with that knowledge what you will!

Brownback and "Fruits," Redux

2006-01-30T16:30:00.000-05:00

On January 27, I reported on Sen. Brownback's (R-KS) apparent manipulation and abuse of scripture in order to make a pun in which he referred to Swedish gays and lesbians as "fruits." Sen. Brownback's press office responded today to the press release issued by the Human Rights Campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEWS RELEASE

January 30, 2006

Contact Brian Hart/John Rankin

BROWNBACK CLARIFIES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE COMMENT

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Sam Brownback today issued the following statement concerning his recent comments in Rolling Stone magazine about same-sex marriage in Sweden:

"When quoting Matthew 7:16, 'Ye shall know them by their fruits,' I was in no way referring to sexual orientation.

"While this biblical passage was pertinent to our overall conversation about faith and deeds, it apparently led the writer to believe I was making a joke; I was not and would never do so with such a personal and sensitive issue."

The author of the Rolling Stone article in question, Jeff Sharlet, left a comment on my initial post and said that although he didn't know whether or not Sen. Brownback intended to make a pun, "the awkward moment that followed -- and the fact that his press secretary later told me that the interview had made Brownback uncomfortable -- suggests that he was aware of the possible interpretations." I find it improbable based on what Mr. Sharlet said and plain old common sense that Sen. Brownback didn't recognize the implications that such a comment would have.

Be that as it may, I suppose that I have no choice but to accept what Sen. Brownback says at face value, since it would be impossible to prove either way what he meant by making his remarks. I withdraw my condemnation of Sen. Brownback's remarks and my demand for a retraction and apology, but I would like to call upon Sen. Brownback to be more careful when he is citing scripture in the future, because scripture can be and has been used to hurt gays and lesbians many times in the past. It would be easy to misinterpret the kind of remarks that Sen. Brownback recently made.

Toward Palestine

2006-01-29T17:26:00.000-05:00

After mulling over Michelle's take on the recent Palestinian elections and after taking a look at the resources she brought to my attention, I've begun to reconsider my initial reaction to the sweeping victory of Hamas. I have to admit that my initial response was really a kneejerk reaction, inspired by a post-9/11 paralyzing fear of terrorism and by what I was hearing on the news. I did not research the reasons behind the Hamas victory, nor did I bother to look for alternative perspectives. I'm usually much more thoughtful in responding to complex situations, and I apologize to our readers for reacting so hastily. I have given the issue more thought, and I'd like to share what I've come up with.

To begin with, I think that Israel's response to the Hamas election has primarily been motivated by its very reasonable fear of Hamas. I don't blame the Israelis for reacting in the way that they have, and I think their reaction has in many ways been quite restrained. But I'm not sure that the Bush administration's reaction is motivated by fear as much as it is motivated by aggravation that it has now completely lost control of the situation. Like it or not, this election is the first step toward Palestinian statehood, because it is the first time that the Palestinians have really taken responsibility for themselves and for their future.

To the casual observer, electing Hamas is an irresponsible move that will jeopardize the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but when one looks at the domestic situation in the Palestinian Territories one quickly realizes that the Palestinians were not acting irresponsibly in international affairs so much as they were acting responsibly in domestic affairs. They recognized that there could be no Palestinian future without domestic stability in the Palestinian Territories, and Fatah was not providing such stability. Fatah was not moving the Palestinian people toward a viable future as a Palestinian state, nor did it show any signs that it would begin moving in that direction anytime soon. Fatah was facilitating just the kind of corrupt, Third World conditions that would always leave the Palestinians embroiled in violent conflict and unable to achieve viability as a state. Fatah was encouraging violence not only within the Palestinian Territories, but also against Israel, by leaving the Palestinians in hopeless conditions that can only lead to desperate acts like terrorist violence. Speaking of the domestic situation, then, the Palestinians have acted quite responsibly by ousting Fatah and choosing its only alternative: Hamas.

This frustrates the Bush administration, because it did not give the Palestinians permission to take responsibility for themselves. This was not at all part of the Bush administration's unilateral "road map to peace," a road map which has proven itself a dead end for Middle Eastern peace. The Bush administration cannot possibly be upset that the Palestinians have elected a radical Islamic government, because that is exactly the kind of government that the Bush administration itself has facilitated by supporting the new Shi'ite government of Iraq. Rather, it would seem that the Bush administration is upset because the status quo has now effectively been toppled.

It is a certainty that Hamas will contribute positively to the domestic situation in the Palestinian Territories, for they cannot possibly do worse than Fatah. Once the domestic situation improves and statehood becomes a viable option, the Palestinian people will only be more willing -- certainly not less willing -- to work with Israel in order to facilitate Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and the creation of a Palestinian state. Whether or not Hamas is willing to work with Israel will be largely irrelevant, because the Palestinians have now demonstrated that the government will do their will, not its own will. If Hamas does not do the will of the Palestinian people in this regard, there is every probability that they will be ousted and replaced by a party that will.

This must all be very upsetting for the Bush administration, because anyone who's been paying attention can see clearly that the Bush administration does not want a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that the Bush administration does not want a Palestinian state, despite their many platitudes to the contrary. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict gives the United States a strong foothold in the region, because it leaves both Israel and the Palestinian Territories in need of our constant assistance. Israel needs us to help negotiate with the Palestinians and protect them from hostile Arab neighbors like Iran and Syria, and the Palestinians need us as an ambassador to Israel. Once the conflict is resolved, Israel will not need us to negotiate with the Palestinians and the threat from Iran and Syria will diminish, even while the Palestinians cease to need our mediating presence. If the conflict is resolved, the United States will lose its strongest foothold in the Middle East and all power we currently hold over the Middle East will be lost.

And so we had concocted a brilliant plan in the so-called "road map to peace." We would continue to string the Palestinians along with a promise of statehood always just a little out of reach. We would mostly favor Israel, our great preserver of the status quo in the Middle East, only lightly slapping their wrists to make it look like we really did have the best interest of the Palestinians at heart. When Hamas began moderating itself in order to become a political entity and when it established a truce with Israel, we made an alliance with the Fatah party, because the Fatah party also had an interest in preserving the status quo. As long as there was no viability for a Palestinian state, no real peace with Israel, Mahmoud Abbas could continue to live in his $2 million mansion and Suha Arafat could continue to live richly on the backs of the Palestinians without the restraints of statehood to hold them accountable. So the unholy alliance was formed: the United States, Israel, and Fatah, all preserving the status quo and making a future for the Palestinian people impossible.

And now the Palestinian people have seen through it and toppled everyone's plans.

It will be impossible for Hamas not to moderate itself and work with Israel. In fact, it has already shown its willingness to do just that by making and sustaining a truce with Israel and by removing its call for Israel's destruction from its charter. Although Israel says now that it will not work with a Palestinian-Hamas government, the truth of the matter is that it will have no choice, since the infrastructure of both Israel and the Palestinian Territories depends upon some basic cooperation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

As Hamas improves the domestic situation in the Palestinian Territories, the Palestinian people will push Hamas even harder to work with Israel. Hamas will do it, but they won't do it the way Fatah did it; they won't be subservient to Israel and the United States, and that's what has us all worked up. Hamas won't be interested in maintaining the status quo as Fatah was -- the Palestinian people will demand, and Hamas will work toward, true independence and statehood. There will be progress, but it won't be on our terms, and that's what has the Bush administration so upset. It will no longer be only our interests and Israel's interests involved in the peace process; Hamas will ensure that the Palestinian people's interests are equally considered.

Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the State Department, has recently said: "A two-state solution to the conflict requires all participants in the democratic process to renounce violence and terror, accept Israel's right to exist, and disarm, as outlined in the 'road map.'" That's true, and if Hamas doesn't do this, there's every reason to believe that the Palestinian people will oust them and replace them with a chastised Fatah party that will have no choice but to reform. But it is also true that a two-state solution to the conflict requires all participants to renounce violence and terror, including the violence and terror of withdrawing economic aid. It is also true that Israel and the United States must now accept Palestine's right to exist, because the Palestinian people have said in no uncertain terms that they will move toward viable statehood and then they will have a state. And it is also true that a new road map has now been drawn, one which finally includes a self-reliant and self-governing Palestinian people, and we will have to learn to work with this new road map.

Hamas Resources

2006-01-29T15:09:00.000-05:00

Michelle Strausbaugh's internet service is down until Wednesday, but she posted a few resources on Hamas and their sweeping victory in the recent Palestinian election to her own blog, Behind the Surface. I don't think she'd mind if I reproduced them here for our readers.

