Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Welcome
Hello. Welcome to my place. Won't you please come in and stay awhile. I look forward to our conversation. What have you been thinking about? I am so pleased that you have stopped by. Susan
Thursday, August 7, 2008
WE CAN VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE EVEN THOUGH HE IS PRO-CHOICE
Jesus taught us that love of our fellow man is our most all-encompassing, fundamental, moral challenge, as is his commandment to love the Lord Our God. Therefore, when we select a candidate, that is, if we are to love our fellow man, we must ask, “Will this person best work for the common good?”
But many individuals believe as a parishioner, George, concludes in this blog, “if a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, he/she is disqualified and may not be voted for.” This conclusion would set serious limits on our ability to vote for the best candidates to carry out love for humanity.
With reference to the bishops document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States we find we may disagree with George’s conclusion; we may decide with sufficiently grave reasons that we can vote for a candidate even though he is pro-choice––grave reasons being a candidate we believe can best work for the billions of starving, sick, and lost human beings living in a world with ever greater pollution.
We say to George, we can vote for a candidate who best supports our belief to care for our fellow humans even though he/she is pro-choice. The moral reasoning that allows us to vote for such a candidate lies in the theological understanding of an indirect versus a direct act––a direct act being formal cooperation. When voting for a candidate who happens to have a position among many positions that is pro-choice, one does not perform a direct act such as, for example, an office holder who votes for a program or law, which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. (30) His act would be a direct act. The bishops point to the concept of a direct act or formal cooperation when they say, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. (Italics mine) Thus if the voter’s “intent” is to “support” the pro-choice position, Catholics would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil” ––otherwise not. (34)
To discuss further how George arrived at a different conclusion, let us look at examples he provided in his argument. He quotes the bishops, “[Intrinsic evils} must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” (22) When he quotes this phrase, is he reading into their statement that “voting” is a form of direct support for abortion and that the vote is of such impact that abortion is condoned? On the contrary and nowhere in their document do the bishops say that voting for a pro-choice candidate must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. Voting does not directly support any single issue of a candidate.
Again he quotes the bishops, “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (42) The word “may” in their statement is essential. Other serious moral issues, such as a world crying for justice, may supersede the candidate’s position involving an intrinsic evil.
One may work with maximum determination for the right to life but believe voting for a candidate due to serious moral obligations may not be the time. Granted, a candidate’s position on intrinsic evils is absolutely not one issue among many and must be included in forming ones conscience. Not necessarily thinking of the huge number of abortions, how easy it would be to avert ones eyes. Thus it is understandable the bishops use every persuasive word they can to make sure there may be no doubt about the magnitude of the evil of abortion.
There are many other considerations, which go into the forming of conscience that are full-page discussions in themselves. For example, the magnitude of Christ’s demand that we care for and love all our fellow human beings against how much can actually or has actually been accomplished to overcome Roe v. Wade no matter how many pro-life candidates are elected for that reason alone. Roe v. Wade has been long established as law and has withstood the challenges of arguments against the criterion that established the law.
Furthermore, almost no candidate is actually pro-abortion. Most do not personally believe that abortion is moral but believe that the woman should have that choice. So such a candidate may be very open to reducing abortions by other means actually more effective than focusing just on the law. For example, supporting women to have their children can effectively reduce abortions and is a positive approach mirroring Christ’s love.
Finally, study what the bishops say supporting the idea that one can vote for a candidate, who among other issues, believes in for example, pro-choice:
1. The bishops say, Catholics are not single-issue voters (though a candidates position involving an intrinsic evil… may lead a voter to disqualify a candidate.) (42)
2. They say, the second temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate (if that were available) to protect innocent human life and to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. (29)
3. They say, the right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic good that every human person needs to live and thrive.
4. They say, it is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good. (What I think the bishops mean by this statement is that lots of people preach and pray against abortion and fail to fulfill with the same determination Jesus’ second commandment to love and care for our fellow man.
5. They say, “The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework…and rightly understood, neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues.”(40)
6. They say, “ In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote.”
You are encouraged to join the discussion.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is available online at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
Susan
But many individuals believe as a parishioner, George, concludes in this blog, “if a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, he/she is disqualified and may not be voted for.” This conclusion would set serious limits on our ability to vote for the best candidates to carry out love for humanity.
With reference to the bishops document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States we find we may disagree with George’s conclusion; we may decide with sufficiently grave reasons that we can vote for a candidate even though he is pro-choice––grave reasons being a candidate we believe can best work for the billions of starving, sick, and lost human beings living in a world with ever greater pollution.
We say to George, we can vote for a candidate who best supports our belief to care for our fellow humans even though he/she is pro-choice. The moral reasoning that allows us to vote for such a candidate lies in the theological understanding of an indirect versus a direct act––a direct act being formal cooperation. When voting for a candidate who happens to have a position among many positions that is pro-choice, one does not perform a direct act such as, for example, an office holder who votes for a program or law, which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. (30) His act would be a direct act. The bishops point to the concept of a direct act or formal cooperation when they say, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. (Italics mine) Thus if the voter’s “intent” is to “support” the pro-choice position, Catholics would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil” ––otherwise not. (34)
To discuss further how George arrived at a different conclusion, let us look at examples he provided in his argument. He quotes the bishops, “[Intrinsic evils} must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” (22) When he quotes this phrase, is he reading into their statement that “voting” is a form of direct support for abortion and that the vote is of such impact that abortion is condoned? On the contrary and nowhere in their document do the bishops say that voting for a pro-choice candidate must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. Voting does not directly support any single issue of a candidate.
Again he quotes the bishops, “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (42) The word “may” in their statement is essential. Other serious moral issues, such as a world crying for justice, may supersede the candidate’s position involving an intrinsic evil.
One may work with maximum determination for the right to life but believe voting for a candidate due to serious moral obligations may not be the time. Granted, a candidate’s position on intrinsic evils is absolutely not one issue among many and must be included in forming ones conscience. Not necessarily thinking of the huge number of abortions, how easy it would be to avert ones eyes. Thus it is understandable the bishops use every persuasive word they can to make sure there may be no doubt about the magnitude of the evil of abortion.
There are many other considerations, which go into the forming of conscience that are full-page discussions in themselves. For example, the magnitude of Christ’s demand that we care for and love all our fellow human beings against how much can actually or has actually been accomplished to overcome Roe v. Wade no matter how many pro-life candidates are elected for that reason alone. Roe v. Wade has been long established as law and has withstood the challenges of arguments against the criterion that established the law.
Furthermore, almost no candidate is actually pro-abortion. Most do not personally believe that abortion is moral but believe that the woman should have that choice. So such a candidate may be very open to reducing abortions by other means actually more effective than focusing just on the law. For example, supporting women to have their children can effectively reduce abortions and is a positive approach mirroring Christ’s love.
Finally, study what the bishops say supporting the idea that one can vote for a candidate, who among other issues, believes in for example, pro-choice:
1. The bishops say, Catholics are not single-issue voters (though a candidates position involving an intrinsic evil… may lead a voter to disqualify a candidate.) (42)
2. They say, the second temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate (if that were available) to protect innocent human life and to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. (29)
3. They say, the right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic good that every human person needs to live and thrive.
4. They say, it is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good. (What I think the bishops mean by this statement is that lots of people preach and pray against abortion and fail to fulfill with the same determination Jesus’ second commandment to love and care for our fellow man.
5. They say, “The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework…and rightly understood, neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues.”(40)
6. They say, “ In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote.”
You are encouraged to join the discussion.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is available online at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
Susan
George's Letter
(Below is George's reply to articles and comments on this blog. I have deleted his blog from the Comments after the Energy article and posted it here to make it more accessible. To read the full discussion go to April, scroll down to energy and click on comments.)
