Cascadia Catholics

Discovering Kiva.org

2007-12-27T12:41:00.000-08:00

FRONTLINE World did an intersting segment on micro-lending this Christmas, and featured a San Francisco company called Kiva. So I figured I'd join up, and am currently sponsoring four little industries around the globe.

Now we all have given to charities from time to time, and I think that's great (better even). But micro-finance is different, and worth exploring, since the lender gets that money back again (presuming all goes well for the business).

Kiva.org operates through PayPal, so donations are super easy and secure. And you get to know the individual you are funding. Lending amounts are limited to $25.00, and (at least as far as I can tell) there's no interest gained. Suits me! What else would I be doing with an extra $25 in my checking account that's gaining exactly the same interest amount?

So click on the banner above, or go to kiva.org. Take a look see and try it out.

And now hopefully, I'm back to blogging on a regular basis.

Cheers.

Classes Start October 7!

2007-09-20T13:40:00.001-07:00

Blessed Sacrament Church
Seattle, WA

Link to Flyer

Have 34 minutes to watch this video?

2007-09-18T18:33:00.001-07:00

I have not been this impressed with a presidential candidate in decades; or since I was old enough to care. I suppose I was too young to appreciate Bobby Kennedy, but no one speaks like John Edwards. And as much as I like Obama, he's never given a speech like this one. Check it out:

YouTube Link
UPDATE: At the SEIU Convention in Washington DC, members took a straw poll and chose John Edwards as their candidate. This is not a formal endorsement; the Executive Board of the International will make a decision next week about who the endorsed candidate will be. But an endorsement by SEIU will be a huge boost for the Edwards campaign.

Dick in 1994

2007-08-17T13:53:00.001-07:00

Every once in a while, someone in the Bush administration suggests that "no one knew" how bad things could get in Iraq. No one could have imagined the quagmire. The deaths. The destruction. The unprecidented (well, Vietnam was a precident) mess that would result from invading Iraq. But wait! We did know! Of course we knew all along, and here's Dick to tell us exactly what we knew; at least in 1994.

Here's the YouTube Link: Dick Cheney

I love the look on his face in this photo. That's the expression my dog would have when he was caught peeing on the rug.

Bad Dick! Bad! Bad!

No End In Sight

2007-08-09T15:34:00.000-07:00

Starts showing tomorrow night (Aug 10) at the Egyptian Theatre in Seattle. Any takers? I'm game, but probably not until next week sometime.

Grave of the Fire Flies

2007-08-03T11:39:00.001-07:00

We will be showing Grave of the Fire Flies at Blessed Sacrament Parish in Seattle, at 8:00 PM, August 4th in the Parish Hall (below the church).

I just wanted to give a little ad for the movie, if any Seattlites are watching, and will give some kind of review after the show, in the comments section here. Don't know what to expect, exactly, but folks are very excited about the film.
Here's a link to our poster: Grave of the Fire Flies

SiCKO: Health Care is a Moral Issue

2007-07-30T16:12:00.001-07:00

So a group of friends and I gathered to watch SiCKO last week, and it was just great. Informative, striking, funny, and jarring (one hopes to the point of action). Michael Moore seemed to tone down his confrontational style, in SiCKO, and this has worked to make his message that much more powerful. The issues are potent enough, as are the simple interviews, to convey a very moving message to Americans about their collapsing Health Care system.

To paraphrase what Al Gore had to say about Global Warming, Health Care is a moral issue. Sure it's political, but the Church has often expressed her conviction that Health Care is a human right, tied to our human dignity as children of God. In the 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII stated that health care is a human right, grounded in the right to life. The U.S. bishops repeated their call for universal insurance in 1974 and 1981. In 1993, the American bishops approved a resolution stating Catholic values and placing a priority on Health Care reform.

As a right, then, this whole-scale plundering of our Health Care system by insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and other profit-driven entities, is simply immoral - and ought to be made criminal. A market-driven health care system will always put profit over care at some point. It has to. There's an innate conflict of interest in such a system, which Michael Moore points out quite well in his movie.

In case you didn't know (and who'd tell you?), Michael Moore is a practicing Catholic. An article by Sarah Baker and Katie Escherich / ABC News states:

In addition to being a filmmaker and an activist, Moore is also a deeply religious man, an Eagle Scout who at one point decided to go to the seminary and become a priest. He said that "Sicko" comes from "a spiritual place."

"I don't like putting my religious beliefs out there," he said. "But I do believe that this film is coming from a very deep place, from a spiritual place in the sense that I believe as a Christian and a Catholic that it is my responsibility to make sure that not only am I covered if something happens to me, but that everyone else is covered."

Link to Article

Universal Health Care will be a huge undertaking, truly. But is the concept itself really so difficult to grasp?

I've been impressed with what the California Nurses Association is doing to alert the public about our ailing Health Care system, and their efforts in bringing about a Universal Health Care plan for this country. Check them out here:

California Nurses

Edwards Again....