Churches for Middle East Peace has a lot of information on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, including information on Hamas.

EI: The Electronic Intifada has widespread coverage of the Hamas victory, not to mention an abundance of other resources.

Miftah also has information on the Hamas election, including why the Palestinians' democratic choice must be respected.

Ha'aretz has a blog post on "Introducing Hamas - the new Likud."

As our readers have likely observed, Michelle and I have significantly different views when it comes to the new Palestinian-Hamas government, and this is probably the most serious disagreement that has ever arisen between the SRS writers. Believe it or not, we actually do live in near-perfect harmony most of the time. ;) For my part, I would like to say that I may have been a bit hasty in absolutely condemning the results of the Palestinian election. While I am still uncomfortable with the prospects that a Hamas government raises for Middle Eastern peace, I look forward to hearing more of what Michelle has to say on the subject since she is pursuing a Master's Degree in the Israel/Palestine Conflict and I, frankly, am not.

Catholic Senator Refers to Gays as "Fruits"

2006-01-27T16:43:00.000-05:00

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) manipulated and abused scripture in order to refer to Swedish gays and lesbians as "fruits." Here is the unaltered, in context quote from the interview:

It doesn't bother Brownback that most Bible scholars challenge the idea that Scripture opposes homosexuality. "It's pretty clear," he says, "what we know in our hearts." This, he says, is "natural law," derived from observation of the world, but the logic is circular: It's wrong because he observes himself believing it's wrong.

He has worldly proof, too. "You look at the social impact of the countries that have engaged in homosexual marriage." He shakes his head in sorrow, thinking of Sweden, which Christian conservatives believe has been made by "social engineering" into an outer ring of hell. "You'll know 'em by their fruits," Brownback says. He pauses, and an awkward silence fills the room. He was citing scripture -- Matthew 7:16 -- but he just called gay Swedes "fruits."

I call upon all Catholics, particularly Sen. Brownback's supporters at Catholics in the Public Square, to join me in condemning Sen. Brownback's bigoted remarks and in demanding both an apology for and a retraction of those remarks. I also call upon all Catholics to think long and hard about supporting the bid for the presidency that Sen. Brownback is sure to make -- and ask yourselves, reading the article carefully and paying close attention to his words, if he is even really Catholic. I do not see a Catholic in his words, but a fundamentalist pseudo-Christian hiding behind the relative normalcy of the Catholic Church.

If you would like to e-mail Sen. Brownback with your own thoughts on his bigoted remarks, you can do so here.

- - -

See Also: HRC president Joe Solmonese's press release.

Petition for Alito Filibuster

2006-01-27T16:40:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I endorsed a fax campaign by People for the American Way, supporting the efforts made by the Democratic senators from Massachusetts to filibuster Judge Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Today, I am also endorsing an internet-based petition drive by Sen. John Kerry to let the senators know that we want Judge Alito's confirmation to be filibustered. I urge our readers to both send a fax and sign the Kerry petition.

Living with democracy

2006-01-27T01:29:00.000-05:00

It was about ten years ago when a Palestinian friend of mine and I were talking about the recent Israeli election. Benyamin Netanyahu had won and my friend's response was to shrug, put his hands up and say "hey, we did our job. We elected the guy we were supposed to elect."

The guy was, of course, Yasir Arafat, who easily won the first popular vote inside Palestine made possible by the Oslo Accords of 1993. In order for the peace process to continue, it was assumed, the Palestinians would elect Arafat and the Israelis would elect Shimon Peres, the right hand man of the late martyr, Yitzhak Rabin and everybody would live happily ever after.

However, after Hamas' terror campaign of suicide bombers blowing up buses and Peres' apparent inability to stop it, the Israeli electorate was in a less peacemaking mood and found the vengeful rhetoric of Netanyahu far more appealing. In Netanyahu, it was the Palestinians who lacked a "partner for peace," and indeed, Oslo died a painful, miserable death just as Mr. Netanyahu wished.

The sweeping victory of Hamas yesterday is really no surprise, except perhaps in just how overwhelming it was. Fatah, the most popular of the Palestinian parties to make up the PLO and later the Palestinian Authority, had long lost any credibility among the Palestinian population. Mahmoud Abbas, who has taken Arafat's place, has a $2 million mansion in Gaza, the most densely populated place on the planet. The corruption is so bad that even my Jordanian-American godfather admitted to me that if he were Palestinian, he would have to think twice about voting for Fatah, and he's Christian!

So, now it's the Palestinians who have not "done their job." They elected the "wrong guys," and the Bush Administration, the Israelis, even Jimmy Carter insist that there is no way they will deal with Hamas as it is a terrorist organization (which is only partly true) and does not recognize the right of Israel to exist (though it has dropped its call for the destruction of Israel from its charter). Yet, as my godfather, a political economist, pointed out to me the other day when Hamas' triumph was imminent, there really is no legitimate reason why this should be problematic for the international community.

"Nobody in the West screamed when the Israelis made Ariel Sharon prime minister. The Good Lord knows that Mr. "Jordan is Palestine," the Butcher of Sabra and Shatila himself didn't come with sterling credentials for peace."

Why is it that the Americans can work with an Israeli who doesn't recognize the rights of Palestinians but not the other way around? Why should we assume that the Israeli government is any less of a terrorist organization because it uses F-16 bombers and Apache helicopters within densely populated regions not only to assassinate terrorists but also with the aim of getting the civilian population to withdraw support for Hamas et. al.?

While I do not agree with Hamas' use of suicide bombing, I know its members are not a bunch of madmen (and women). It is an astute political organization that knows what it can and cannot get away with. And while the Palestinian people may have given them political power, Hamas also knows that Palestinians by and large do not support its refusal to recognize the State of Israel. Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki has found that “for the first time since the start of the peace process, a majority of Palestinians support a compromise settlement that is acceptable to a majority of Israelis.” Michael Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum continues to quote from Shikaki's report:

According to the USIP-sponsored poll “a majority of Palestinians are willing to accept the two-state solution by which “Palestinians recognize Israel ‘as the state of the Jewish people’ and Palestine [the West Bank and Gaza] ‘as the state of the Palestinian people.’ In June 2003, 52 percent supported and 46 percent opposed this formula, and by September 2005 support rose to 63 percent and opposition dropped to 35 percent.”

He goes on to explain that, "the Shikaki poll shows...that Hamas will have no mandate to reignite the intifada."

We may not like the results of the Palestinian election but if they are designated “free and fair” by the US National Democratic Institute and the other international observers, we will have to figure out some way to come to terms with them.

And here’s the good news. A Hamas in power will itself have to come to terms with a Palestinian populace that supports its social programs and lack of corruption but opposes its stance on Israel.

That is why the diplomatic process will survive next Wednesday’s Palestinian election (and certainly Israel’s on March 28). Public opinion matters in democracies which is why a democratic Palestinian election is a step in the right direction even if we don’t like the guys who win.

If the U.S. is truly serious about creating democracy in the Middle East (and I admit, I'm a bit skeptical of this administration's motives here), then we have to learn to live with what democracy produces. If democracy is good enough for Americans (and to all you out there who might think otherwise after November 2004, it really is) and good enough for the Israelis, then certainly it's good enough for the Palestinians

Alito Filibuster

2006-01-26T19:25:00.000-05:00

Tell key senators to stand up for our democracy, to refuse to be traitors to their constituents and cowards in the face of tough opposition -- tell them to support the filibuster of Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation, being led by Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

The Hamas Government

2006-01-26T16:43:00.000-05:00

The new shocking international development this morning was the news that Hamas had become the democratically elected government of the Palestinians, indicating for anyone who may have had their doubts (myself included) that the Palestinian people cannot possibly be committed to the peace process. Although I have never been a big fan of Israel, I agree with its decision not to work with any Palestinian-Hamas government -- it is impossible for the Israeli government to work with a Palestinian government which not only refuses to recognize its validity, but which has been actively committed to killing the Israeli people whose common good the Israeli government is responsible for protecting. It would be tantamount to the United States working with a nation whose government is controlled by al-Qaeda.

For once, I also agree with President Bush's decision not to work with the Hamas government. I believe that both the United States and the European Union should continue to view Hamas as a terrorist organization, and I don't think that any nation committed to peace and an end to terrorism should recognize the Palestinian-Hamas government. The Hamas government must be marginalized by the world in such a way that the Palestinians will realize by the time the next election comes around (or perhaps before then) that it is not feasible for Hamas to continue as their democratically elected government. The Palestinians must be forced to realize that there will be no hope for a Palestinian state or any peaceful future while their elected leaders are committed to the destruction of Israel and endless hostility toward the United States and Europe. If peace is to be had, if a Palestinian future is to be had, the Palestinians must now work for it by ousting the government that they have so foolishly elected.