Dear Susan,
I would like to second Warren's concerns. I originally prepared the response below off-line, so it will not directly address the conversation above, but I think you will find similar themes.---------------I think your concern for social justice is commendable. I read your bulletin insert at St. Patrick Church discussing care for the environment. I agree that the issues you mention are important to be aware of and to be addressing as concerned Catholics. I must, however, vigorously object to your selection of quotations from the bishops' document on voting (USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship : A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States [Nov. 14, 2007]). You do not say it yourself, but your selection implies that when we are considering who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election, we should consider their stance on the intrinsic evil of abortion as one issue among many to be considered.Early on, the bishops' document places central concern on the dignity of the human person: “At the center of these truths is respect for the dignity of every person. This is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching” (FC no. 10). When discussing “the dignity of every person,” we must include the right to life, but, as you rightly perceive, our discussion must also include issues such as health care, the war in Iraq, and even energy consumption; but these latter are to be considered lesser moral concerns when compared to intrinsic evils such as abortion and euthanasia. The document makes a clear distinction between intrinsic evils which violate the right to life, and lesser evils. With regard to lesser evils, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has said, “there may be legitimate diversity of opinion.” The bishops' document puts it this way: “The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means” (FC no. 25). In sharp contrast to this flexibility, the bishops' document states, “[Intrinsic evils] must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned” (FC no. 22; emphasis added). Furthermore, speaking of the temptations in public life to distort the import of life issues, the bishop's document declares, “The first [temptation] is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed” (FC no. 28).There is something fundamental about the right to life. Without it, we need not concern ourselves with a discussion regarding other rights. If there is no right to life, then how can we begin to talk about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion; there's no one to do the speaking or the worshiping. Essentially, we need to get the foundation put right before we can start appropriately addressing the needs of the poor. “A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed” (FC no. 22). In a similar vein of argument, the document quotes from John Paul II's apostolic exhortation, Christifideles Laici: “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights— for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (CL, no. 38; quoted in FC no. 26; emphasis added).With regard to voting, consider a scenario I once heard. If a presidential candidate had a position that involved re-instituting slavery, I would hope that, no matter how good we felt his other policies were, we would quickly and easily conclude that he was not fit for office. We should think of abortion, and all life issues, analogously.When it comes down to voting, the lines are not always so easily drawn. As quoted in your article, the bishops' document states, “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support” (FC no. 42). I will now include the sentence that follows that in the document, which was left out of your bulletin article: “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support” (FC no. 42; emphasis added). As far as I am aware, right now, all three presidential hopefuls (democrat and republican) are in favor of some form of intrinsic evil. Two favor abortion, and the third favors embryonic stem cell research. The bishops' document states, “[E]xercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection” (FC no. 31; emphasis added). That seems to outright disqualify all of the major-party candidates. For further guidance, the document offers the following: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (FC no 36).In light of these grave issues, I would encourage the voter to be very careful and sure about whom they are choosing. Their choice should center first and foremost on the candidates' stances on intrinsic evils. After having weighed such intrinsic evils, the voter may then turn to the candidates' stances on “energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues.”You mentioned the Iraq war as a further consideration. I would like to examine that briefly:• There are 4,000+ abortions performed in the United States daily, totaling more than 1,460,000 each year, and 49,000,000+ since it was legalized.• In Iraq, the highest estimates indicate a total of 1,200,000+ violent deaths -- which likely includes violence among Iraqis since the beginning of US engagement. 4,083 of those are US soldiers.Abortion is an intrinsic evil. War is not. There is such a thing as a just war (in theory). This particular war may or may not be just; however, there are several parts to just war doctrine. Not only must we consider the reasons for engaging, but we must also consider what to do once we are in there. A huge part of just war theory is restoring peace. This is part of where "legitimate disagreement" may be had regarding our approach to restoring peace, but there is no "legitimate disagreement" regarding abortion -- it is always wrong.As I see it, here is the procedure that is implicitly recommended in the document. This is my interpretation, so it quite likely needs modifications. If a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, s/he is disqualified and may not be voted for. If, after this process, you have eliminated all candidates, you have two choices: you may take the extraordinary step of not voting; or you may start again by considering the likelihood that a particular candidate will make the intrinsic evil worse by pushing for new laws, etc. If there are candidates that have stated that they will actively pursue such new laws and those laws are likely to pass, then they should be disqualified in this second round as well. If you have then disqualified all of the candidates again, you may look at those issues of lesser moral weight such as the war and health care. If there is one candidate that has no intrinsic evil marks against him, but his position on other issues is abominable in the voter's estimation, that does not excuse the voter and allow him/her to then consider another pro-abortion (for example) candidate, because the issues are not equivalent. For example, a bad health care plan is not equivalent to supporting abortion. A bad health care plan robs from human dignity, but human life is prior to human dignity as John Paul II has pointed out.
God bless,
George
Dear Susan,
I would like to second Warren's concerns. I originally prepared the response below off-line, so it will not directly address the conversation above, but I think you will find similar themes.---------------I think your concern for social justice is commendable. I read your bulletin insert at St. Patrick Church discussing care for the environment. I agree that the issues you mention are important to be aware of and to be addressing as concerned Catholics. I must, however, vigorously object to your selection of quotations from the bishops' document on voting (USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship : A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States [Nov. 14, 2007]). You do not say it yourself, but your selection implies that when we are considering who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election, we should consider their stance on the intrinsic evil of abortion as one issue among many to be considered.Early on, the bishops' document places central concern on the dignity of the human person: “At the center of these truths is respect for the dignity of every person. This is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching” (FC no. 10). When discussing “the dignity of every person,” we must include the right to life, but, as you rightly perceive, our discussion must also include issues such as health care, the war in Iraq, and even energy consumption; but these latter are to be considered lesser moral concerns when compared to intrinsic evils such as abortion and euthanasia. The document makes a clear distinction between intrinsic evils which violate the right to life, and lesser evils. With regard to lesser evils, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has said, “there may be legitimate diversity of opinion.” The bishops' document puts it this way: “The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means” (FC no. 25). In sharp contrast to this flexibility, the bishops' document states, “[Intrinsic evils] must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned” (FC no. 22; emphasis added). Furthermore, speaking of the temptations in public life to distort the import of life issues, the bishop's document declares, “The first [temptation] is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed” (FC no. 28).There is something fundamental about the right to life. Without it, we need not concern ourselves with a discussion regarding other rights. If there is no right to life, then how can we begin to talk about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion; there's no one to do the speaking or the worshiping. Essentially, we need to get the foundation put right before we can start appropriately addressing the needs of the poor. “A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed” (FC no. 22). In a similar vein of argument, the document quotes from John Paul II's apostolic exhortation, Christifideles Laici: “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights— for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (CL, no. 38; quoted in FC no. 26; emphasis added).With regard to voting, consider a scenario I once heard. If a presidential candidate had a position that involved re-instituting slavery, I would hope that, no matter how good we felt his other policies were, we would quickly and easily conclude that he was not fit for office. We should think of abortion, and all life issues, analogously.When it comes down to voting, the lines are not always so easily drawn. As quoted in your article, the bishops' document states, “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support” (FC no. 42). I will now include the sentence that follows that in the document, which was left out of your bulletin article: “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support” (FC no. 42; emphasis added). As far as I am aware, right now, all three presidential hopefuls (democrat and republican) are in favor of some form of intrinsic evil. Two favor abortion, and the third favors embryonic stem cell research. The bishops' document states, “[E]xercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection” (FC no. 31; emphasis added). That seems to outright disqualify all of the major-party candidates. For further guidance, the document offers the following: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (FC no 36).In light of these grave issues, I would encourage the voter to be very careful and sure about whom they are choosing. Their choice should center first and foremost on the candidates' stances on intrinsic evils. After having weighed such intrinsic evils, the voter may then turn to the candidates' stances on “energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues.”You mentioned the Iraq war as a further consideration. I would like to examine that briefly:• There are 4,000+ abortions performed in the United States daily, totaling more than 1,460,000 each year, and 49,000,000+ since it was legalized.• In Iraq, the highest estimates indicate a total of 1,200,000+ violent deaths -- which likely includes violence among Iraqis since the beginning of US engagement. 4,083 of those are US soldiers.Abortion is an intrinsic evil. War is not. There is such a thing as a just war (in theory). This particular war may or may not be just; however, there are several parts to just war doctrine. Not only must we consider the reasons for engaging, but we must also consider what to do once we are in there. A huge part of just war theory is restoring peace. This is part of where "legitimate disagreement" may be had regarding our approach to restoring peace, but there is no "legitimate disagreement" regarding abortion -- it is always wrong.As I see it, here is the procedure that is implicitly recommended in the document. This is my interpretation, so it quite likely needs modifications. If a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, s/he is disqualified and may not be voted for. If, after this process, you have eliminated all candidates, you have two choices: you may take the extraordinary step of not voting; or you may start again by considering the likelihood that a particular candidate will make the intrinsic evil worse by pushing for new laws, etc. If there are candidates that have stated that they will actively pursue such new laws and those laws are likely to pass, then they should be disqualified in this second round as well. If you have then disqualified all of the candidates again, you may look at those issues of lesser moral weight such as the war and health care. If there is one candidate that has no intrinsic evil marks against him, but his position on other issues is abominable in the voter's estimation, that does not excuse the voter and allow him/her to then consider another pro-abortion (for example) candidate, because the issues are not equivalent. For example, a bad health care plan is not equivalent to supporting abortion. A bad health care plan robs from human dignity, but human life is prior to human dignity as John Paul II has pointed out.
God bless,
George
Sunday, June 29, 2008
I CAN VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE EVEN THOUGH HE/SHE IS PRO-CHOICE
Dear George,
Thank you for your careful and considerate response to my thoughts. Also, thank you for the similar care in your bulletin article that alerted the congregation to what was left out of one of my paragraphs specifically the bishops' stance on the intrinsic evil of abortion. Click on April, scroll to "Energy" and read the comments, George's included.)