2007-07-27T15:43:00.000-07:00

I hate to make this a mini-Edwards site, but I really liked this:

Follow the link.

It's About TIME.inc

2007-07-24T12:55:00.000-07:00

Whoa Nelly! (Can I say that?) Looky who's gone and got religion! No, not the Democrats, but the Main Stream Media! And it's even passably intelligent.

The July 23 issue of TIME has published an article entitled "Leveling the Praying Field." Cute. But it is decent, though I think sparse on the Catholic Democratic voter. [It calls the Catholic Vote the "loosest swing vote in the spiritual cosmos," but not much more is said. Well, one can't expect too much from these guys, afterall.]

Leveling the Praying Field is about the Democratic Party finally Getting It when it comes to religious voters. They just aren't Republican anymore. (Well, duh.) It spends a lot of time talking about Evangelicals, and gives Jim Wallis's book, God's Politics, some good ink.

Mostly, it's about the three top candidates running for president, and their views on religion; as well as the DNC's past blunders, and hopeful fixes.

Among the candidates, I found Barack Obama's words the most impressive. (Too bad they left out Kucinich and his Catholic views. Oh, they did mention Kerry's pathetic Catholic showing, but only to say it was pathetic. It was.)

Here's what Barack Obama had to say about religion in the public square:

If we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.

Here's the Article online. Worth reading on your coffee break.

John Edwards States it Plain

2007-07-24T11:18:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, on the CNN / YouTube debates, John Edwards stated the truth plainly. It is so refreshing to hear, without apology; simple and direct.

You know, there's a reason we don't see much of John Edwards on talk shows or in the media. There's a reason Obama and Clinton get all the media glitz. The media doesn't like John Edwards. The media is bought off. By whom? Oh, come on. You know, or you wouldn't be here reading this.

What Edwards had to say that just torques them off:

"The people who are powerful in Washington - big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies - they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they're going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

Check out the video on this YouTube Link

Subsisting In... Part II

2007-07-23T15:25:00.001-07:00

I was a bit ribald in my dealings with the Vatican's latest statement on the "Church Founded by Christ" - given the Simpsons video and all. [But hey, it was pretty funny!]

Still, on a more serious note, I was pleased and proud to read a very fine comment on the Vatican document by our own Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn, O.P., at Blessed Sacrament in Seattle. I'm linking to it to share with you all:

Link Here
Many Protestant friends have been asking me about this, and I've been having trouble trying to express my own understanding of the document. Maybe it's the same for you? If so, I hope this helps.

God knows, the media sure made a mess of it.

Go Fight Your Own War, Mr. Bush.

2007-07-20T12:06:00.000-07:00

Keith Olbermann delivers another great zinger. It's cathartic, refreshing... but those aren't the right words. It's historic. A hundred years from now, school children may still find this little gem in the archives of their favorite underground press. And they'lll realize: "Hey! People DID speak out against the Tyrant!" - providing the US, and children, are still standing.

Keith on YouTube

On War, Bishops and Democrats

2007-07-19T16:20:00.000-07:00

This is Tim Ryan, Democratic Congressman for the 17th District in Ohio, and member of "Catholics for Peace."

On July 3rd, Ryan and 13 other Congressional Democrats petitioned the USCCB (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) to assit them in their quest to end this war in Iraq.

"Throughout our nation’s history, Catholics have been at the forefront of the fight for social justice," said Congressman Tim Ryan. "We are proud to see that the USCCB feels as strongly on this issue as we do, and we are prepared to work closely with them to reach out to fellow members of the faith."

In the letter these Congressional Representatives drafted, which you can read HERE, they stated:

We recall with no small measure of sadness the failed efforts of His Eminence Pio Cardinal Laghi, sent in March 2003 as the Special Envoy of the Pope, to plead with President Bush for a renewed effort at negotiations before this war began, or simply for a delay in commencing hostilities because of the personal intervention of the Holy Father. Though treated politely, Laghi was rebuffed even as he provided the administration with valuable insights from the Iraqi bishops’ conference and Vatican staff in Iraq. Iraq and its people would be in a far different place today had President Bush heeded the advice of Cardinal Laghi and Pope John Paul II.

In our own education in the faith, we find the testimony of the Scriptures compelling, and although we have no illusions about the complexities of our current situation in Iraq, we have come to believe that peace cannot simply exist as an ideal – our efforts must be accompanied by actions as we embrace the teachings of peace and justice.

We have deliberated with great care, and our consciences calls us to act with conviction and compassion. Throughout our nation’s history Catholics have been at the forefront of the fight for social justice. Now, at another critical moment, we respectfully urge the USCCB to join with us in mobilizing support for Congress’ efforts to end the war.