To conclude, I hope that the nations which currently recognize the Palestinian government -- including Vatican City -- will sever all ties with it until such a time as Hamas is no longer in control of it. A Palestinian-Hamas government is not just a threat to Israel or to the Middle East, it is a threat to the world and it must be treated as such by all civilized peoples and their governments.

- - -

See Also: "Living with democracy," a post written by my co-editor Michelle Strausbaugh, expressing a different view of the new Palestinian government.

Gaudium et Spes 12

2006-01-25T23:37:00.000-05:00

Gaudium et Spes Part I, Chapter I is titled, "The Dignity Of The Human Person" and runs for eleven sections. Henceforth, I'll transcribe the full footnotes into the text, for your convenience.

According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to (humanity) as their center and crown.

I was struck by this. Environmentalist-leaning people might dispute it. Radical traditional Catholics, too, probably. But the notion is Scriptural. Let's leave it aside for the moment, unless somebody feels urged to make a strong case for the Green side.

But what is (humanity)? About (themselves they have) expressed, and (continue) to express, many divergent and even contradictory opinions. In these (they) often (exalt themselves) as the absolute measure of all things or (debase themselves) to the point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety. The Church certainly understands these problems. Endowed with light from God, she can offer solutions to them, so that (humankind's) true situation can be portrayed and (their) defects explained, while at the same time (their) dignity and destiny are justly acknowledged.

More of the same theme from the introduction: an acknowledgement of the created goodness of humanity, yet the helping hand of understanding and clarity is offered. The rest of GS 12 turns to Scripture to provide the theological basis for this contention:

For Sacred Scripture teaches that (people were) created "to the image of God," (are) capable of knowing and loving (their) Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures(Cf. Gen. 1:26, Wis. 2;23) that (they) might subdue them and use them to God's glory.(Cf. Sir. 17:3-10) "What (are we) that you should care for (us)? You have made (us) little less than the angels, and crowned (us) with glory and honor. You have given (us) rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under (our) feet" (Ps. 8:5-7).

But God did not create (human beings) as a solitary, for from the beginning "male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost nature (humans are social beings), and unless (they relate themselves) to others (they) can neither live nor develop (their) potential.

Therefore, as we read elsewhere in Holy Scripture God saw "all that he had made, and it was very good" (Gen. 1:31).

Deus Caritas Est

2006-01-25T15:47:00.000-05:00

Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, was published today. It's well worth the time it takes to read it. Here's a quote from the encyclical which seems particularly relevant to our readers:

The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply (Deus Caritas Est, #28a).

There is so much in the pope's first encyclical that is encouraging, but I find this particular passage very encouraging for progressive Catholics who are concerned about social justice, but who nevertheless believe in an appropriate separation between Church and State. Most progressive Catholics agree that the Church has a meaningful role to play within political and social life, and I think Pope Benedict XVI has hit the proverbial nail on the head: "...it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly."

It is not the Church's job to run the State or to coerce political leaders into following its own teaching, rather it is the Church's job to offer wise counsel for the formation of consciences and to offer insight into the requirements of justice. It is heartening to see that Pope Benedict XVI: a) does not believe or teach that the Church is the sole arbiter of what is just or what is unjust; and b) that he believes the conscience, formed by but not replaced by the teaching of the Church, should still be the prevailing factor in political life. Maybe Pope Benedict XVI's progressive understanding of the separation of Church and State, and the Church's role in society, will help all of the lay faithful come to a similarly progressive understanding in which the Church is not dictator over the State but one participant among many in social and political life.

Gaudium et Spes 11: To the Heart of the Document

2006-01-23T23:37:00.000-05:00

Part I of Gaudium et Spes is entitled "The Church and Man's Calling" And yes, we're just getting to Part I. (Don't be alarmed; the document contains only 93 sections.)

The People of God believes that it is led by the Lord's Spirit, Who fills the earth. Motivated by this faith, it labors to decipher authentic signs of God's presence and purpose in the happenings, needs and desires in which this People has a part along with other(s) of our age. For faith throws a new light on everything, manifests God's design over (the total human vocation), and thus directs the mind to solutions which are fully human.

Okay. So faith is a motivating factor for looking out, not exclusively within. Note also that non-believers are part of God's plan. And thirdly, the Church is to seek "fully human" solutions to modern challenges. What does this last point mean? Humanistic in a Christian sense, certainly. "Solutions" that treat not only the spiritual calling to which all people are invited, but also the physical and psychological aspects of the human condition.

This council, first of all, wishes to assess in this light those values which are most highly prized today and to relate them to their divine source. Insofar as they stem from endowments conferred by God on (people), these values are exceedingly good. Yet they are often wrenched from their rightful function by the taint in (the human) heart, and hence stand in need of purification.

This is constructive: looking at the values (labelled "exceedingly good") in harmony with God, yet realizing that the taint is a problem also with believers. In this sense, Christians and non-Christians alike stand before God with certain positive values which reflect the divine, but we also stand in God's presence as sinful beings, sharing the tendency to pervert grace and sully what God would affirm in us.

What does the Church think of (people)? What needs to be recommended for the upbuilding of contemporary society? What is the ultimate significance of human activity throughout the world? People are waiting for an answer to these questions. From the answers it will be increasingly clear that the People of God and the human race in whose midst it lives render service to each other. Thus the mission of the Church will show its religious, and by that very fact, its supremely human character.

Catch that? Mutual service to one another. A human relationship between believers and non-believers.

Comments?

No on Alito: A Message from Sen. John Kerry

2006-01-23T14:43:00.000-05:00

From the desk of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):

Dear Reader,

I've studied Judge Alito's legal record. I met with him one-on-one. After all this, I am left with one simple conclusion: if Judge Alito becomes Supreme Court Justice Alito, he will move the Court backwards.

I will vote against Judge Alito's confirmation, and I hope a majority of Senators choose to join us on the Senate floor, voting and speaking out against him. I know we face tough odds, but this is an important fight.

The bottom line is Judge Alito cannot be trusted on the Supreme Court. We can't trust him to stand up to government abuse of power. We can't trust him to ensure all citizens enjoy equal protection under the law. We can't trust him to protect our right to privacy. We can't trust him to defend mainstream American values.

To muster enough Senators to defeat Judge Alito, the American people have to make it clear that they are against his nomination. That's where you come in. By speaking out, you will help us convince other Senators to join our fight.

Stand with us today against Judge Alito

If you want to understand why Americans don't want Judge Alito on the Supreme Court, just take a look at his record. It paints a disturbing picture.

When it comes to standing up to the abuse of executive power and protecting our right to privacy, he barely has a record. Judge Alito refused to hold the government accountable for excessive force when an unarmed boy was shot and killed, or when an innocent 10 year old girl was strip-searched.

In a speech in 2000, Judge Alito even endorsed a theory suggesting that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which holds companies responsible for making products safe for kids, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which stands up to corporate abusers like Enron, are unconstitutional infringements on the President's power.

With this record, how can we expect Alito to stand up to the President when he breaks the law to eavesdrop on American citizens or authorizes the torture of detainees?

Judge Alito's record on civil rights is no better. He saw no legitimate question of discrimination in allowing an all-white jury to sentence a black man to death for killing a white man. His own colleagues have criticized him for ignoring employees' rights to be free from job discrimination. Judge Alito's clear bias is to keep victims of discrimination out of the court system - and to rule in favor of corporate interests.

Judge Alito's record on privacy rights is worst of all. In 1985, Judge Alito actually wrote a memo outlining a strategy to undermine Roe v. Wade by slowly chipping away at its protections. That same year, Judge Alito wrote in a job application that he did not believe in the constitutionality of the right to privacy. Judge Alito's views on privacy rights are not ambiguous; they are openly hostile.

Stand with us today against Judge Alito

Your voice is essential in this fight.

We have no reason to be hesitant in fighting to keep Samuel Alito off the Supreme Court. None of our fears are based on inference, speculation or assumption. His record speaks for itself -- and it speaks on behalf of extreme ideology and powerful corporations -- not the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

To join this fight, please sign our letter. When I go down to the Senate floor to speak out against Judge Alito, I'll enter your name in opposition to Alito into the Congressional Record as well. And I'll show my Senate colleagues that as far as the American people are concerned, this is not some inside the beltway conversation; this is a landmark struggle for the future of our nation.