That said, may we go on to discuss your conclusion in your comments published under the Energy article
Your conclusion from their document was, “If a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, she/he is disqualified and may not be voted for.”
I disagree with your conclusion. I say, though there are seriously grave reasons that must be considered, I can vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate. The basis for my difference from you is found in the theological element of a direct act, a formal cooperation. When I vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I do not perform a direct act such as, for example, an office holder who votes for a program or law, which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. (30) His act would be a direct act. The bishops point to the concept of a direct act or formal cooperation when they say, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” (34) (Italics mine) Voting for a candidate who is pro-abortion as one of many of his positions is not a direct act or formal cooperation in grave evil.
To discuss further how we arrive at different conclusions, let us look at examples you provided in your argument. You quote the bishops, “[Intrinsic evils} must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” (22) When you quote this phrase, are you reading into their statement that voting is a form of direct support for abortion and that the vote is of such impact that abortion is condoned? On the contrary, I note that nowhere in their document do the bishops say that voting for a pro-abortion candidate must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. I would argue that voting does not directly support any single issue of a candidate.
Again you quote the bishops, “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (42) The word “may” in their statement seems quite important to me.
Therefore, I do not see that voting for a pro-abortion candidate directly supports abortion nor that I am not defending the right to life with maximum determination. I may with maximum determination work for the right to life but believe voting for a candidate due to serious moral obligations may not be the time.
Regarding your statement that my selection implied that abortion is one issue among many. Believe me, I do not consider a candidate’s position on intrinsic evils to be as one issue among many to be considered. I believe in and understand the gravity of intrinsic evils and include them in forming my conscience. It is understandable with the huge numbers of abortions--and how easy it would be to avert ones eyes regarding abortion--that the bishops use every persuasive word they can to make sure there may be no doubt about the magnitude of the evil.
There are many other considerations which go into the forming of my conscience that are full page discussions in themselves. For example, the magnitude of Christ’s commandment to care for and love all our fellow human beings against whether or not it is possible that Roe v. Wade will be overturned no matter how many pro-life candidates are elected. What I read is Roe v. Wade has been too long established as law.
Furthermore, almost no candidate is actually pro-abortion. Most I know do not approve of abortion, themselves, but believe that the choice should be left to the woman. So they may be very open to reducing abortions by other means actually more effective than focusing just on the law. For example, abortions can be effectively reduced by supporting women to have their children. (With reference to your slavery example, consider that Lincoln was pro-slavery when he was elected.)
Therefore let me review points the bishops make that support my conclusion:
1. The bishops say, Catholics are not single-issue voters (though a candidates position involving an intrinsic evil… may lead a voter to disqualify a candidate.) (42)
2. They say, the second temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate (if that were available) to protect innocent human life and to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. (29)
3. They say, the right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic good that every human person needs to live and thrive.
4. They say, it is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good. (What I think the bishops mean by this statement is that lots of people preach and pray against abortion and fail to fulfill with the same determination Jesus’ second commandment to love and care for our fellow man.
5. They say, “The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework…and rightly understood, neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues.”(40)
6. They say, “ In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote.”
Thank you, George, for your willingness to dialogue with me on this subject. I discuss with you because I am interested in your thoughts. I invite others to join our discussion.
Susan
Dear George,
Thank you for your careful and considerate response to my thoughts. Also, thank you for the similar care in your bulletin article that alerted the congregation to what was left out of one of my paragraphs specifically the bishops' stance on the intrinsic evil of abortion. Click on April, scroll to "Energy" and read the comments, George's included.)
That said, may we go on to discuss your conclusion in your comments published under the Energy article
Your conclusion from their document was, “If a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, she/he is disqualified and may not be voted for.”
I disagree with your conclusion. I say, though there are seriously grave reasons that must be considered, I can vote for, say, a pro-abortion candidate. The basis for my difference from you is found in the theological element of a direct act, a formal cooperation. When I vote for a pro-abortion candidate, I do not perform a direct act such as, for example, an office holder who votes for a program or law, which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. (30) His act would be a direct act. The bishops point to the concept of a direct act or formal cooperation when they say, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” (34) (Italics mine) Voting for a candidate who is pro-abortion as one of many of his positions is not a direct act or formal cooperation in grave evil.
To discuss further how we arrive at different conclusions, let us look at examples you provided in your argument. You quote the bishops, “[Intrinsic evils} must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” (22) When you quote this phrase, are you reading into their statement that voting is a form of direct support for abortion and that the vote is of such impact that abortion is condoned? On the contrary, I note that nowhere in their document do the bishops say that voting for a pro-abortion candidate must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. I would argue that voting does not directly support any single issue of a candidate.
Again you quote the bishops, “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (42) The word “may” in their statement seems quite important to me.
Therefore, I do not see that voting for a pro-abortion candidate directly supports abortion nor that I am not defending the right to life with maximum determination. I may with maximum determination work for the right to life but believe voting for a candidate due to serious moral obligations may not be the time.
Regarding your statement that my selection implied that abortion is one issue among many. Believe me, I do not consider a candidate’s position on intrinsic evils to be as one issue among many to be considered. I believe in and understand the gravity of intrinsic evils and include them in forming my conscience. It is understandable with the huge numbers of abortions--and how easy it would be to avert ones eyes regarding abortion--that the bishops use every persuasive word they can to make sure there may be no doubt about the magnitude of the evil.
There are many other considerations which go into the forming of my conscience that are full page discussions in themselves. For example, the magnitude of Christ’s commandment to care for and love all our fellow human beings against whether or not it is possible that Roe v. Wade will be overturned no matter how many pro-life candidates are elected. What I read is Roe v. Wade has been too long established as law.
Furthermore, almost no candidate is actually pro-abortion. Most I know do not approve of abortion, themselves, but believe that the choice should be left to the woman. So they may be very open to reducing abortions by other means actually more effective than focusing just on the law. For example, abortions can be effectively reduced by supporting women to have their children. (With reference to your slavery example, consider that Lincoln was pro-slavery when he was elected.)
Therefore let me review points the bishops make that support my conclusion:
1. The bishops say, Catholics are not single-issue voters (though a candidates position involving an intrinsic evil… may lead a voter to disqualify a candidate.) (42)
2. They say, the second temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate (if that were available) to protect innocent human life and to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. (29)
3. They say, the right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic good that every human person needs to live and thrive.
4. They say, it is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good. (What I think the bishops mean by this statement is that lots of people preach and pray against abortion and fail to fulfill with the same determination Jesus’ second commandment to love and care for our fellow man.
5. They say, “The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework…and rightly understood, neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues.”(40)
6. They say, “ In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote.”
Thank you, George, for your willingness to dialogue with me on this subject. I discuss with you because I am interested in your thoughts. I invite others to join our discussion.
Susan
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Notice:
Dear Blogger,
You may wish to look at, in particular, the next to last article on energy and the comments. (Click on April and scroll down to Energy.) There have been two excellent thoughtful rebuttals to the part of my article in which I caution against single issue voting. I do submit that the bishop’s agree with me in their article on “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
What do you think?
With grateful thanks to those of you who have offered prayers for my family.
Susan
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Reader.
For the record, on my own behalf, I was called into question (see Energy) because in my bulletin paragraph I did not quote the bishops regarding the attention that must be given intrinsic evils when one decides for whom to vote. However, in the bulletin in which that paragraph was due to appear, (happened to come a week later) the bishops two sided summary page, designed for bulletin insert, The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, was inserted into the bulletin. It was there because I myself had chosen to order, pay for and submit that document so that the parish would have exactly what the bishops document says. Following is my censured paragraph.
What do we need to do now? Clearly energy resources are an issue for the coming election. We will have to form our conscience, balancing issues. It isn’t easy. We need to consider that the U.S. Bishops united declared, “Catholics are not single issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support…both opposing evil and doing good are essential.”3 What do the bishops tell us about how we can decide between the intrinsic evil of abortion, for example, against say energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues? The bishops tell us, “A voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”3 Political decisions, they say, require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence, which is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason. The bishops do not tell us how to vote; they give us guidance in forming our own individual conscience.
You may wish to look at, in particular, the next to last article on energy and the comments. (Click on April and scroll down to Energy.) There have been two excellent thoughtful rebuttals to the part of my article in which I caution against single issue voting. I do submit that the bishop’s agree with me in their article on “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
What do you think?
With grateful thanks to those of you who have offered prayers for my family.
Susan
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Reader.
For the record, on my own behalf, I was called into question (see Energy) because in my bulletin paragraph I did not quote the bishops regarding the attention that must be given intrinsic evils when one decides for whom to vote. However, in the bulletin in which that paragraph was due to appear, (happened to come a week later) the bishops two sided summary page, designed for bulletin insert, The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, was inserted into the bulletin. It was there because I myself had chosen to order, pay for and submit that document so that the parish would have exactly what the bishops document says. Following is my censured paragraph.