Today, in response to their request, the Bishops affirmed their commitment to end the war, and are making plans to meet with these members of Congress. Bishop Thomas Wenski, chairman of the bishops' committee on International Policy, wrote:

Our conference hopes to work with the Congress and the administration to forge bipartisan policies on ways to bring about a responsible transition and an end to the war. Too many Iraqi and American lives have been lost. Too many Iraqi communities have been shattered. Too many civilians have been driven from their homes. The human and financial costs of the war are staggering.

Representatives of our conference welcome the opportunity to meet with you and other policy makers to discuss ways to pursue the goal of a 'responsible transition' to bring an end to the war in Iraq.

Article HereWell, I feel better now.

Republicans Don't Care About Black People

2007-07-13T13:32:00.001-07:00

Look closely. That's one little guy standing among nine empty lecturns. What if you held a Presidential Forum and only one Republican candidate showed up? This is what happened to the NAACP this morning in Detroit. Ten GOP candidates were invited.

Well then, let's hear it for Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the only Republican with the moxi to show his face to the NAACP. If the Republicans can't address civil rights to the NAACP, how can they swear an oath to uphold our civil rights? If they're afraid to address Americans with opposing views, how can they take on the terrorists with really opposing views?!

Meanwhile, eight Democratic candidates got a warm reception. Ah, me.

Link to USA Today Article

Link to Frameshop Article

War Weary Wednesdays

2007-07-12T09:21:00.000-07:00

Do you pray for peace in Iraq?

One of our parishioners, from the Peace and Justice Committee at Blessed Sacrament in Seattle, suggested we begin a prayer ministry specifically for that purpose. We call it the War Weary Wednesday prayer group, since we meet after the 5:30 PM Mass each Wednesday, beside the shrine of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

Generally, there's a group of about 12 people, half circled around the shrine, praying traditional prayers, contemporary prayers, inspired prayers; speaking to God, to one another, to Our Lady. We also include a litany of names of our fallen soldiers and Iraqis who have died. Lists are easily found on-line. We pray for them, their families and our countries. It's very moving.

I invite you all to join us at 6:00 PM on Wednesdays, or begin your own peace-prayer ministry, or perhaps just share in the moment wherever you are, to offer up a war weary prayer.

Subsisting In, or Something

2007-07-11T11:53:00.001-07:00

I've already noted some pretty wild misconceptions about what the Vatican is saying in The Subsisting Church of Christ

Let's look at what's really being said:

The use of this expression [subsists in], which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church... Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are 'numerous elements of sanctification and of truth' which are found outside her structure, but which 'as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel toward Catholic unity.'

See? It's perfectly clear.

Or maybe he meant this:

YouTube Link
Just a thought.

The Sacramental Imagination

2007-07-09T14:35:00.000-07:00

(or, Flannery O'Connor and those other guys)

Analogical Imagination

I first came across the expression "Sacramental Imagination" in Andrew Greeley's book, The Catholic Myth, which is a sociological study of American Catholic culture, behavior and beliefs.¹ In the third chapter of his book, Greeley poses this question to his readers: "Do Catholics Imagine Differently?" He then proceeds to explain that, yes, indeed they do.

"Religion... is imagination before it's anything else. The Catholic imagination is different from the Protestant imagination. You know that: Flannery O'Connor is not John Updike."

² This piqued my interest. "How is the Catholic Imagination different?" I wondered, and "Why might this be so?" Greeley writes:

"The central symbol (of religion) is God. One's "picture" of God is in fact a metaphorical narrative of God's relationship with the world and the self as part of the world... The Catholic "classics" assume a God who is present in the world, disclosing Himself in and through creation. The world and all its events, objects, and people tend to be somewhat like God. The Protestant classics, on the other hand, assume a God who is radically absent from the world, and who discloses (Himself) only on rare occasions (especially in Jesus Christ and Him crucified). The world and all its events, objects, and people tend to be radically different from God."

³ Greeley defines this difference this way:

"(T)he Catholic imagination is 'analogical' and the Protestant imagination is 'dialectical.'"

⁴ So what does Greeley mean by an "analogical imagination?" He means that our Catholic mind-set tends toward analogy, where one (deeper) reality corresponds to, and underlays, another reality. From our earliest days, we recall churches filled with incense and candles, statues and flowers, bells, ashes, oils and fonts of holy water; each standing alone as natural objects of the world, yet each signifying a deeper mystery of faith. The sacraments themselves (with the exception of the Eucharist, which is the Sacrament of sacraments)⁵ are analogical. The new catechism states that:

"The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the grace proper to each sacrament."

⁶Therefore, this notion that the Catholic Imagination is different from the Protestant Imagination presents a real challenge to the literary student; one which I hope to explore.

Sensual Imagination

In truth, literature is not the natural domain of the Catholic imagination. The natural domain of the Catholic imagination is the visual or sensual arts.