Please join us in this fight for our most cherished rights and freedoms.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. Please pass this letter on to your friends. We need as many voices as possible joining us and speaking out against Alito.

Living the Gospel of Life

2006-01-21T22:21:00.000-05:00

Thirty-three years ago, seven Supreme Court justices, led by Justice Harry Blackmun, issued their controversial ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to privacy which includes the right to have an abortion, and the furor over this decision has continued right up to the present day. Concerned Americans, a large majority of whom have been people of faith, have gathered every year since 1974 to memorialize and protest the decision made in Roe and to call for its revocation. It must be noted that Catholic Christians have always been a significant force in the movement to overturn Roe.

I join my sisters and brothers in their concern over Roe v. Wade and its insistence upon a constitutional right to legal abortion. I do not believe that our God is an impersonal creator, but a faithful Father who loves each of his children from the moment of conception and beyond natural death. I also believe that abortion can have a significant and negative impact upon the mental, emotional, and physical health of women, particularly young women -- and this leads me to be concerned not only for the human beings killed by abortion, but also for the women whose lives are so often destroyed along with the lives of their preborn children. Nevertheless, I lack my brothers' and sisters' certainty that America is ready to end the practice of abortion. I fear that overturning Roe would only drive abortion underground, having little significant impact upon the abortion rate and making abortion even more dangerous for the women who seek it in desperation. That is why, even while I join my sisters and brothers in their concern and their belief that abortion is gravely immoral, I cannot join them in their certainty that Roe should be overturned.

While I cannot join in the call to overturn Roe v. Wade, I do call upon our government and our society to act. We cannot, must not, sit idly by while more women and children are destroyed by abortion; it is imperative that we work now to create a culture which welcomes human life and consistently respects it. Relating this consistent ethic of life to pregnancy and abortion, I call upon our society to have greater respect for the women who are bearing these fragile lives within their wombs. This respect must begin not merely with charity, but with concrete economic and social justice: in order to create an environment in which women feel secure in the decision to carry their children to term, we must create a society in which their most basic needs are met during pregnancy and beyond. Creating a culture of life requires a commitment from all of the American people and the government which acts on our behalf to respect life and to respect those who bring life into the world.

In closing, I reiterate my enduring conviction that respect for a consistent ethic of life is fundamental to creating a culture of life. When a pregnant Iraqi woman and the child within her die in the destruction wrought by American bombs, have we not performed an even more sinister form of abortion? When we sit by and do little or nothing to lighten the burden of those dying under the yoke of extreme poverty in the developing world, have we not performed a more subtle but equally horrifying form of euthanasia? How can we truly create a culture of life at home when we do not fully respect life in other parts of the world? And when someone's child dies under the yoke of poverty within our own borders, when the elderly and the disabled and the seriously ill suffer and die without adequate health care, when we demand that children be brought to term only to watch passively while they suffer through plagues like hunger and homelessness and lack of adequate education -- what does that say about we who call ourselves "pro-life"?

In order to create a culture that respects life, we must create a culture that respects all life. I look forward to the day when I will be able to say that the March for Life in which so many of my sisters and brothers participate is a March for All Life. Then and only then will we move on from mere partisan politics toward abundantly living the Gospel of Life. May the Lord Jesus bring us to that moment -- and soon.

- - -

Note: It must be noted, especially on a subject as controversial as this one, that my views are always my own unless otherwise noted and do not necessarily reflect the views of my co-bloggers. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis has no official opinion on abortion and the complex issues surrounding it. While we may disagree over these difficult issues, I invite my co-bloggers and our readers to rise above the issues and commit to unified action. Monday, January 23 has been designated by the American bishops as a day of penance for sins committed against human life; therefore, I invite my co-bloggers and our readers to join me in prayer and fasting, asking God our Father to give us the strength to put an end to all offenses committed against human life which is made in his image and likeness. I hope you'll join me.

"Blame anyone who is not 'us'"

2006-01-20T18:20:00.000-05:00

Independent Online Edition > Robert Fisk

The Indy rarely puts Robert Fisk's articles in their free section so head on over as soon as you can before they put it in the "portfolio" section. I figure you got about two days or so.

Robert Fisk is a journalist who has focused on the Middle East for a good 30+ years or so. His Arabic is superb and his analysis first rate. He's also one of the few westerners to have ever interviewed Osama Bin Laden.

Gaudium et Spes 10

2006-01-19T19:14:00.000-05:00

The lengthy introductory section of Gaudium et Spes concludes with this section.

The truth is that the imbalances under which the modern world labors are linked with that more basic imbalance which is rooted in the heart(s) of (people). For in (the person) many elements wrestle with one another. Thus, on the one hand, as a creature (they experience their) limitations in a multitude of ways; on the other (they feel themselves) to be boundless in (their) desires and summoned to a higher life.

The balance of our creatureliness, our mortality, our sinfulness, if you will, and the call to realize the potential of having been created in the divine image.

Pulled by manifold attractions (they are) constantly forced to choose among them and renounce some. Indeed, as weak and sinful beings, (they) often do what (they) would not, and fail to do what (they) would.

St Paul said it so well, of course, capsulizing the very nature of addiction, compulsion, and all the graded steps from these terminal conditions to that of the freedom offered in Christ.

Hence (they suffer) from internal divisions, and from these flow so many and such great discords in society. No doubt many whose lives are infected with a practical materialism are blinded against any sharp insight into this kind of dramatic situation; or else, weighed down by unhappiness they are prevented from giving the matter any thought. Thinking they have found serenity in an interpretation of reality everywhere proposed these days, many look forward to a genuine and total emancipation of humanity wrought solely by human effort; they are convinced that the future rule of (humanity) over the earth will satisfy every desire of (their) hearts. Nor are there lacking (those) who despair of any meaning to life and praise the boldness of those who think that human existence is devoid of any inherent significance and strive to confer a total meaning on it by their own ingenuity alone.

The Church takes a useful and compassionate tack here: appealing to the fruitlessness of establishing one's own happiness. A sensibly adult approach which resonates (in my thinking) with Luke's father of two sons (15:11ff). The younger son's crudity is shocking, but the father gives the son his freedom. He does so to allow him discover for himself and come to his own conclusions about his place in life. Wrenching as it may be, parents must let go. A returning child does so for her or his own good and well-learned reasons. That seems to me to be the genius of the Gaudium et Spes approach: the Church awaits you.

Nevertheless, in the face of the modern development of the world, the number constantly swells of the people who raise the most basic questions of recognize them with a new sharpness: what is (humankind)? What is this sense of sorrow, of evil, of death, which continues to exist despite so much progress? What purpose have these victories purchased at so high a cost? What can (a person) offer to society, what can (a person) expect from it? What follows this earthly life?

Does the Church have these answers? I think so. I'd hope I'd be able to communicate them. And as disciples and self-styled Christians, the very least of our abilities should be able to respond to these basic questions about existence.

The Church firmly believes that Christ, who died and was raised up for all,(2) can through His Spirit offer (people) the light and the strength to measure up to (their) supreme destiny. Nor has any other name under the heaven been given to (them) by which it is fitting for (them) to be saved.

(The Church) likewise holds that in (our) most benign Lord and Master can be found the key, the focal point and the goal of (the person), as well as of all human history.

Can't get more explicit than that.

The Church also maintains that beneath all changes there are many realities which do not change and which have their ultimate foundation in Christ, Who is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever.

No relativism here.

Hence under the light of Christ, the image of the unseen God, the firstborn of every creature, the council wishes to speak to all (people) in order to shed light on the mystery of (humanity) and to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time.

And so the preface material concludes. One might conclude the spirit of openness to the world, to non-believers, is a quiet and confident approach. We don't need to hammer away with our beliefs because we hold them as self-evident.

Thoughts?

Wedgie '06

2006-01-18T15:03:00.000-05:00

You can tell that a campaign season is about to begin when the life issues once again take the center stage, becoming "wedge issues" by which America can be easily divided between Right and Left. Well, get ready everyone, because it's time now for Wedgie '06.