What do we need to do now? Clearly energy resources are an issue for the coming election. We will have to form our conscience, balancing issues. It isn’t easy. We need to consider that the U.S. Bishops united declared, “Catholics are not single issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support…both opposing evil and doing good are essential.”3 What do the bishops tell us about how we can decide between the intrinsic evil of abortion, for example, against say energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues? The bishops tell us, “A voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”3 Political decisions, they say, require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence, which is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason. The bishops do not tell us how to vote; they give us guidance in forming our own individual conscience.
Friday, May 16, 2008
You Are the People
YOU ARE THE PEOPLE
Today we hear the shocking story of the current world food crisis. Hundreds of thousands of people face starvation. I saw children eating baked mud pies on TV. Food has become so expensive that people all over the world cannot buy it. Rice, wheat, and corn have doubled in price in the past three years. When I hear this, I say to myself, (what I often say), “I feel so helpless.”
But am I helpless? When we were children, playing a game with our hands, lacing our fingers, palms inward, then putting our wrists together thumbs pointing up, we would chant, here’s the church. (then forefingers up, tips together) here’s the steeple, then open the door swinging our fingers up we would say, “and here’s all the people.” This is the clue of why I’m not helpless; there are all the people, in the church, with the steeple.
How powerful are we – the people – together? Together for example, gifts to Catholic Relief Services provide assistance to 80 million people in more than 100 countries and territories. We are not helpless in this food crisis around the world. We are not alone. When we open the door at St. Patrick’s Church, there are all the people – the people of hope.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
“NOTHING IS LOST BY PEACE; EVERYTHING MAY BE LOST BY WAR” (497)
Out of the Vatican – released in 2004 by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, some 250 pages of powerful admonition, and the first document of its kind – comes The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. This document challenges – in particular the laity – to practice social justice. Selecting one chapter from this document, read the following compelling passages from Chapter 11, “The Promotion of Peace:”
Violence is never a proper response. With the conviction of her faith in Christ and with the awareness of her mission, the Church proclaims, “that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings.” (496)
“The Magisterium condemns ‘the savagery of war’ and asks that war be considered in a new way…War is a ‘scourge’ and is never an appropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations, ‘it has never been and it will never be’, because it creates new and still more complicated conflicts. When it erupts, war becomes an ‘unnecessary massacre’…In the end, war is ‘the failure of all true humanism, it is always a defeat for humanity’– never again some peoples against others, never again! …no more war, no more war! (497) (Italics theirs)
After the above statements against war, The Compendium discusses “legitimate defense,” which occurs when a state has been attacked, “To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: “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.” (500)
But what about military action for places that cannot defend themselves? What does The Compendium say? “States do not always posses adequate means to provide effectively for their own defense, from this derives the need and importance of international and regional organizations, which should be in a position to work together to resolve conflicts…that by meeting and negotiating, men may come to discover better the bonds that unite…(and) that between them and their respective peoples it is not fear which should reign but love, a love which tends to express itself in a collaboration that is loyal, manifold in form and productive of many benefits.” (499)
In addition to the discussion of war, The Compendium discusses peace. For example, the words of Pope Paul II are remembered in which he spoke about the creation of a civilization of love. Pope Paul dismissed the idea that a civilization based on love is utopian dreaming. The Compendium states that peace is the fruit of justice and charity and a universal duty – that true and lasting peace is more a matter of love than of justice. Peace itself,…is an act and results only from love.” (494) “From a liberating faith in God’s love there arises a new vision of the world and a new way of approaching others, whether the other is an individual or an entire people. (517)
And finally, The Compendium encourages prayer that opens the heart not only to a deep relationship with God but also to an encounter with others marked by respect, understanding, esteem, and love. (519)
_____________
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Violence is never a proper response. With the conviction of her faith in Christ and with the awareness of her mission, the Church proclaims, “that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings.” (496)
“The Magisterium condemns ‘the savagery of war’ and asks that war be considered in a new way…War is a ‘scourge’ and is never an appropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations, ‘it has never been and it will never be’, because it creates new and still more complicated conflicts. When it erupts, war becomes an ‘unnecessary massacre’…In the end, war is ‘the failure of all true humanism, it is always a defeat for humanity’– never again some peoples against others, never again! …no more war, no more war! (497) (Italics theirs)
After the above statements against war, The Compendium discusses “legitimate defense,” which occurs when a state has been attacked, “To be licit, the use of force must correspond to certain strict conditions: “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.” (500)
But what about military action for places that cannot defend themselves? What does The Compendium say? “States do not always posses adequate means to provide effectively for their own defense, from this derives the need and importance of international and regional organizations, which should be in a position to work together to resolve conflicts…that by meeting and negotiating, men may come to discover better the bonds that unite…(and) that between them and their respective peoples it is not fear which should reign but love, a love which tends to express itself in a collaboration that is loyal, manifold in form and productive of many benefits.” (499)
In addition to the discussion of war, The Compendium discusses peace. For example, the words of Pope Paul II are remembered in which he spoke about the creation of a civilization of love. Pope Paul dismissed the idea that a civilization based on love is utopian dreaming. The Compendium states that peace is the fruit of justice and charity and a universal duty – that true and lasting peace is more a matter of love than of justice. Peace itself,…is an act and results only from love.” (494) “From a liberating faith in God’s love there arises a new vision of the world and a new way of approaching others, whether the other is an individual or an entire people. (517)
And finally, The Compendium encourages prayer that opens the heart not only to a deep relationship with God but also to an encounter with others marked by respect, understanding, esteem, and love. (519)
_____________
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Energy
“Care for the environment represents a challenge for all of humanity. It is a matter of a common and universal duty, that of respecting a common good.” (466)¹
Taking our inspiration from the above quote, from The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, let us – you and I, our leaders, and all Americans – get out the red, white, and blue, wave it high because it is time for this great nation to accept the challenge – the challenge to lead the world into independence from non-renewable sources of energy and into clean air. Our great country has an abundance of talented and creative citizens, excellence of resources, the technical ability and the standing of the United States to lead the world in such an effort. We have the resources: we need the leadership.
What does independence from non-renewable energy look like? It looks like windmills blowing in the wind, solar panels glistening on rooftops, geothermal steam rising into the blue sky, hydroelectric dams and wave action, heat-based energy systems, uses of corn and other plants, and many more jobs in our country – to name a few of the exciting possibilities.
Individually and collectively with other countries, we could achieve colossal success developing renewable energy to replace, for example, the much hated gasoline that we have to depend upon. We’ve proved that we can pursue a monumental effort. For example, consider the war in Iraq. When the war is over, and we are still paying retirement and health care costs for the deserving servicemen and replenishing our war machine, it is estimated, the war will have cost us three trillion dollars. When we want to do something, nothing can stop us.
Then if we want to reduce our dependence on oil, gas, and coal, what must be done? When we think of those dwindling supplies of non-renewable energy resources, we tend to think about light bulbs and less fuel in cars, which is good. However, we cannot limit our efforts to an unorganized plan or just for the United States. We are dependent on how other nations also respond. “ A consensus among energy experts today is that national energy independence is an unattainable goal and, in any case, a foolish idea, because the world is too economically interconnected through trade in resources.2 We have to work urgently and in solidarity with other nations. This is a world problem.
What do we need to do now? Clearly energy resources are an issue for the coming election. We will have to form our conscience, balancing issues. It isn’t easy. We need to consider that the U.S. Bishops united declared, “Catholics are not single issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support…both opposing evil and doing good are essential.”3 What do the bishops tell us about how we can decide between the intrinsic evil of abortion, for example, against say energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues? The bishops tell us, “A voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”3 Political decisions, they say, require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence, which is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason. The bishops do not tell us how to vote; they give us guidance in forming our own individual conscience.
“Only in dialogue with God does the human being find his truth, from which he draws inspiration and norms to make plans for the future of the world, which is the garden that God has given him to keep and till.” (452)1 God made it, and it was good.
1 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
2 Richard J. Green and Wil Lepkowski, “Forstalling Disaster,” America, March 31,2008, pp 9-12.
3 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” November 14, 2007.
Taking our inspiration from the above quote, from The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, let us – you and I, our leaders, and all Americans – get out the red, white, and blue, wave it high because it is time for this great nation to accept the challenge – the challenge to lead the world into independence from non-renewable sources of energy and into clean air. Our great country has an abundance of talented and creative citizens, excellence of resources, the technical ability and the standing of the United States to lead the world in such an effort. We have the resources: we need the leadership.
What does independence from non-renewable energy look like? It looks like windmills blowing in the wind, solar panels glistening on rooftops, geothermal steam rising into the blue sky, hydroelectric dams and wave action, heat-based energy systems, uses of corn and other plants, and many more jobs in our country – to name a few of the exciting possibilities.