In a rather eye-popping essay for the New Art Examiner, Eleanor Heartney examines the legacy of the Catholic Church and its influence on contemporary art. Presuming her audience might be hostile to such a claim, she supports her contention with a brief "delve into theology" and explains:

"Catholic doctrine holds that the human body is the instrument through which the miracle of man's salvation from sin is accomplished. As a result, all the major mysteries of the Catholic faith - among them Christ's Incarnation, his Crucifixion and Resurrection, the Resurrection of the faithful at the end of time, and the Transubstantiation of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood during the Mass - center around the human body. Without Christ's assumption of human form, there could be no real sacrifice, and hence, no real salvation for mankind. The Catholic Church has traditionally relied upon visual imagery and sensual experience in order to convey these truths. The medieval cathedral, with its elaborate sculptural programs and stained-glass cycles provided a visual summary of both biblical tales and highly sophisticated theological disputes to a public that was largely illiterate. By the Renaissance, art had become an essential tool for the promulgation of religious doctrine...

"All of this is of course in stark contrast to the Protestant emphasis on biblical revelation as the primary source of God's truth. Since the Reformation, Protestants have tended to regard Catholic practice of venerating Christ and the Saints through richly ornamented religious statuary as a form of idol worship. Sensual imagery and sensual language are seen as impediments, rather than aids to belief. The body and its experiences are things to be transcended...

"The tension between Catholic and Protestant sensibilities outlined here can be summed up as a conflict between the Catholic culture of the image and the Protestant culture of the word. Catholicism values sensual experience and visual images as essential tools for bringing the faithful to God. By contrast, American Protestants depend for their salvation almost exclusively on God's Word as revealed through the Holy Bible..."

⁷ It is no coincidence that the invention of the printing press and the first stirrings of the Protestant Reformation occurred at the same moment in history. With the aid of the printing press, Reformers were able, not only to foster their ideas to the Christian world, but to print and distribute the Bible in the vernacular of the people (something the Catholic Church rigorously opposed). In a very important way, the Bible and the written word became the domain of the Protestant Imagination. In Protestant culture, this has translated into a rich literary tradition.

But what of the fiction writer who is Catholic? Where are our Catholic authors? How does the "sensual imagination" translate into the written word?

In the early part of this twentieth century, Catholic periodicals were asking these same questions, especially with regard to American literature. ⁸ While there were European classics, and a wonderful body of Russian Literature grounded in the sacramental, American Catholicism had still not produced a coherent, literary legacy. By mid-century, with a few emerging exceptions, this was still the case.

In a 1952 essay entitled "Catholic Orientation in French Literature," Wallace Fowlie writes:

"American literature is quite thoroughly non-Catholic. There has never been in this country anything that would resemble a Catholic school of letters or movement in literature. It is true that in 1949 a Catholic magazine was founded, Renascence, concerned with art and literature, but the title was ill chosen. It is difficult to have a renascence of something that never existed."

⁹As for European literature, the Catholic character seems to be most profoundly embodied in poetry. Is it any wonder, when poetry is itself a 'sensual' art form, teeming with 'visual' imagery? Dante, the famed Italian poet of the Divine Comedy and our great precursor, is the first to come to mind as a master of powerful, visual verse; and yet the Renaissance which followed and flowered in southern Europe was primarily a renaissance of the visual arts, and not of literature.

Centuries later, the French poets, most especially Baudelaire and Claudel, began to develop the idea that religious symbolism and poetic symbolism are very much the same. Claudel speaks of nature as a temple, each part of which possesses a symbolic meaning. How is this different from St. Thomas Aquinas, who called the universe "a general sacrament which speaks to us of God?" In fact, the writings of St. Thomas had a profound and lasting influence on the French literary world. The renaissance of medieval philosophy, that school of thought known as neo-Thomism, got its start in France. St. Thomas provides the French poet with a sacramental aesthetic, according to which the universe is the mirror of God.

It's important to note that the seed of Thomistic thought does not die on the continental shores. It has a strong influence in Ireland, again most especially with the poets, though it's barely managed to make its way across the Atlantic or, at any rate, to spring to life here and be recognized beyond the usual Catholic circles.

That is until a young woman who raised chickens in Georgia started writing stories in the 1950's. Flannery O'Connor, self-schooled in Thomistic thought, managed to contribute two novels and a number of short stories to American Literature before her life was cut short at the age of 39. And yet she really does stand out as one of America's great prose writers, one whose sensibilities and whose personal faith were profoundly Catholic, and whose stories are steeped in the sacramental. O'Connor regarded her talent as a gift, but it was not an unconscious gift. She knew what she was about. She once remarked to a friend that, as an art form, fiction is "incarnational." In an essay on the "Novelist and Believer," she tells us:

"St. Augustine wrote that the things of the world pour forth from God in a double way: intellectually into the minds of the angels and physically into the world of things. To the person who believes this - as the western world did up until a few centuries ago - this physical sensible world is good because it proceeds from a divine source... [The aim of the artist is] to render the highest possible justice to the visible universe... The artist penetrates the concrete world in order to find at its depths the image of its source, the image of ultimate reality."