The first news item sure to send both the Right and the Left scrambling to divide the nation is today's Supreme Court ruling which established that a New Hampshire parental notification law was too hastily overturned by the lower courts. I can almost hear the Right claiming this as a victory for the more conservative Roberts Court, even though this was a unanimous ruling and even though it was sent back to the lower courts so that they could revisit whether or not the parental notification law must contain a provision for the health of the patient, a provision which would effectively render the law meaningless. Meanwhile, I can almost hear the Left claiming that our whole American way of life is at stake just because the Supreme Court doesn't think that minors have a constitutional right to abortion without their parents being notified -- even though minors don't have a right to most other medical procedures without parental notification and consent, and even though this ruling was unanimous, joined even by the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court. The unanimity of this ruling diminishes its "wedge" potential, though.

The second news item has more "wedge" potential, in that it involved a 6-3 decision in which the more liberal and moderate justices on the Supreme Court, including Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, lined up against the three conservative justices. This will likely have some impact on the Alito confirmation, since Judge Alito would replace Justice O'Connor and probably make a future assisted suicide ruling an even closer ruling, although still in favor of assisted suicide. That, in turn, has the potential to impact the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, since now an argument can be made that upcoming retirements from the Supreme Court and future appointments could significantly affect the future of assisted suicide in the United States. If the polls are right, however, the Left may be able to use this as a wedge issue more effectively than the Right, because it seems that most Americans support an individual state's right to determine assisted suicide laws.

The third news item comes to us from our friend David Schrader (Catholics in the Public Square): a bill introduced during the last congressional session by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the Right to Life Act. Essentially, the Right to Life Act would implement equal protection under the 14th Amendment "for the right to life of each born and preborn human person." It has often been assumed that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to abolish Roe v. Wade, but it seems that a provision in Roe could allow for an act of Congress establishing the personhood of the fetus. That's what the Right to Life Act is designed to do. The Right to Life Act has great "wedge" potential.

At its most basic level, it would allow Republicans to continue claiming the banner of the "pro-life party." The sponsorship of the bill is already lining up along party lines. But there are elements of the bill which could backfire on the Republican Party. First, the Right to Life Act would have a different effect on abortion law than if the Supreme Court itself overturned Roe v. Wade. Whereas overturning Roe would return the legality of abortion to the state legislatures, establishing the personhood of the preborn and giving them equal protection under the 14th Amendment would have the effect of outlawing abortion in all fifty states. The electorate may not be as receptive to a federal ban on abortion as it would be to overturning Roe and returning the matter to the state legislatures. Additionally, the bill would define personhood as beginning at "the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being" -- having the potential to impact the legality of so-called "abortifacient" contraception such as the birth control pill and fertility procedures such as in-vitro fertilization.

Even if people are receptive to a ban on abortion, they are less likely to be receptive to a ban on birth control and in-vitro fertilization, but that is exactly what this bill could end up doing. If the Left were to approach the Right to Life Act from the correct angle, it could turn into a political victory for the Left rather than for the Right.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how these three issues impact the 2006 congressional campaign and the 2008 presidential campaign.

- - -

Note: For the record, I support parental notification laws and I oppose legal protection for assisted suicide. I am ambivalent when it comes to the Right to Life Act, in that I do believe that human personhood begins at the moment of conception, but I think the Right to Life Act or any ban on abortion would drive abortion underground and have little significant impact on the abortion rate, while making abortion even more dangerous for the women who seek it. I am also concerned that once Roe v. Wade is effectively overturned, the pro-life social and economic movement which has sought social and economic justice for pregnant women in order to curb the abortion rate would cease. In any event, the above analysis was intended to be a purely political analysis, discussing the effect that these "wedge issues" could have on the political climate in 2006 and 2008 -- it has nothing to do with my actual views on abortion and assisted suicide.

Gaudium et Spes 9

2006-01-17T20:17:00.000-05:00

The introduction of Gaudium et Spes continues with the acknowledgement of the high hope for justice based on human power:

Meanwhile the conviction grows not only that humanity can and should increasingly consolidate its control over creation, but even more, that it devolves on humanity to establish a political, social and economic order which will growingly serve man and help individuals as well as groups to affirm and develop the dignity proper to them.

This might be one area in which the world has seen a significant change in the intervening forty years. I don't think there's as much of a sense of human control in the secular world. The past few decades have reinforced the notion that there is no such thing as a new world order, at least not a more just one. Communism is replaced with organized crime in Russia. China makes just about every consumer good. The rich, at least, seem to profit more from a pseudo-peace in developed countries. I just wish they'd find something more lucrative than weapons for war.

As a result many persons are quite aggressively demanding those benefits of which with vivid awareness they judge themselves to be deprived either through injustice or unequal distribution. Nations on the road to progress, like those recently made independent, desire to participate in the goods of modern civilization, not only in the political field but also economically, and to play their part freely on the world scene. Still they continually fall behind while very often their economic and other dependence on wealthier nations advances more rapidly.

Nothing's changed.

People hounded by hunger call upon those better off. Where they have not yet won it, women claim for themselves an equity with men before the law and in fact. Laborers and farmers seek not only to provide for the necessities of life, but to develop the gifts of their personality by their labors and indeed to take part in regulating economic, social, political and cultural life. Now, for the first time in human history all people are convinced that the benefits of culture ought to be and actually can be extended to everyone.

Still, beneath all these demands lies a deeper and more widespread longing: persons and societies thirst for a full and free life worthy of (men and women); one in which they can subject to their own welfare all that the modern world can offer them so abundantly. In addition, nations try harder every day to bring about a kind of universal community.

The "universal community" is more a fact of the dominance of western culture and the phenomenon of computer-aided communication than any political reality. Here, too, I think GS betrays a blind confidence in the political world of the 60's. Perhaps colonialism and the alliance against fascism hid too much of the undercurrent of simmering ethnic tensions in eastern Europe, African and south Asia. I'm sure a rewriting of GS today would have to include the tendency of the world community to split itself along lines of historical resentment, religion, and ethnic rivalries.

Since all these things are so, the modern world shows itself at once powerful and weak, capable of the noblest deeds or the foulest; before it lies the path to freedom or to slavery, to progress or retreat, to brotherhood or hatred. Moreover, (people are) becoming aware that it is (their) responsibility to guide aright the forces which (they have) unleashed and which can enslave (them) or minister to (them). That is why (they are) putting questions to (themselves).

Thoughts?

Gaudium et Spes 8

2006-01-16T23:35:00.000-05:00

This section might be subtitled for its last sentence, naming us as both cause and victim of our own conflicts and hardships. Gaudium et Spes 8 has a good bit of material worthy of reflection. Reminder that this section continues the bishops' diagnosis of the world situation in 1965: this is not church teaching as such; it is an assessment. We keep in mind how much of this continues to ring true in the Information Age.

This development coming so rapidly and often in a disorderly fashion, combined with keener awareness itself of the inequalities in the world beget or intensify contradictions and imbalances.

Read this next portion over. As I read of the struggle of the modern intellect, I'm struck at the lack of grasp of the concept of mystery. I'm not a big believer in the notion that technology has complicated the moral decisions we face. Cloning is complex. The sociology and politics behind abortion on demand or embryonic stem cell research is complex. I don't find the application of Christian morals to be particularly difficult in the abstract.

However, my personal experience is that the current drags me along until I come face to face with a moral dilemma nobody of a previous generation has had to face.

I've blogged earlier that my daughter's doctors tell us that due to her heart condition, she will be a virtual 100% death risk for carrying a biological child to term. As of last summer, no woman with her condition survived a full-term pregnancy. I was reflecting a few months ago about theoreticals: what if she suffers rape and conception occurs. Would an immediate abortifacient be more moral than an attempt at carrying a pregnancy to term only to determine future medicine and health are insufficient? The Church of a hundred years ago would never have a ruling on this. First, nobody with the condition survived infancy. Second, we just didn't know.

Anyway, here's more of GS:

Within the individual person there develops rather frequently an imbalance between an intellect which is modern in practical matters and a theoretical system of thought which can neither master the sum total of its ideas, nor arrange them adequately into a synthesis. Likewise an imbalance arises between a concern for practicality and efficiency, and the demands of moral conscience; also very often between the conditions of collective existence and the requisites of personal thought, and even of contemplation. At length there develops an imbalance between specialized human activity and a comprehensive view of reality.

We have certainly lagged behind in our ability to contemplate, reflect, ponder.

An accurate diagnosis, then and now:

As for the family, discord results from population, economic and social pressures, or from difficulties which arise between succeeding generations, or from new social relationships between men and women.

Differences crop up too between races and between various kinds of social orders; between wealthy nations and those which are less influential or are needy; finally, between international institutions born of the popular desire for peace, and the ambition to propagate one's own ideology, as well as collective greeds existing in nations or other groups.