Individually and collectively with other countries, we could achieve colossal success developing renewable energy to replace, for example, the much hated gasoline that we have to depend upon. We’ve proved that we can pursue a monumental effort. For example, consider the war in Iraq. When the war is over, and we are still paying retirement and health care costs for the deserving servicemen and replenishing our war machine, it is estimated, the war will have cost us three trillion dollars. When we want to do something, nothing can stop us.
Then if we want to reduce our dependence on oil, gas, and coal, what must be done? When we think of those dwindling supplies of non-renewable energy resources, we tend to think about light bulbs and less fuel in cars, which is good. However, we cannot limit our efforts to an unorganized plan or just for the United States. We are dependent on how other nations also respond. “ A consensus among energy experts today is that national energy independence is an unattainable goal and, in any case, a foolish idea, because the world is too economically interconnected through trade in resources.2 We have to work urgently and in solidarity with other nations. This is a world problem.
What do we need to do now? Clearly energy resources are an issue for the coming election. We will have to form our conscience, balancing issues. It isn’t easy. We need to consider that the U.S. Bishops united declared, “Catholics are not single issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support…both opposing evil and doing good are essential.”3 What do the bishops tell us about how we can decide between the intrinsic evil of abortion, for example, against say energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues? The bishops tell us, “A voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”3 Political decisions, they say, require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence, which is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason. The bishops do not tell us how to vote; they give us guidance in forming our own individual conscience.
“Only in dialogue with God does the human being find his truth, from which he draws inspiration and norms to make plans for the future of the world, which is the garden that God has given him to keep and till.” (452)1 God made it, and it was good.
1 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
2 Richard J. Green and Wil Lepkowski, “Forstalling Disaster,” America, March 31,2008, pp 9-12.
3 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” November 14, 2007.
Monday, April 21, 2008
CHARITY MUST ANIMATE THE ENTIRE LIVES OF THE LAY FAITHFUL AND THEREFORE ALSO THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITY, LIVED AS ‘SOCIAL CHARITY’” Pope Benedict XVI. D
CHARITY MUST ANIMATE THE ENTIRE LIVES OF THE LAY FAITHFUL AND THEREFORE ALSO THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITY, LIVED AS ‘SOCIAL CHARITY’” Pope Benedict XVI. Deus Caritas Est, No. 29.
In consideration of Pope Benedict’s words above, we might practice social charity by selecting a candidate for president that will care for the health needs of all Americans. Jesus gave us his example to care for other people’s health: he healed, he cleansed, he cured – physically, mentally and spiritually. Furthermore, no one needs to argue that health care in the United States needs fixing: 47 million American’s lack health insurance; health care costs are skyrocketing.
Therefore if we choose to practice social charity regarding health care, then which presidential candidate will best care for the needs of all Americans? The chart below provides a comparison from the Commonwealth Fund’s in-depth analysis of the candidates’ health plans. The Commonwealth Fund, one of the major philanthropic foundations in the United States, is charged with the mandate to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable populations. The Commonwealth’s analysis found the candidates plans to be fundamently the same within a party but fundamentally different between. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=647708
Republican’s Plan: (as of Jan. 15, 2008)
Plans tax incentives for individuals to obtain insurance and plans to deregulate state markets;
Discusses expanding access, covering everyone is not a goal;
Envisions private insurance markets with a supporting role played by public insurance relying nearly exclusively on insurance markets for individuals;
Has no consumer protection;
Encourages individual plans with tax incentive – a tax credit that would not vary by income;
Employs new standard income tax deduction for private insurance either employer based or individual. (This change would weaken incentive of employers to provide insurance.Previously health benefits from employers only were excluded from income tax).
Democrat’s Plan: (as of Jan. 15, 2008)
Builds on existing private and public group insurance with all sharing in cost: employer, government, and individual – based on ability to pay;
Has goal of universal coverage;
Envisions private insurance markets with a supporting role played by public insurance with rules to ensure an afffordable health plan with a standard set of benefits;
Includes consumer protection;
Requires individuals to purchase coverage and employers to offer or help pay for coverage; Provides financial support for premiums for lower and moderate income families;
Provides risk pools to prevent insurers from selection against individuals with serious health risks;
Replaces individual insurance with new group insurance;
Strengthens large employers’ role;
Clinton only: Reduces amount of employer contri-butions excluded from taxable income on house-holds earning 250,000 or more to the value of a standard plan;
Clinton: Requires coverage for all at the start of her plan. Obama: At the start, covers only children and only requires adult coverage if substantial numbers do not buy.
In consideration of Pope Benedict’s words above, we might practice social charity by selecting a candidate for president that will care for the health needs of all Americans. Jesus gave us his example to care for other people’s health: he healed, he cleansed, he cured – physically, mentally and spiritually. Furthermore, no one needs to argue that health care in the United States needs fixing: 47 million American’s lack health insurance; health care costs are skyrocketing.
Therefore if we choose to practice social charity regarding health care, then which presidential candidate will best care for the needs of all Americans? The chart below provides a comparison from the Commonwealth Fund’s in-depth analysis of the candidates’ health plans. The Commonwealth Fund, one of the major philanthropic foundations in the United States, is charged with the mandate to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable populations. The Commonwealth’s analysis found the candidates plans to be fundamently the same within a party but fundamentally different between. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=647708
Republican’s Plan: (as of Jan. 15, 2008)
Plans tax incentives for individuals to obtain insurance and plans to deregulate state markets;
Discusses expanding access, covering everyone is not a goal;
Envisions private insurance markets with a supporting role played by public insurance relying nearly exclusively on insurance markets for individuals;
Has no consumer protection;
Encourages individual plans with tax incentive – a tax credit that would not vary by income;
Employs new standard income tax deduction for private insurance either employer based or individual. (This change would weaken incentive of employers to provide insurance.Previously health benefits from employers only were excluded from income tax).
Democrat’s Plan: (as of Jan. 15, 2008)
Builds on existing private and public group insurance with all sharing in cost: employer, government, and individual – based on ability to pay;
Has goal of universal coverage;
Envisions private insurance markets with a supporting role played by public insurance with rules to ensure an afffordable health plan with a standard set of benefits;
Includes consumer protection;
Requires individuals to purchase coverage and employers to offer or help pay for coverage; Provides financial support for premiums for lower and moderate income families;
Provides risk pools to prevent insurers from selection against individuals with serious health risks;
Replaces individual insurance with new group insurance;
Strengthens large employers’ role;
Clinton only: Reduces amount of employer contri-butions excluded from taxable income on house-holds earning 250,000 or more to the value of a standard plan;
Clinton: Requires coverage for all at the start of her plan. Obama: At the start, covers only children and only requires adult coverage if substantial numbers do not buy.
DISAPPOINTMENT CHIDES US ON EASTER SUNDAY
DISAPPOINTMENT CHIDES US ON EASTER SUNDAY
Disappointment might chide us on Easter Sunday, a day to celebrate, saying, “Why were you so careless to do nothing during Lent?” But today, hope and optimism answer, “There’s still time. I can make a plan.” For instance, for something to do for Lent, one could consider the three gifts to God of Lenten practice: prayer, fasting and almsgiving.
Consider the gift of prayer for Lent. For Lent, we could add one more prayer time to the day. If we pray in the morning, we could find another time, for example, at the dinner table, or before climbing into bed. Or we could add an Our Father or holy song while driving in the morning cold.
Consider the gift of fasting for Lent. Fasting can be our prayer for those who are forced to fast by their poverty. The rules for Catholics between the ages of 18 and 59 are to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. In addition, all Catholics 14 years old and older must abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and all the Fridays of Lent. The problem with abstinence is that we might forget. Me—I do. I’m going to make signs so I don’t forget.
Consider the gift of almsgiving for Lent, an opportunity to practice social justice. For the soup kitchen, Ruth Myers would greatly appreciate donations of noodles and spaghetti, large cans of fruit and vegetables, fresh foods such as celery, potatoes, and onions. They can be brought between 6:30 and 1:00 to the soup kitchen. Or, if you would like to help, you can call Ruth at the kitchen 234-3312 or at her home 877-4935. Or drop in to talk with her and arrange a time. For a different chance to help the poor, consider a loan to Kiva at www.kiva.org. It likely will cost you nothing. At Kiva you can lend $25.00 or more, through Pay Pal, to poor people around the world for businesses they run. For example at the time of this writing, in Cambodia Mrs. Kim Sreng, 63, who has seven children is asking for a loan. She works very hard on her plot of land growing a variety of vegetables that she sells to people in her community. She is asking for a loan to improve her water system. With various agencies to protect the lender, and with a very high likelihood—Kiva borrowers pay back the amount.