¹⁰ This view is at the heart of the Sacramental Imagination. The central mystery of the Catholic faith is the Incarnation, by which God became man and dwelt among us. The great lesson of the Incarnation has become the pivotal theme of contemporary Catholic literature. In his essay on French Literature, Wallace Fowlie concludes with this remark:

"One wonders if Claudel ... is the only one close to the Dominican interpretation: Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects and raises it. Despair is not the ultimate secret. Claudel believes in a theocentric humanism. Nothing is more exultant than this conception of the universe. When the Word became Flesh, it assumed the universe."

¹¹ My guess is, in 1952, Mr. Fowlie had not yet stumbled upon the hen-house Thomist in Georgia.

The Reader's Imagination

While this might seem very well and good, even perhaps a bit heavy-headed, it takes more than great writers to make literature. It takes intelligent readers as well. In this vein, Flannery O'Connor presents us with a more personal and immediate challenge. In a speech delivered to an audience of would-be Catholic novelists, she tells them:

"One of the most disheartening circumstances that the Catholic novelist has to contend with is that he has no large audience he can count on to understand his work."

¹² For O'Connor, the modern secular world, which makes up most of the Catholic writer's audience, does not believe in the theological truths of the Faith, which is the foundation of the writer's universe and imagination.

"It does not believe in sin, or in the value that suffering can have, or in eternal responsibility, and since we live in a world that ... has been increasingly dominated by secular thought, the Catholic writer often finds himself writing in and for a world that is unprepared and unwilling to see the meaning of life as he sees it."

¹³ Of course, the secular modern world does not make up the author's entire audience. And while it's fair to say that the Protestant believers are likewise confused by the Catholic imagination, there must be a few Catholic readers in the audience who do share the "theological truths of the Faith." It's hoped that these would certainly grasp the analogical underpinnings of the sacramental. However, Ms. O'Connor suggests that this is rarely the case. In a letter to a friend, she writes:

"The average Catholic reader is a militant moron."

¹⁴ Not exactly flattering, is it?

I would like to think quite a lot has changed since 1956, when she first penned those words, but this seems unlikely. The world has certainly become more secular, and even less equipped to understand the themes that underlay the Catholic mind-set.

As for the "average Catholic reader," well, our situation is not hopeless. While it's possible that we may have lost much of our sacramental temperament to the secularized world view, or to a more abstract, transcendental expression so common in American Protestant literature, it's also possible that much of our Catholic sensibilities remain, lingering, so to speak, in the vaulted arches of our memory. Fr. Greeley would surely agree with such an assessment. He would state that it is there, it has always been there, and it needs only to be recognized and nurtured and named.

The Catholic Myth. Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990. pg. 34.

2. Ibid., pg. 34.

3. Ibid., pg. 45.

4. Ibid., pg. 45.

5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, lines: 1211:1374

6. Ibid., lines: 1131

7. "Blood, Sex, and Blasphemy - The Catholic Imagination in Contemporary Art" Eleanor Heartney. New Art Examiner.

8. Esp. America, Queen's Work and The Catholic Literary Revival. Arnold Sparr: To Promote, Defend, and Redeem - The Catholic Literary Revival and the Cultural Transformation of American Catholicism, 1920-1960. Greenwood Press; 1990.

9. "Catholic Orientation in Contemporary French Literature" Spiritual Problems in Contemporary Literature, 1952, pg. 225.

10. "The Novelist and Believer" Mystery and Manners. 1957, pg. 157.

11. "Catholic Orientation in Contemporary French Literature" Spiritual Problems in Contemporary Literature, 1952, pg. 241.

12. "Catholic Novelists" Mystery and Manners. 1957. pg. 181.

13. Ibid., pg. 185.

14.

The Habit of Being, 1979, pg. 179.

The Return of the Latin Mass

2007-07-09T10:49:00.001-07:00

I have always loved the Mass. As a child, I remember attending the Latin Mass, and I was fortunate, for many years, to be able to enjoy the Dominican Rite (Latin) Mass at my church in Seattle. But as the priests who knew the Latin Mass aged, and with younger priests who did not know the Latin Mass replacing them, the practice drew to a sad end.

This ending divided us, certainly; as it divided the Church. Traditionalists went one way, overly-enthusiastic progressives went another; both, at times, to extremes, I think.

So on Saturday, 7/7/7, Pope Benedict XVI issued his statement on allowing the use of the Tridentine Mass, in SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM.

Honestly, I welcome the return of the Tridentine Mass, the Mass said in Latin. Once in a while, I enjoy it. What I do not welcome are the old divisions and the re-opened wounds. The side taking. The trench digging. Aren't we polarized enough?

Let's hope and pray that this will bring back unity, as I believe this is the Holy Father's intention. Let us not refreseh those old arguments: That Vatican II was the work of the devil. Or that the mass in the vernacular is illegitimate. Or that all that Latin is so much Hocus Pocus (hoc est corpus meum!).