And making our own bed:

What results is mutual distrust, enmities, conflicts and hardships. Of such (are people) at once the cause and the victim.

Relatively speaking, the science is easier than the morality that accompanies it. There's a temptation to say that new developments have completely put the old order out of business. That seems to be too easy an answer for me.

Perhaps my future adult daughter will accept the risk if bearing a child becomes a priority for her and her future husband. It's possible science will permit such a thing. Or perhaps not at that time. Where the Church may falter is the absolute back-application of such situations to teachings on sex, gender, and other long-held propositions. There's some of this stretching to be seen in the Church's possibly wild attempts to make sense of same-sex attraction and what that might mean for suitability for ministry.

As we delve deeper, there arises considerable food for thought. And we haven't hit core Church teaching yet.

"Martin Luther King died daily..."

2006-01-16T16:35:00.000-05:00

Martin Luther King died daily, as St. Paul said. He faced death daily and said a number of times that he knew he would be killed for the faith that was in him. The faith that men could live together as brothers. The faith in the Gospel teaching of nonviolence. The faith that man is capable of change, of growth, of growing in love.

- Dorothy Day, on Rev. Martin Luther King Jr's assassination.

(Via Fr. Jim Tucker at Dappled Things).

Domestic Suspicion

2006-01-15T11:52:00.000-05:00

President Bush and his administration insist on the need for quick judgment unencumbered by the judicial process when the need arises for spying within the nation's borders. An executive order to spy on citizens and non-citizens alike has been in place since late 2001. This means letters, e-mails, phone conversations, and anything the federal government believes will help it combat terrorism: it's all open season. This news was leaked and confirmed last month as the renewal of the Patriot Act was before Congress. The White House line was anger over the leak. Comfort to the enemy and all that, so it was said.

The president makes a case that such powers are needful. More than that: they should be secret. Domestic spying has prevented human death and suffering within our borders since 9/11. One member of Congress criticized "King" Bush last month for taking power that was not his to take. But what is the moral assessment of the president's position? But is being a "king" immoral? Or does it just fly against our American perception of the power of government? As significant as our view of legal processes and executive power may be, is President Bush committing an immoral act by spying on people without permission? Or is he just violating our political proprieties? Or m aybe he's on firm moral and legal ground?

The argument for and against the president on legal grounds has been made elsewhere and continues to be made. This essay's focus is on the Church's approach to the powers President Bush has shouldered. The core relevant section of Church teaching with regard to this is found in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes 73 and the sections that follow.

Acknowledging the trend toward protection of human rights, GS makes a case that "the protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active part in the life and government of the state."

Does government tapping into conversations prevent monitored (but innocent) persons from this activity? Not yet it hasn't.

However, those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to be reproved which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves.

It is true that law enforcement officials make mistakes. Local, state, federal, and shadow agencies have all blundered from time to time in the war on terrorism, detaining the innocent and in some heinous or error-prone cases, causing physical injury or death. Does the case for a freer hand in domestic spying increase such cases? Probably, but the tightening of the judicial process for anti-terrorism efforts would not eradicate such mistakes. We're only human, after all.

The Church's concern -- and ours -- should rise if and when such efforts at spying were made to divert attention away from terrorists and to the political opposition. Political leaders might be uncomfortable about Cindy Sheehan, or other war opponents. But political distrust does not equate with a reasonable terrorist threat and the tapping of anti-war phones or computers.

It is said that the administration would get just about every warrant for which it asked. Either that means our spies are skillfully accurate at determining suspects, or that the judiciary provides a rubber stamp for whatever the spies ask.

I knew friends who were wiretapped in the 80's for supporting the Central American sanctuary movement. So I don't take domestic spying too lightly. But for now, I have trouble mustering moral outrage at Mr Bush. There's circumstantial evidence afoot that the moral underbelly of politics is hardly pristine. Let me boil this down to some simple yes and no questions:

Do I feel safer with the Bush policies?

No. More spying means more information. Integrating information means wisdom, and is far from being a given. I hope the low level anti-terrorist folks in the government are doing a wise job intercepting information. They were asleep at the wheel on 9/10 and maybe now they have a drive to make up for that lapse. Thirty years of no airline hijacking in the US and then four within an hour on that fateful day? Domestic law enforcement still has something to prove. If they're stopping terrorist threats but nobody's talking about it, they have to keep working without the public gratitude the military receives. And obviously, I'd feel a whole lot safer if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Bush and his oil buddies picked the number three (at best) threat. So much for wisdom at the top.

Am I concerned about spying without judicial approval?

Sad to say, not yet. I tend to think the courts will pretty much give the feds what they want. There's no reasonable sign the peace movement is being targetted. As long as Bush doesn't pull a Nixon, I'd say he's overstepped his authority, but I also don't doubt he thinks its morally justified. The rubber-stamp courts are what bother me.

So what's the moral bottom line?

If the Bush administration (or that of a future president) makes a move on non-terrorists, then I think the moral case for domestic spying will topple, taking the legitimacy of the president in office along with it.

Isn't that harsh?

No. Stepping over the line to seek a political or economic good, even in a questionable case will open the legal and moral doubts too much. I can't say it would be an impeachable offense, but I would say the executive branch would tumble from the moral high road.

Bottom line politically?

It's not a front line consideration. Not yet. The patriot card is still a valuable one for Mr Bush. But the Republicans as a whole are on shaky ground. We know it's going on--that's a good thing. I suspect our terrorist adversaries also knew it was going on. If they're getting caught, they have some clue as to how that's happening. I think Mr Bush would prefer not to be scrutinized by concerned Americans.

And morally?

The Republicans have more up front moral concerns in the public eye. My sense is to go with what we know and cut loose any politician in obvious moral doo-doo. Wait and see what happens with the president.

Gaudium et Spes 7

2006-01-15T11:50:00.000-05:00

This section of Gaudium et Spes attempts to diagnose the problem of society's upheaval. Is it a problem with rebellion? Are the present (1960's or 21st century?) institutions capable of rising to the task? The question is raised, but without an answer:

A change in attitudes and in human structures frequently calls accepted values into question, especially among young people, who have grown impatient on more than one occasion, and indeed become rebels in their distress. Aware of their own influence in the life of society, they want a part in it sooner. This frequently causes parents and educators to experience greater difficulties day by day in discharging their tasks. The institutions, laws and modes of thinking and feeling as handed down from previous generations do not always seem to be well adapted to the contemporary state of affairs; hence arises an upheaval in the manner and even the norms of behavior.

Religion is undoubtedly affected. The council bishops were aware that in 1965, the world was already experiencing a disconnect between large numbers of people and their religion. There was a good side to the experience of the modern world, namely the separation of the magical from the religious.

Finally, these new conditions have their impact on religion. On the one hand a more critical ability to distinguish religion from a magical view of the world and from the superstitions which still circulate purifies it and exacts day by day a more personal and explicit adherence to faith. As a result many persons are achieving a more vivid sense of God. On the other hand, growing numbers of people are abandoning religion in practice. Unlike former days, the denial of God or of religion, or the abandonment oœ them, are no longer unusual and individual occurrences. For today it is not rare for such things to be presented as requirements of scientific progress or of a certain new humanism. In numerous places these views are voiced not only in the teachings of philosophers, but on every side they influence literature, the arts, the interpretation of the humanities and of history and civil laws themselves. As a consequence, many people are shaken.

The shakenness remains with us today. Sixty to a hundred years of separation from values (I would date the modern decay at last to the period after the Great War; the 60's was merely continuing a trend begun earlier as far as the disconnect between Christian values and society is concerned) has spread to more than just the examples given here. The influence of television and global economic structures is undeniably a part of it.

Anything the bishops or I have missed you'd care to elaborate upon?

Happy Birthday, Rev. King

2006-01-15T11:30:00.000-05:00

Although Martin Luther King, Jr. Day will be observed tomorrow, his birthday is actually today. To commemorate the life of one of America's greatest patriots, I have decided to post a rather long quote, but quite worth the read, from a speech that he delivered at Riverside Church in New York on April 4, 1967. The speech was called "Beyond Vietnam":

Since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps a more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. So we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years, especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, "What about Vietnam?" They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957, when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes, I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath-
America will be!

Now it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read "Vietnam." It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that "America will be" are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was also a commission, a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances.