Other possibilities to consider, one can attend a wonderful Lenten program such as the “Gift Program” Sunday nights at St. Margaret Mary’s, or the Deanery Book Discussion, Mondays at 1:00, on Pope Benedict’s encyclical “Love.” Also, confession is a good part of Lenten practice, as is reading the Bible.
Whatever we endeavor, if we plan and work at our plan, on Easter, our soul will rise and rejoice with the resurrection because of the gifts we’ve wrapped for God during Lent.
Disappointment might chide us on Easter Sunday, a day to celebrate, saying, “Why were you so careless to do nothing during Lent?” But today, hope and optimism answer, “There’s still time. I can make a plan.” For instance, for something to do for Lent, one could consider the three gifts to God of Lenten practice: prayer, fasting and almsgiving.
Consider the gift of prayer for Lent. For Lent, we could add one more prayer time to the day. If we pray in the morning, we could find another time, for example, at the dinner table, or before climbing into bed. Or we could add an Our Father or holy song while driving in the morning cold.
Consider the gift of fasting for Lent. Fasting can be our prayer for those who are forced to fast by their poverty. The rules for Catholics between the ages of 18 and 59 are to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. In addition, all Catholics 14 years old and older must abstain from meat on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday and all the Fridays of Lent. The problem with abstinence is that we might forget. Me—I do. I’m going to make signs so I don’t forget.
Consider the gift of almsgiving for Lent, an opportunity to practice social justice. For the soup kitchen, Ruth Myers would greatly appreciate donations of noodles and spaghetti, large cans of fruit and vegetables, fresh foods such as celery, potatoes, and onions. They can be brought between 6:30 and 1:00 to the soup kitchen. Or, if you would like to help, you can call Ruth at the kitchen 234-3312 or at her home 877-4935. Or drop in to talk with her and arrange a time. For a different chance to help the poor, consider a loan to Kiva at www.kiva.org. It likely will cost you nothing. At Kiva you can lend $25.00 or more, through Pay Pal, to poor people around the world for businesses they run. For example at the time of this writing, in Cambodia Mrs. Kim Sreng, 63, who has seven children is asking for a loan. She works very hard on her plot of land growing a variety of vegetables that she sells to people in her community. She is asking for a loan to improve her water system. With various agencies to protect the lender, and with a very high likelihood—Kiva borrowers pay back the amount.
Other possibilities to consider, one can attend a wonderful Lenten program such as the “Gift Program” Sunday nights at St. Margaret Mary’s, or the Deanery Book Discussion, Mondays at 1:00, on Pope Benedict’s encyclical “Love.” Also, confession is a good part of Lenten practice, as is reading the Bible.
Whatever we endeavor, if we plan and work at our plan, on Easter, our soul will rise and rejoice with the resurrection because of the gifts we’ve wrapped for God during Lent.
IMMIGRATON: CATHOLICS ARE COMPASSIONATE
IMMIGRATON: CATHOLICS ARE COMPASSIONATE
Recently while I sat in a doctor’s waiting room, a man attempted conversation with a stranger across from him. The man sounded off, harshly and long, about illegal aliens as if immigrants were aliens from another planet here to invade us — not fellow human beings. After talking for quite a while and seemingly confused because no head nodded in agreement, he asked the stranger “Well, what do you think about immigration?” The stranger quietly responded, “We studied the issue at church; I have a very different opinion.” The stranger’s soft answer ended all talk.
Just as in the diatribe about immigration, by the man in the waiting room, the rhetoric around the issue of immigration has become relentlessly severe. In the Criterion, Bishop Wester, the new chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Migration Committee says, “One of the most frustrating aspects of the public debate about what to do about immigration…is the shock-jock approach of talk radio that dismisses the complexities of the issue with sound bites like ‘what part of illegal don’t you understand’ or ‘send them back to their own countries.’”1
We Catholics, on the other hand, as Jesus teaches us, use compassion when we discuss the complex issues of immigration. Our point of view as Christians will differ from those who consider only their own interests and not the suffering of our brothers and sisters.
Regarding compassion, at a meeting last month in Terre Haute, I spoke personally about immigration with Representative Brad Ellsworth. I had just received a flyer from him on immigration. I told him I was Catholic and described what the bishops have written about immigration: how they stress compassion. Representative Ellsworth said he himself is compassionate, but added that he does not hear compassion for immigrants from his Catholic constituents. I wondered how he identified the Catholics. I know the Sister’s of Providence — I see them at his town meetings — would always speak with compassion for others. Probably people with harsh views are the persons he hears from most, similar to the self-righteous man in the doctor’s waiting room.
However, more than discussion, we need to resolve the tangled mess of immigration laws and poor political decisions in order to alleviate the massive human suffering such as the suffering of business persons who lose their livelihoods because they can not find workers; the suffering of children who are torn from parents; the suffering of parents who risk death to find work and end up sweating under the hot sun, bent over the lettuce we eat at our tables; and the suffering of women who work for corporations across the border, often enslaved and sometimes found dead
Everyone agrees: something must be done. But as we study the best solutions to the complex immigration issues, we know that we Catholics will strive to be compassionate.
_________________________________________________________________________________
1Criterion, January 18, 2008, “Changing Terms and Hearts Is Seen as Key to Immigration”
Recently while I sat in a doctor’s waiting room, a man attempted conversation with a stranger across from him. The man sounded off, harshly and long, about illegal aliens as if immigrants were aliens from another planet here to invade us — not fellow human beings. After talking for quite a while and seemingly confused because no head nodded in agreement, he asked the stranger “Well, what do you think about immigration?” The stranger quietly responded, “We studied the issue at church; I have a very different opinion.” The stranger’s soft answer ended all talk.
Just as in the diatribe about immigration, by the man in the waiting room, the rhetoric around the issue of immigration has become relentlessly severe. In the Criterion, Bishop Wester, the new chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Migration Committee says, “One of the most frustrating aspects of the public debate about what to do about immigration…is the shock-jock approach of talk radio that dismisses the complexities of the issue with sound bites like ‘what part of illegal don’t you understand’ or ‘send them back to their own countries.’”1
We Catholics, on the other hand, as Jesus teaches us, use compassion when we discuss the complex issues of immigration. Our point of view as Christians will differ from those who consider only their own interests and not the suffering of our brothers and sisters.
Regarding compassion, at a meeting last month in Terre Haute, I spoke personally about immigration with Representative Brad Ellsworth. I had just received a flyer from him on immigration. I told him I was Catholic and described what the bishops have written about immigration: how they stress compassion. Representative Ellsworth said he himself is compassionate, but added that he does not hear compassion for immigrants from his Catholic constituents. I wondered how he identified the Catholics. I know the Sister’s of Providence — I see them at his town meetings — would always speak with compassion for others. Probably people with harsh views are the persons he hears from most, similar to the self-righteous man in the doctor’s waiting room.
However, more than discussion, we need to resolve the tangled mess of immigration laws and poor political decisions in order to alleviate the massive human suffering such as the suffering of business persons who lose their livelihoods because they can not find workers; the suffering of children who are torn from parents; the suffering of parents who risk death to find work and end up sweating under the hot sun, bent over the lettuce we eat at our tables; and the suffering of women who work for corporations across the border, often enslaved and sometimes found dead
Everyone agrees: something must be done. But as we study the best solutions to the complex immigration issues, we know that we Catholics will strive to be compassionate.
_________________________________________________________________________________
1Criterion, January 18, 2008, “Changing Terms and Hearts Is Seen as Key to Immigration”
Speak Up for Those Who Cannot Speak for Themselves
Speak Up for Those Who Cannot Speak for Themselves
We are moved by God's grace in Jesus Christ
To work for justice for hungry people.
They may be in the next house. Or in the next country.
No matter where they live, they are our neighbors.
And we have the power to help.1
Join Bread for the World. Just as Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes to feed the crowd; we need to multiply bread to feed the world’s hungry. You can follow in Jesus footsteps as a member of Bread for the World. This organization was founded in 1974 to lobby Congress and to recruit volunteers to contact their Congressmen and women. The good that our collective letters, phone calls, and e-mails to Congress can do is inconceivable. Bread for the World is an Organization with 56,000 members from diverse Christian traditions and various political outlooks. Their goal is the goal of Proverbs 31:8-9, to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Through Bread for the World, we feed the gaunt whose stomachs gnaw within them.
As individual members of Saint Patrick’s, we could do well to join Bread for the World. It’s true that we contribute to our soup kitchen, gather up canned food for special hunger appeals, and put money in the collection box for special events — but we also know that a single decision by Congress or the President can make it possible that the world’s hungry be fed.
St. Patrick’s parishioners wrote letters last year under a campaign promoted by Bread for the World. Kay Barnett, a member of the organization, set a time and provided materials to write letters to our district’s representative and senators urging Congress to pass a good farm bill. A good farm bill would have the right provisions to grow food for hungry people around the world as well as making it more possible for third world countries to feed their own. Many of our parishioners wrote letters.