My greatest fear is that this signals the beginning of a Restoration mindset; and a return to Pre-Vatican II thinking. I see it already in young people, priests and laity. They romanticize an ideal, but don't recall the reality. It wasn't always so pretty.

Anyway, here's a USA Today link: USA TODAY: Latin Mass

Or, if you prefer something less annoying: Zenit Article

It's all still quite an interesting ride, I dare say.

Amnesty and Human Rights for All

2007-07-06T14:57:00.000-07:00

Amnesty International and the Catholic Church are currently embroiled in a sad, yet I suppose inevitable, clash over abortion and the context of Human Rights.

It seems inevitable to me, at any rate. So long as we continue to debate over what exactly constitutes "human life" we can never fully ground our approach to Human Rights.

Recently, Amnesty International (AI), which I have long and proudly supported (see link at this blog), has redefined its approach to abortion. This drew a quick and negative response from Rome, as one might well expect.

Responding to criticism from Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, AI defended its changed policy, stating that they would continue protecting "the right of women to sexual and reproductive integrity in the face of grave human rights violations..." "Amnesty International recently incorporated a focus on selected aspects of abortion into its broader policy on sexual and reproductive rights. These additions do not promote abortion as a universal right and Amnesty International remains silent on the rights and wrongs of abortion."

See Article Here
In the article, Kate Gilmore, Executive Deputy Secretary General of Amnesty International, attempts to clarify AI's position. "Amnesty International’s position is not for abortion as a right but for women’s human rights to be free of fear, threat and coercion as they manage all consequences of rape and other grave human rights violations."

Well, I'm not sure this clarifies very much. I wish it did. I wish I knew exactly what AI was proposing, or addressing, by this change.

Monday, the President of the US Conference Catholic Bishops, Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, responded to AI's statement. The entire text of the letter can be found here.

In part it reads:

For many years, the Catholic community in the United States and elsewhere has admired and worked with Amnesty International in its efforts to advance the cause of universal human rights. Founded by a Catholic layman, Peter Benenson, Amnesty International has been a beacon of hope to thousands of prisoners of conscience and victims of abuse and torture. In this regard AI has been a source of inspiration to millions of supporters, including the many Catholics who are members. Much more urgent work remains, work which we believe will be harmed by this unprecedented and unnecessary involvement in the abortion debate.

I hope this promotes dialogue, before people start pulling their funds from an amazing and wonderful organization that has done so much good in the world. I urge you to be part of that dialogue, as a beginning. You can write to Amnesty Internation USA here:

Contact AI

The Modern Seminary

2007-05-22T17:15:00.000-07:00

"You profess Chalcedon...or you take a beatin'"

Just for laffs.

Here's a little YouTube video.

Republicans Eating Their Own

2007-05-18T14:35:00.001-07:00

What on earth is going on here? Could Cascadia Catholics be tilting just a little bit to the right? Not on your life! I just have to applaud Pat Buchanan's latest article in the World Net Daily, which you can view at Information Clearing House and avoid all those nasty wing-nut ads over at WND.

Ok, so, I didn't watch the Republican debates. I had better things to do, like clean the bathroom floor. But I did hear Ron Paul's take-down of Bush's Iraq policy, and Rudy's silly rebuttal, on an Air America replay. It was really something. That's the second time I had even heard of Ron Paul. The first time was when Winnipeg Catholic commented on him in an earlier post. At the time, I had to go 'google' him and read up on the main stream media's attempt to keep a lid on the guy. "Funny," I thought, "They're doing a good job of it!"

So Buchanan's article in today's WND made me smile. Pat's no fan of the Iraq war and prefers an isolationist policy for the US. And he's still a big jerk, of course. But this really is lovely:

What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state? Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of what we do?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S. troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel's persecution of the Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring war on us...

[After the debate, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," came one of those delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman, was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30 percent, the winner of the debate.

Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent].

Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.

By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from the beginning on Iraq.

Yep. Oh, and pass the ketchup.

2007-05-16T12:09:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the drive-by flash posting, but a friend pointed out a story about four members of Congress living off of $21 a week, the amount allotted to people on food stamps. Here's a story in the Washington Post about them. Here's two blogs they're keeping:

http://timryan.house.gov/

http://foodstampchallenge.typepad.com/

Rudy the Excommunicated?

2007-05-10T15:16:00.000-07:00

It's been a few months since Rudy Giuliani topped the polls as the Republican nominee. He's been sliding a bit lately, but not because those conservative Bishops have been after him for his Pro-Choice stance.

Click on the Play Button for the latest from those fiery Pro-Life Bishops that were all over John Kerry in 2004.

Conservative Bishops Speak Out

Man oh man. Yeah, and the Yankees suck, too, Rudy.

Did You Think I Was Kidding?

2007-05-08T09:41:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I asked this question: "When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate even mention poverty? [Besides, incidentally, John Edwards]" I wasn't kidding. He's made it a major campaign issue. Today in the NY Times, Bob Herbert writes a revealing article about Edwards' concern for the poor in America, and his plan to eliminate poverty in 30 years.