But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men-for communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the one who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this one? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

Finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place, I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. Because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them. This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

Rev. King's words are timeless, and they speak to our own situation today. Humanity cannot truly pursue its own good in any area unless it is also pursuing peace. Let us then work to be peacemakers and thus inherit the blessing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Progressive Christian Leadership Summit

2006-01-13T21:10:00.000-05:00

In case you hadn't heard, CrossLeft and several other progressive Christian organizations are sponsoring a Progressive Christian Leadership Summit on the weekend of February 4-5 in San Francisco. Full details are available on the CrossLeft website. I don't know if any of the contributing editors or writers from Sollicitudo Rei Socialis will be able to attend -- I know for sure that I won't be able to -- but our prayers will be with the summit, and we'll be there in spirit.

America, Turn to the Dark Side

2006-01-12T22:31:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that I remember, back when Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith came out, that there was a bit of a flap over whether or not George Lucas intended to speak to our own American political situation through his movie. At this point, I should warn the readers who have not seen the Star Wars prequels that they should not read on, because this will spoil those movies.

But think about it. In Revenge of the Sith, Emperor Palpatine expands his executive power by provoking an unjust war between the Galactic Republic and a separatist group, an insurgency if you will. The war itself is not really the point, although Palpatine has no qualms about killing; rather, the point is to so vastly expand his executive power that, by the end of Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine has gone from chancellor of the Galactic Senate to emperor of the new Galactic Empire. He did this primarily by means of the war he provoked, but he also did it by taking control of both the Galactic Congress and the courts, leaving no one to oppose him. We were told that drawing comparisons between Emperor Palpatine and President Bush was absurd: first of all, he did not provoke the war with Iraq based on lies, although we now know that he did; and second, surely we could not believe that he was trying to expand his own executive power so that he could become emperor of a new American Empire.

But we now know that he is trying to do just that.

It is primarily through the Iraq War and the War on Terror that President Bush has expanded his executive power; the false fear he provoked prior to the war led us into the war, and the fear he has provoked since the war began has kept the American people docile and unwilling to oppose the expansion of his executive power. I believe this is the real reason for the Iraq War; some will say it's about oil, others about revenge against Saddam Hussein, but I think it was just a convenient means by which President Bush could go from being mere President to Emperor in a matter of two or three years. But there has been another, more subtle means by which President Bush has attempted to expand his executive power: taking over the legislative and judicial branches.

In fairness, President Bush did not really "take over" the legislative branch. The American people did that for him. But he has done a good job, with help from the rubber stamp formerly known as Congress, of taking over the judicial branch; he has packed the courts with ideologues who have only one thing in common. And no, it's not what you're thinking. It's not a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade, because not all of President Bush's judicial nominees are opposed to abortion. Rather, the one thing that all of President Bush's judicial nominees have in common is the doctrine of the "unitary executive," a doctrine which would vastly expand the President's power and undermine the constitutional separation of powers. This is the only context in which Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court made sense; this nomination, which left the Religious Right scratching its collective head, made perfect sense to the White House, because what President Bush is looking for in his nominees is not a pro-life judicial philosophy but a pro-executive judicial philosophy. It seems that he wants the judiciary in his pocket so that he can continue to expand his own executive power.

And so it is with fascination that I have watched as the Democratic minority in the Senate has begun to question Alito's views on executive power, leaving aside the issue of abortion for a moment to peek outside their box and realize that there are other issues to consider. I just hope they're not too late. In Revenge of the Sith, by the time the few remaining Jedi and opposition senators realized what Palpatine was up to, it was way too late: he had already built his army, declared himself emperor, and begun construction of the Death Star. In President Bush's quest for the expansion of his own executive power, he is not far behind Emperor Palpatine. He has built an army of unquestioning supporters ready to aid him in anything, constitutional or unconstitutional, moral or immoral, all in the name of national security; he has expanded his power so that he can defy our most important laws pertaining to torture, due process, and privacy. What's left to do?

What's left for President Bush to do is name his new apprentice and build his Death Star. His new apprentice, friends and neighbors, is Judge Samuel Alito. He is the Darth Vader to President Bush's Emperor Palpatine. And the Death Star, the final blow to our democratic republic, is a Supreme Court ruled by John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and others like them, others who embrace the doctrine of the "unitary executive." Congress has already become President Bush's rubber stamp; if the courts do the same, we can kiss our democracy goodbye. Who will be there to tell the President that the expansion of his executive power is unconstitutional, if not Congress and the Supreme Court?

Toward the end of Revenge of the Sith, Senator Padme Amidala, the doomed wife of Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader), says: "So this is how liberty dies -- with thunderous applause." Let us hope not.

- - -

See Also: "Against omnipotent rulers," Philocrites; "Schumer questions nominee's theory on executive role," The Boston Globe

It's called genocide

2006-01-12T20:22:00.000-05:00

A little joke I overheard on the bus the other day:

A guy walks into a bar and sees George Bush and Dick Cheney sitting there. He goes up to chat with them and Bush tells him, "hey, we're going to go into Iraq and kill 200,000 people and a hairdresser."

"Why a hairdresser?" asks the guy.

Cheney turns to Bush and says, "see, told ya nobody would care about the 200,000 Iraqis."

As fate would have it, Alternet had an article today about what is causing the staggering carnage in Iraq -- one conservative estimate being 100,000 people as reported last year in the medical journal, The Lancet. While policemen in the United States are required to "hold their fire" if innocent civilians are at risk, military rules of engagement focus on getting the "insurgent" regardless of the number of civilian casualties.

In fact, the rules of engagement for the police, even in such a situation of extreme provocation, call for them to "hold their fire" -- if necessary allowing the perpetrators to escape -- if there is a risk of injuring civilians. And this is a reasonable rule because we value the lives of innocent American citizens over our determination to capture a criminal, even a cop killer.

But in Iraqi cities, our values and priorities are quite differently arranged. The contrast derives from three important principles under which the Iraq war is being fought: that the war should be conducted to absolutely minimize the risk to American troops; that guerrilla fighters should not be allowed to escape if there is any way to capture or kill them; and that Iraqi civilians should not be allowed to harbor or encourage the resistance fighters.

Thus, on any given day there are around 100 engagements in which such precision tools as 2 ton bombs are dropped on densely populated regions resulting in 97 deaths here, 40 there and nearly a hundred other clusters of deaths. It means that your average Iraqi is 58 times more likely to die a violent death than he or she would have under Saddam Hussein.

Freedom of speech is nice and all, but it isn't much use if you're dead.

Those in the military argue that Iraqis wouldn't get killed if they would quit harboring "insurgents." So, in other words, we are "attacking a civilian population to get it to withdraw support from the enemy" which, the article points out, is the textbook definition of terrorism.

But before Democrats get all self-righteous, I would point out Bill Clinton was not only bombing Iraq throughout his presidency, but his own Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, when asked if the deaths of a half million Iraqi children had been worth it, stated, "we think the price is worth it." Denis Halliday, one of several U.N. humanitarian coordinators who resigned because of the sanctions, was quite blunt about the twelve-year Anglo-American policy: it amounted to genocide.

This isn't a matter of "are you on Saddam's side or ours?" We are both to blame. We knew Saddam was an evil man, so why did we expect him to care about his people and follow U.N. resolutions? It's as if we put the gun to the head of the Iraqi people, told Saddam Hussein to do what we say or the people get it. His response, of course, was to shrug and say, "shoot them. I don't care if they live."

And we're still shooting them. And bombing them. And killing them. And I wouldn't doubt a few hairdressers are also among the casualties.

Mea culpa. Lord have mercy.

Gaudium et Spes 6

2006-01-12T15:25:00.000-05:00

Returning to the lengthy introduction of Gaudium et Spes, we tune in on a further assessment of sociological realities in the world of the 60's, which is, as GS 5 put it, "more dynamic and revolutionary." Even though they hadn't yet coined the Information Age back then, it's largely applicable today:

By this very circumstance, the traditional local communities such as families, clans, tribes, villages, various groups and associations stemming from social contacts, experience more thorough changes every day.

The industrial type of society is gradually being spread, leading some nations to economic affluence, and radically transforming ideas and social conditions established for centuries.Likewise, the cult and pursuit of city living has grown, either because of a multiplication of cities and their inhabitants, or by a transplantation of city life to rural settings.

It's intensified, to be sure.

New and more efficient media of social communication are contributing to the knowledge of events; by setting off chain reactions they are giving the swiftest and widest possible circulation to styles of thought and feeling.

They're not talking about the internet, but they could be.

It is also noteworthy how many (people) are being induced to migrate on various counts, and are thereby changing their manner of life. Thus a (person's) ties with (others) are constantly being multiplied, and at the same time "socialization" brings further ties, without however always promoting appropriate personal development and truly personal relationships.