You can join Bread for the World and, with thousands of others, you will bring about action in Congress. You will receive Bread for the World’s newsletter that contains information about bills; receive sample letters and addresses of Members of Congress; and receive information about actions you can take such as letters, phone calls, and e-mails. To join send $25.00 along with your name and address to Bread for the World, 50 F Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001, phone 800-82 bread, or go online http://www.bread.org/join/.
Did you know that in Vigo County, according to the 2006 American Community Survey taken by the U.S. Census Bureau, one out of four and one-half persons in Vigo County lives below the poverty level? For these poor and all the world’s poor, we must respond to our humanity by joining Bread for the World to strengthen the organization and to join with them as we all work with the U.S. Congress to fill the gnawing hunger of the destitute.It is our mission to help our neighbors. Wherever they live,They are hungry.And we are Bread for the World.¹
___________________
1www.bread.org
We are moved by God's grace in Jesus Christ
To work for justice for hungry people.
They may be in the next house. Or in the next country.
No matter where they live, they are our neighbors.
And we have the power to help.1
Join Bread for the World. Just as Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes to feed the crowd; we need to multiply bread to feed the world’s hungry. You can follow in Jesus footsteps as a member of Bread for the World. This organization was founded in 1974 to lobby Congress and to recruit volunteers to contact their Congressmen and women. The good that our collective letters, phone calls, and e-mails to Congress can do is inconceivable. Bread for the World is an Organization with 56,000 members from diverse Christian traditions and various political outlooks. Their goal is the goal of Proverbs 31:8-9, to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Through Bread for the World, we feed the gaunt whose stomachs gnaw within them.
As individual members of Saint Patrick’s, we could do well to join Bread for the World. It’s true that we contribute to our soup kitchen, gather up canned food for special hunger appeals, and put money in the collection box for special events — but we also know that a single decision by Congress or the President can make it possible that the world’s hungry be fed.
St. Patrick’s parishioners wrote letters last year under a campaign promoted by Bread for the World. Kay Barnett, a member of the organization, set a time and provided materials to write letters to our district’s representative and senators urging Congress to pass a good farm bill. A good farm bill would have the right provisions to grow food for hungry people around the world as well as making it more possible for third world countries to feed their own. Many of our parishioners wrote letters.
You can join Bread for the World and, with thousands of others, you will bring about action in Congress. You will receive Bread for the World’s newsletter that contains information about bills; receive sample letters and addresses of Members of Congress; and receive information about actions you can take such as letters, phone calls, and e-mails. To join send $25.00 along with your name and address to Bread for the World, 50 F Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001, phone 800-82 bread, or go online http://www.bread.org/join/.
Did you know that in Vigo County, according to the 2006 American Community Survey taken by the U.S. Census Bureau, one out of four and one-half persons in Vigo County lives below the poverty level? For these poor and all the world’s poor, we must respond to our humanity by joining Bread for the World to strengthen the organization and to join with them as we all work with the U.S. Congress to fill the gnawing hunger of the destitute.It is our mission to help our neighbors. Wherever they live,They are hungry.And we are Bread for the World.¹
___________________
1www.bread.org
WRITE CONGRESS TO REDUCE POVERTY
WRITE CONGRESS TO REDUCE POVERTY
The foreign poor — we see them on TV — emaciated, big eyes, swollen stomachs, spindly arms and legs, trying to survive while the TV ad appeals for money. The reality is, our tax money has contributed to their poverty. How? Under our farm bill, our tax money subsidizes agribusinesses that consequently overproduce. These huge corporations dump their products on the market. Poor countries cannot compete; 3rd world citizens are unable to earn a living. The World Trade Organization threatens trade sanctions against the U.S because we hurt the economies of other countries. We do not conform to the World Trade Organization’s law.
Our small farmers are in the same situation as the poor countries; the small farmers can’t compete against the huge corporate farmers which are subsidized with equally huge amounts of money. Subsidies are provided for commodity production under provisions of the farm bill. Of the 9 billion in commodity payments in 2004, 4.5 billion went in direct payments to only 7% of U.S. farms.1 Senator Lugar, a farmer himself, is concerned about the large subsidies received by the large corporations. He states, “In the name of maintaining the family farm and preserving rural communities, today’s farm programs have benefited a select few while leaving the majority of farmers without support or a safety-net.”2
Also, the Catholic bishops support the reduction of trade distortion caused by huge farm subsidies and support caps with the purpose of greater investment in nutrition, international food aid, and rural development.3
March 15, (the date that the old farm bill expires) is fast approaching. Two differences between Congress and the President hold back passage of the bill: 1.The President is opposed to an increase in spending as part of the proposed farm bill, and 2. The President wants a $200,000 cap on subsidy payments. (Currently they can earn $2,500,000.)4 Congress is not in step with the President and the President will veto the farm bill if cost cutting measures are not taken.
We need to write, e-mail, or call Congress about the farm bill. We want to tell Congress that we agree with President Bush; we support the $200,000 earnings cap on subsidies. We know the Big Agriculture lobbyists are busy talking to Congress. They have paid huge campaign contributions. For example, American Crystal Sugar gave $1,146,267 in the 2006 election period to members of Congress.5 Because of their contributions, the lobbyists must believe they have power. But we have greater power. We hold the power to elect the members of Congress. Congress will listen to us, the electorate. We need to tell Congress of our Christian concern for the small farmers and the world’s poor.
In our letters to Senator Lugar and Senator Bayh it would also be good to encourage the Senators to pass S. 2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007 (The House passed their bill.) The Global Poverty Act is a bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide…who live on less than $1 per day.6 1,000,000,000 people worldwide live on less than $1 per day.7
When thinking about writing your letters, remember what Edmund Burke said, “Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little.”
________________
1 http://www.bread.org/press-room/news/page.jsp?itemID=32069332; 2http://lugar.senate.gov/farmbill/;
3 http://www.usccb.org/ogl/110th%20Congress%201st%20Session%20Interim.pdf;
4 http://www.farmbill2007.com/; 5 http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=98445;
6 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433; 7 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2433.
The foreign poor — we see them on TV — emaciated, big eyes, swollen stomachs, spindly arms and legs, trying to survive while the TV ad appeals for money. The reality is, our tax money has contributed to their poverty. How? Under our farm bill, our tax money subsidizes agribusinesses that consequently overproduce. These huge corporations dump their products on the market. Poor countries cannot compete; 3rd world citizens are unable to earn a living. The World Trade Organization threatens trade sanctions against the U.S because we hurt the economies of other countries. We do not conform to the World Trade Organization’s law.
Our small farmers are in the same situation as the poor countries; the small farmers can’t compete against the huge corporate farmers which are subsidized with equally huge amounts of money. Subsidies are provided for commodity production under provisions of the farm bill. Of the 9 billion in commodity payments in 2004, 4.5 billion went in direct payments to only 7% of U.S. farms.1 Senator Lugar, a farmer himself, is concerned about the large subsidies received by the large corporations. He states, “In the name of maintaining the family farm and preserving rural communities, today’s farm programs have benefited a select few while leaving the majority of farmers without support or a safety-net.”2
Also, the Catholic bishops support the reduction of trade distortion caused by huge farm subsidies and support caps with the purpose of greater investment in nutrition, international food aid, and rural development.3
March 15, (the date that the old farm bill expires) is fast approaching. Two differences between Congress and the President hold back passage of the bill: 1.The President is opposed to an increase in spending as part of the proposed farm bill, and 2. The President wants a $200,000 cap on subsidy payments. (Currently they can earn $2,500,000.)4 Congress is not in step with the President and the President will veto the farm bill if cost cutting measures are not taken.
We need to write, e-mail, or call Congress about the farm bill. We want to tell Congress that we agree with President Bush; we support the $200,000 earnings cap on subsidies. We know the Big Agriculture lobbyists are busy talking to Congress. They have paid huge campaign contributions. For example, American Crystal Sugar gave $1,146,267 in the 2006 election period to members of Congress.5 Because of their contributions, the lobbyists must believe they have power. But we have greater power. We hold the power to elect the members of Congress. Congress will listen to us, the electorate. We need to tell Congress of our Christian concern for the small farmers and the world’s poor.
In our letters to Senator Lugar and Senator Bayh it would also be good to encourage the Senators to pass S. 2433, the Global Poverty Act of 2007 (The House passed their bill.) The Global Poverty Act is a bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide…who live on less than $1 per day.6 1,000,000,000 people worldwide live on less than $1 per day.7
When thinking about writing your letters, remember what Edmund Burke said, “Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little.”
________________
1 http://www.bread.org/press-room/news/page.jsp?itemID=32069332; 2http://lugar.senate.gov/farmbill/;
3 http://www.usccb.org/ogl/110th%20Congress%201st%20Session%20Interim.pdf;
4 http://www.farmbill2007.com/; 5 http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=98445;
6 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433; 7 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2433.