Here's a link to the article:

NY Times Article
Herbert quotes Edwards:

The real story is not the number but the people behind the number. The men, women and children living in poverty -- one in eight of us -- do not have enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need. One in eight. That is not a problem. That is not a challenge. That is a plague.

Edwards has also made an issue of global poverty, especially in Darfur. He probably can't pick up a whole lot of votes from Darfur, so I suspect his concern is legitimate. His plan is to create a new cabinet post on global poverty. You can read about that HERE.

I don't hear much from the Catholic candidates on global poverty. Or from the pro-life candidates, for that matter. That could be the same ol' problem with our lovely news media, but I'm glad Edwards' voice is getting through, at least, and I like what I hear.

Truth Matters

2007-04-25T16:41:00.000-07:00

People my age and older like to go around asking each other this question: “Where were you when John F. Kennedy was shot?” You see, this was such a shocking event that we can never forget the moment when first we heard the news. Something like 9/11, I imagine.

Well, I don’t remember where I was, not really. In school, I figure, but the day’s a blank in my mind.

It's tough to admit that I turned 50 this year, but there you go. That means I was six years old when Kennedy was shot; old enough to remember his funeral, Jackie and the kids, that riderless horse, my father’s tears… But I don’t remember when or how I was told that someone had shot and killed the President.

But what’s interesting, I think, is that I do remember Oswald’s death. Lee Harvey Oswald was shot by a mafia thug named Jack Ruby, two days after Kennedy was killed. I remember Jack Ruby, boy. I remember his hat, his black suit, his gun shoved into Oswald’s gut. And I remember Oswald’s “Ooooof!” as he was shot dead on national TV.

Now to my small mind, this was some kind of perfect justice. Boy, was I glad they got the guy who shot our president! When I mentioned the happy news to my father, he just looked at me, this grinning six year old kid, and then he told me something I will never forget: “But don’t you see?” he said, “Oswald was the only person who knew why Kennedy was shot, and now he’s dead. Now, we will never know the truth.” And suddenly, for the first time in my life, I got it. I understood. “Oh,” I said. “Ohh… Ohhhhhhh!!!”

I spent the rest of the week trying to convince my little friends that they shouldn’t be so glad that Oswald got killed. Some of them got it. But most didn’t. Few things ever change, I guess. So that’s what I remember from those days, one choice little epiphany; and I’ve been in a bad mood ever since.

So what does this have to do with conscientious voting? Well, maybe I should start again.

...

Some weeks back I was asked to give this talk on how I, a conscientious Catholic, apply my values to the political realm – specifically, to how I vote. Key to any Catholic's formation of conscience is an understanding of Church teachings.

1. So the first thing to do is study the Social Teachings of the Church, which have been conveyed to us through Papal letters, encyclicals, council documents, and Holy Scripture. Together they express some key themes about the life and dignity of the human person. Namely: Our innate human rights, including the right to life – which is primary; the preferential option for the poor and most vulnerable; the dignity of work and the rights of workers; the solidarity of humanity regardless of national, racial, ethnic, or ideological differences; the rights of nations; the care of God’s creation; and an overall obligation to promote the Common Good for all people.

2. Second, we must discern the good of social issues as we come to know them in the concrete, circumstantial experiences of our lives. Remember, there is a law written on every human heart which aids us in this discernment. This Natural Law is based on the notion that truth is knowable, and that we have access to the truth. This is important, and I’ll be getting back to it.

3. Third, we reflect on what we’ve learned, what we’ve experienced, and pray for God’s guidance.

4. Fourth, we take a hard look at the candidates and their political parties – not only to ensure that they profess these values, but that their actions manifest what they profess; that there is a real, workable, social benefit as a result of their actions.

5. Fifth and finally, we must take action. We apply the virtue of prudence, or moral wisdom, to the act of voting, trusting that the political process will bear out our good intentions, and that our elected officials will carry out their promises.

So voting itself is a moral action that Catholics should take very seriously. It is also, to a certain extent, the duty and obligation of every Catholic to participate fully in the political process.

Now I happen to know that Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker Movement made a point of never voting. This always struck me as an odd position to take, as I think anyone so committed to serving the poor, and so politically minded as Dorothy Day indeed was, would leap at the chance to actively express her values in the voting booth. But she had no use for it. She considered the political system so corrupt, that to vote at all was to participate – even marginally – with evil. Well, few of us are as radical as Dorothy Day. Fewer yet as sainted.

But I’m certainly not of that mind – though I suspect I could get there. For me, being politically active means taking sides in our country’s two-party system, and I come down hard on the side of the Democratic Party. I always have.