I think they're talking about more than one-night-stands. Off the top of my head, the impact of multi-nationals on local culture (not just the economy). I'm also thinking of the migration of workers to First World jobs and the geographical break-up of families, often encouraged by governments, including our own. Most clearly felt among mainstream Americans would be the loss of neighborhood communities. (Somehow, the housing association telling you what you can't plant in your yard doesn't strike me as "truly personal.")

This kind of evolution can be seen more clearly in those nations which already enjoy the conveniences of economic and technological progress, though it is also astir among peoples still striving for such progress and eager to secure for themselves the advantages of an industrialized and urbanized society. These peoples, especially those among them who are attached to older traditions, are simultaneously undergoing a movement toward more mature and personal exercise of liberty.

And it must be said this exercise of maturity and liberty is not always in the interests of political and economic forces, even American ones.

Thoughts?

Seven Reasons to Oppose Alito

2006-01-10T17:43:00.000-05:00

Via Chuck Currie, who in turn found it at People for the American Way, I found a list of seven reasons why Judge Samuel Alito should not be confirmed as an associate justice to the Supreme Court. At least six of those reasons should be important to all Catholics, so I have decided to reprint them here:

Privacy: In dissent, Alito would have upheld the strip search of a mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though the warrant allowing the search did not name either of them. Judge Michael Chertoff, now head of the Department of Homeland Security, criticized that position as threatening to turn the constitution's search warrant requirement into little more than a "rubber stamp." Doe v. Groody

Community Safety: Alito, dissenting in the case of United States v. Rybar, said that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows. In response to Alito's assertion that Congress must make findings or provide empirical evidence of a link between a regulation and its effect on interstate commerce, the majority said, "Nothing in Lopez (an earlier Supreme Court case) requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute."

Family and Medical Leave: Writing for a unanimous court in Chittister v. Dept. of Community & Economic Development, Judge Alito held that Congress did not have the authority to allow state employees to sue for damages under one section of the Family and Medical Leave Act. By contrast, the Supreme Court in a later case (Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs) upheld the FMLA against a similar challenge; the Court's decision was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justice O'Connor.

Reproductive Freedom*: In dissent, Alito would have upheld a provision of Pennsylvania's restrictive anti-abortion law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion. His colleagues on the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court majority disagreed and overturned the provision. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

Racial Discrimination in the Workplace: In dissent, Alito argued for imposing an evidentiary burden on victims of employment discrimination that, according to the majority, would have "eviscerated" legal protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In particular, the majority said that Alito's position would protect employers from suit even in situations where the employer's belief that it had selected the "best" candidate "was the result of a conscious racial bias." Bray v. Marriott Hotels

Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: As a lone dissenter in a 10-1 decision of the full Third Circuit, Alito would have made it more difficult for someone alleging discrimination to present sufficient evidence to get his or her case to a jury. In particular, Alito would have prevented a woman claiming gender discrimination from going to trial, even where she had produced evidence showing that her employer's claim that it had a legitimate reason to deny her a promotion was a pretext for the employer's allegedly discriminatory actions. Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.

Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: Alito cast the deciding vote and wrote the opinion in a 2-1 ruling rejecting claims by an African American defendant who had been convicted of felony murder by an all white jury from which black jurors had been impermissibly struck because of their race. The full Third Circuit reversed this ruling, and the majority specifically criticized Alito for having compared statistical evidence about the prosecution's exclusion of blacks from juries in capital cases to an explanation of why a disproportionate number of recent U.S. Presidents have been left-handed. According to the majority, "[t]o suggest any comparability to the striking of jurors based on their race is to minimize the history of discrimination against prospective black jurors and black defendants . . ." Riley v. Taylor

here

- - -

* Note: Sollicitudo Rei Socialis takes no official position on issues related to reproductive choice and abortion, so opinions among the various contributing editors and writers may vary. My position is that abortion is gravely immoral, but that overturning Roe v. Wade over thirty years later would have no significant impact on the abortion rate, driving most abortions underground and making abortions even more dangerous for women who seek them. I believe that the moral scourge of abortion should be opposed in our day through social and economic measures like the 95-10 Initiative, rather than through legal and legislative measures.

See Also: "Opposing Judge Alito" - November 1, 2005

For Alternative Opinions, See: Catholics in the Public Square, JudgeAlito.com

our secret

2006-01-10T16:44:00.000-05:00

A great letter from the editor on Busted Halo by editor Bill McGarvey. I'll include a teaser below, but it's worth a read in its entirety:

When I was in my early twenties I remember visiting my spiritual director ... I don’t recall what I said specifically, but during a private talk with my director, I made an offhanded, homophobic joke about a number of the seminarians whom I suspected to be gay. After a momentary pause, he said “You know Bill, you’ve been ministered to by gay men your whole life, you just didn’t know it.”

That really cuts through the crap. You can intellectualize and analyze the recent Vatican instruction all you want. You can conjecture about what it means. But know this, you too have been ministered by (celibate) gay men all your life.

Chances are that your favorite priest, the guy that was there for you when your mom died or whose homilies also spoke to you at just the right moment is gay. "So what" you think? You may not care personally what the sexual orientation is of your gay priest, but the Church with a big C does. And has made it clear that "those people" are not welcome.

The big C Church is taking a big risk here I think. Would you stay somewhere you weren't valued? Would you stay at a 24 hour a day draining job where all your work and contributions are dismissed based on something you're not actively doing but can't really help. No matter that you've been faithfully celibate? No matter that you have woken up every day to serve God's people. The Church has effectively put up a big "Irish need not apply" sign.

I think it's clear what I think about this issue. But I think Bill McGarvey makes a good point. We are the church, and if we value the wonderful ministry done by our priests, some if not many of whom are gay, what responsibility do we have to stand up for them? To value them? To appreciate them?

And what will we do if one day we wake up and they couldn't take it anymore and are just gone?

(cross posted on musings of a discerning woman)

Gaudium et Spes 5

2006-01-09T22:04:00.000-05:00

Continuing our examination of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, we find a report stating:

Today's spiritual agitation and the changing conditions of life are part of a broader and deeper revolution. As a result of the latter, intellectual formation is ever increasingly based on the mathematical and natural sciences and on those dealing with man himself, while in the practical order the technology which stems from these sciences takes on mounting importance.

I think this is presented more as a passing on of fact, rather than as an example of a laudable development. If anything, the past forty years has seen an intensification of modern attachment to the "hard" sciences as well as psychology (to a lesser extent, that one). While I think the seeds of disappointment were planted in the World Wars, the Cold War served only to reinforce the perception of the futility of science when dealing with the core issue of concern for many people: surviving the nuclear age.

Yet we seem all too ready to applaud the application of the sciences we put to use in the armed forces that protect us. Computers, miniaturization, and the complexities of modern life may not be enough to protect us. Perhaps we no longer fear nuclear annihilation, but economic downturn. That is something over which the West now seems willing to wage war.

This scientific spirit has a new kind of impact on the cultural sphere and on modes of thought. Technology is now transforming the face of the earth, and is already trying to master outer space. To a certain extent, the human intellect is also broadening its dominion over time: over the past by means of historical knowledge; over the future, by the art of projecting and by planning.

Knowledge and information? Perhaps. But not an equivalent dose of wisdom to join and manage it.

Advances in biology, psychology, and the social sciences not only bring (people) hope of improved self-knowledge; in conjunction with technical methods, they are helping (people) exert direct influence on the life of social groups.

An acknowledgement of a reality that troubles the Church:

At the same time, the human race is giving steadily-increasing thought to forecasting and regulating its own population growth. History itself speeds along on so rapid a course that an individual person can scarcely keep abreast of it. The destiny of the human community has become all of a piece, where once the various groups of (people) had a kind of private history of their own.

And lastly for GS 5:

Thus, the human race has passed from a rather static concept of reality to a more dynamic, evolutionary one. In consequence there has arisen a new series of problems, a series as numerous as can be, calling for efforts of analysis and synthesis.

In order to plan well, the Church needs to have an accurate diagnosis of the world's anguish. A greater insight into the natural workings of the universe have brought people to this point. Is the answer to refuse this knowledge? To return to a "simpler" time? A naive thought ... tempting maybe. Barring a worldwide dark age, that is not likely to happen, except as the choice of small intentional communities.

The Church acknowledges modern reality. More than that, it can bring the resources of theology to bear on these modern problems.

Or can it? What are your thoughts?