THE BEATITUDES ARE REVOLUTIONARY
THE BEATITUDES ARE REVOLUTIONARY
Visiting the Church of the Beatitudes in Israel near Capernaum one steps outside and looks at a hill shown in the photo at the left. We are told that it is possible this is the hill where Jesus met with a crowd to reveal the beatitudes. This weekend, we hear the beatitudes read as our gospel reading.
Because the beatitudes have been understood to be the broad principles and values upon which Jesus based all his teaching and ministry, I thought I would research them for this column. I discovered the beatitudes are revolutionary. Platitudes the beatitudes are not.
How are the beatitudes revolutionary? They are revolutionary because they are opposite of the beliefs of our way of life and culture. Start with the first beatitude: “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of God.” What does it mean to be poor in spirit? It means being a homeless person, for example, so poor that he/she cannot have any concept of self. The person’s spirit is devastated. Do we generally value that extremely poor person in our culture? Not really. Yet Jesus says they are blest.
Consider the beatitude, “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Hunger and thirst are powerful words. Can I hunger and thirst for what is right? I do believe in what is right. I want to work for justice. But I do not “hunger” and “thirst” for righteousness. On the other hand, the homeless, the sick without health care, the single mothers below the poverty level, the innocents caught in a war; now they truly “hunger” and “thirst” for righteousness, for justice.
The promised blessings of the beatitudes confront us with decisive moral choices and invite us to purify ourselves. They teach us that true riches cannot be found in any human achievement. (Catechism 1723) What? Any human achievement? That thought is revolutionarily different than the worldly view in which we see ourselves as the source of all our benefits.
The lessons of the beatitudes can further be understood by the second reading this weekend in our liturgy. Paul says “God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing to reduce to nothing those who are something so that no human being might boast before God.” Paul then lets us know we need not despair if we aren’t one of these lowliest. He assures us, “It is due to him (God) that you are in Christ Jesus who became for us wisdom from God as well as righteousness, sanctification and redemption.” So Jesus became for us righteousness and redeemed and sanctified us.
I know, living in this world, I’m not able to give up all my pride, my money, and my worldly values. The saints manage this. However, as I understand St. Paul and our faith, Jesus has taken what I lack in myself upon himself and saved me. Now I can freely return the love Jesus has given me, not to earn points, but to love God, to show my appreciation by trying to purify myself from worldly values and to help those he values, the lowly outcasts of our society.
Visiting the Church of the Beatitudes in Israel near Capernaum one steps outside and looks at a hill shown in the photo at the left. We are told that it is possible this is the hill where Jesus met with a crowd to reveal the beatitudes. This weekend, we hear the beatitudes read as our gospel reading.
Because the beatitudes have been understood to be the broad principles and values upon which Jesus based all his teaching and ministry, I thought I would research them for this column. I discovered the beatitudes are revolutionary. Platitudes the beatitudes are not.
How are the beatitudes revolutionary? They are revolutionary because they are opposite of the beliefs of our way of life and culture. Start with the first beatitude: “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of God.” What does it mean to be poor in spirit? It means being a homeless person, for example, so poor that he/she cannot have any concept of self. The person’s spirit is devastated. Do we generally value that extremely poor person in our culture? Not really. Yet Jesus says they are blest.
Consider the beatitude, “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness.” Hunger and thirst are powerful words. Can I hunger and thirst for what is right? I do believe in what is right. I want to work for justice. But I do not “hunger” and “thirst” for righteousness. On the other hand, the homeless, the sick without health care, the single mothers below the poverty level, the innocents caught in a war; now they truly “hunger” and “thirst” for righteousness, for justice.
The promised blessings of the beatitudes confront us with decisive moral choices and invite us to purify ourselves. They teach us that true riches cannot be found in any human achievement. (Catechism 1723) What? Any human achievement? That thought is revolutionarily different than the worldly view in which we see ourselves as the source of all our benefits.
The lessons of the beatitudes can further be understood by the second reading this weekend in our liturgy. Paul says “God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing to reduce to nothing those who are something so that no human being might boast before God.” Paul then lets us know we need not despair if we aren’t one of these lowliest. He assures us, “It is due to him (God) that you are in Christ Jesus who became for us wisdom from God as well as righteousness, sanctification and redemption.” So Jesus became for us righteousness and redeemed and sanctified us.
I know, living in this world, I’m not able to give up all my pride, my money, and my worldly values. The saints manage this. However, as I understand St. Paul and our faith, Jesus has taken what I lack in myself upon himself and saved me. Now I can freely return the love Jesus has given me, not to earn points, but to love God, to show my appreciation by trying to purify myself from worldly values and to help those he values, the lowly outcasts of our society.
BISHOPS INFORM US ABOUT MIGRATION
BISHOPS INFORM US ABOUT MIGRATION
Following is an excerpt from a letter by the Catholic Bishops to inform us about migration issues entitled, “A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States.”
“Both the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States in their episcopal conferences have echoed the rich tradition of church teachings with regard to migration. Five principles emerge from such teachings, which guide the Church's view on migration issues.
I. Persons have the right to find opportunities in their homeland. All persons have the right to find in their own countries the economic, political, and social opportunities to live in dignity and achieve a full life through the use of their God-given gifts. In this context, work that provides a just, living wage is a basic human need. II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people. When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right. III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders. The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows. IV. Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection. Those who flee wars and persecution should be protected by the global community. This requires, at a minimum, that migrants have a right to claim refugee status without incarceration and to have their claims fully considered by a competent authority. V. The human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected. Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected. Often they are subject to punitive laws and harsh treatment from enforcement officers from both receiving and transit countries. Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary
Following is an excerpt from a letter by the Catholic Bishops to inform us about migration issues entitled, “A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States.”
“Both the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States in their episcopal conferences have echoed the rich tradition of church teachings with regard to migration. Five principles emerge from such teachings, which guide the Church's view on migration issues.
I. Persons have the right to find opportunities in their homeland. All persons have the right to find in their own countries the economic, political, and social opportunities to live in dignity and achieve a full life through the use of their God-given gifts. In this context, work that provides a just, living wage is a basic human need. II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people. When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right. III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders. The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows. IV. Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection. Those who flee wars and persecution should be protected by the global community. This requires, at a minimum, that migrants have a right to claim refugee status without incarceration and to have their claims fully considered by a competent authority. V. The human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected. Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected. Often they are subject to punitive laws and harsh treatment from enforcement officers from both receiving and transit countries. Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary
JESUS, THE DEFINER OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
JESUS, THE DEFINER OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
My column is always related to social justice. When I present a subject, there will be differences of opinion. To avoid the shouting and pounding gavel, let’s agree on a definition of social justice which by its nature I think should avoid turmoil.
If you open the Vatican web page to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, there are twelve chapters which discuss social justice. Set your search engine to social justice and you will find conservative and liberal points of view with pages to justify their viewpoints. Let’s not get that complicated.
Instead, to make up our minds on issues as a Catholic, let us refer to the conclusion of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. They conclude that the answer lies in the person of Jesus:
Jesus teaches us that “the fundamental law of human perfection, and consequently of the transformation of the world, is the new commandment of love” (cf. Mt 22:40, Jn 15:12; Col 3:14; Jas 2:8)[1219]. Personal behavior is fully human when it is born of love, manifests love and is ordered to love. This truth also applies in the social sphere; Christians must be deeply convinced witnesses of this, and they are to show by their lives how love is the only force (cf. 1 Cor 12:31-14:1) that can lead to personal and social perfection, allowing society to make progress towards the good.
Let us refer to the person of Jesus and the ideal of love to determine the correct responses to issues of social justice.
My column is always related to social justice. When I present a subject, there will be differences of opinion. To avoid the shouting and pounding gavel, let’s agree on a definition of social justice which by its nature I think should avoid turmoil.
If you open the Vatican web page to the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, there are twelve chapters which discuss social justice. Set your search engine to social justice and you will find conservative and liberal points of view with pages to justify their viewpoints. Let’s not get that complicated.
Instead, to make up our minds on issues as a Catholic, let us refer to the conclusion of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. They conclude that the answer lies in the person of Jesus:
Jesus teaches us that “the fundamental law of human perfection, and consequently of the transformation of the world, is the new commandment of love” (cf. Mt 22:40, Jn 15:12; Col 3:14; Jas 2:8)[1219]. Personal behavior is fully human when it is born of love, manifests love and is ordered to love. This truth also applies in the social sphere; Christians must be deeply convinced witnesses of this, and they are to show by their lives how love is the only force (cf. 1 Cor 12:31-14:1) that can lead to personal and social perfection, allowing society to make progress towards the good.
Let us refer to the person of Jesus and the ideal of love to determine the correct responses to issues of social justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)