Now contrary to what you just heard, Kennedy’s assassination did not seal me as a Democrat. At six years old? Give me a break! I was a Democrat long before Kennedy was shot. My parents were good, union-card-carrying Catholic Democrats - which was a perfectly normal thing to be in those days. In our house, there was never a question of which party to support. There were issues, sure, and we argued about them plenty, but there were never disloyalties. I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life. That’s not my dilemma, believe me. I am a Democrat precisely because the Democratic Party was formed by Catholics and based on the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. This is our party.

Historically, it was the party of immigrants and labor unions. In 1928, New York’s Democratic Governor, Al Smith was the first Catholic candidate ever nominated in this country. He ran for president on such progressive issues as Civil Rights and fair labor practices, as they were outlined in Rerum Novarum: that “… wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner.” Anti-Catholic bigotry and corporate interests did him in by a landslide, and the economy collapsed the following year under Herbert Hoover.

Monsignor John Ryan shaped the New Deal programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt, from Quadragesimo Anno: “… the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching.” Fr. Ryan helped pull this country out of the Great Depression and, for so many, out of devastating poverty. Roosevelt was no Catholic and he didn’t much care for them, but he listened to their guidance and he took their advice.

In the 60’s John Kennedy established the Peace Corps and the New Frontier (later the Great Society), he championed Civil Rights and proclaimed an all-out War on Poverty. When was the last time you heard a presidential candidate even mention poverty? [Besides, incidentally, John Edwards.]

So then what happened to all these Catholic minded Democrats? Well, I think we know. Two were assassinated – which ended an era. Then, in 1973, abortion was legalized in this country. And in an attempt at what I consider to be some misguided appeasements, the Democratic Party ran on a platform that was radically Pro-Choice. As a result, many Catholics simply walked away. [And the Party let them go, too, saying that was just fine with them, ‘bye-bye!’ In essence, I think, the Democratic Party left the Catholic voter, not the other way around.]

Still, a lot of us stayed. I stayed because I’m fiercely loyal, tenacious, and pragmatic. I don’t want to see my Party led by the likes of NARAL, or any other tunnel-visioned faction. I stayed because this is my Party, and I believe in the principles that have formed it.

Now there’s talk that maybe Catholics should go make up their own third party, one that is wholly pro-life. That might sound well and good, but a lame third party would only serve to disenfranchise the Catholic vote, and that would be tragic for our country.

I’m not going to go vote Republican. Are you nuts?

So where does that leave me? Just a lonely voice under the big tent of dissident, disorganized Democrats. But you know, I am working to bring the Democratic Party back to her moral roots. I go to my Party caucuses. I was a delegate in 2004. I’ve spoken up for life issues when the party platform was being debated. I mean, how can we engage in the political dialogue if we don’t even show up for the discussion? It takes more than a bumper sticker to change the course of this country. It takes involvement, imagination, and the guts to say: “These things are wrong, here’s how we might change them.”

Still, I would rather stand shoulder-to-shoulder beside someone with whom I have a deep, honest and profound disagreement, than stand in the same room – the same arena even – with a liar who tells me everything I want to hear.

This is the key point. It gets back to the whole issue of truth I touched on earlier. You can’t form a Catholic Moral Conscience without access to the truth – which I don’t think we have – and without caring very deeply about it.

When government officials spin, distort, waffle and down-right lie to us, then we no longer have access to the truth. When the media, which has an overriding corporate interest in forming public beliefs… when the media no longer reports the crucial news of the day, no longer asks the tough questions of our leaders, no longer investigates incompetence and corruption, then we no longer have access to the truth. And when our Judicial system turns a blind eye to criminal activity at the highest levels, then our country has lost its moral compass, truth becomes irrelevant, and only power – raw power – is left to rule, creating its own reality.

Listen carefully to what Pope Benedict XVI had to say just last year, on World Peace Day, in a message he called: “In Truth, Peace”

Who and what, then, can prevent the coming of peace? Sacred Scripture… points to the lie told at the very beginning of history… Lying is linked to the tragedy of sin and its perverse consequences, which have had, and continue to have, devastating effects on the lives of individuals and nations. We need but think of the events of the past century, when aberrant ideological and political systems willfully twisted the truth and brought about the exploitation and murder of an appalling number of men and women... After experiences like these, how can we fail to be seriously concerned about lies in our own time, lies which are the framework for menacing scenarios of death in many parts of the world? Any authentic search for peace must begin with the realization that the problem of truth and untruth is the concern of every man and woman; it is decisive for the peaceful future of our planet.

Who do you think he’s talking to?

You see, what I learned that day in 1963, the insight that has remained with me to this day, is this: Truth matters. It really does. Because there are powers in this world that are bigger than good guys and bad guys; bigger than cowboy sheriffs; bigger than presidents, governments and even nations. We come to know these powers by the way they speak to us: which is never honest, never humble, and never true.

You want to know how to comport yourself as a conscientious Catholic? It’s really not that complicated. You study the issues, you study and honor the teachings of the Church, and you love and demand the truth above your own life, your own ego, your own loyalties, prejudices, and even your own perceptions of God. Then speak truth to power, it’s a sin to tell a lie.