Tag: Politics

Forming a More Perfect Union

The opening words of the constitution of the United States of America are:
   We the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.
   Notice that the first of the six stated purposes of the constitution is “to form a more perfect union”.
   Since the goal was to form a more perfect union, presumably what union that then existed was less than perfect. And, in spite of all of our efforts over all the years to form a more perfect union (since the constitution was ratified in 1788), the union now existing is still less than perfect.
   The United States—like most great enterprises—is still a work in progress. In that sense a country is just like you and me and every other human person. We are all works in progress.
   We are still striving to form a more perfect union, and we shouldn’t be so surprised that we haven’t achieved it yet.
   All our goals and ideals are, so to speak, carrots on the stick in front of us. We must never neglect striving to attain them and never despair that we haven’t yet fully attained them.
   This applies to each of our lives, plans, projects, and institutions.
   We’re good Americans if we defend and follow our agreed upon constitution, laws, and customs—even if we personally don’t entirely agree with every detail and aspect of them. And, we have the right to argue in favor of what we think is right and against what we think is wrong.
   We’re all engaged in the never-ending struggle to form a more perfect union.

   The struggle to form a more perfect union applies to many things besides the political organization of the United States.
   Presumably it applies to all countries and governments in one way or another—as well as to all organizations and corporations, all common human enterprises, religions, associations, and families. It’s part of the human condition, of your life, my life, and that of each and every one of us.
   A familiar and vitally important technique and tool for forming a more perfect union is to compromise—to settle differences and disagreements by mutual concessions, to reach agreements by adjusting and modifying conflicting claims and demands.
   When you compromise, it doesn’t mean you’ve changed your mind or abandoned what you have been struggling to achieve. It means you’re striving to reach some common agreement, to achieve what is possible, even though it may be less than what you want, or what you aspire to, or what you believe is right.
   Politics is sometimes referred to as the art of the possible. In that sense, we are all challenged to be “good politicians”. A fanatical attachment to the impossible may, at first blush, appear to be exemplary, but it really isn’t.
   We are all engaged, ever engaged, with a persistent, ongoing struggle to form a more perfect union.
   We all need to constantly examine the ideals and beliefs that motivate us and the behaviors that characterize us, accommodating them to the real situation.
   Paradoxically, we need to keep struggling to achieve the “impossible dream” and trying to be politically correct in the process!


18 September 2022

Righteous

Basically “righteous” is a good word, but it sometimes has the feel of being pretentious or ostentatious. But it really doesn’t mean anything like that. It’s usually defined as:

– Characterized by uprightness or morality.
– Morally right or justifiable.
– Acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous.
– (Slang) absolutely genuine or wonderful.

It comes from the Middle English rightwos, rightwis, from the Old English rihtwis (cf. right & wise).

   The adjective “Right” can mean:

– In accordance with what is good, proper, or just.
– In conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard of principle; correct.
– Correct in judgement, opinion, or action.
– Fitting or appropriate; suitable.
– Most convenient, desirable, or favorable.
– Of, relating to, or located on or near the side of a person or thing that is turned toward the east when the subject is facing north (opposed to left).
– In a satisfactory state; in good order.
– Sound, sane, or normal.
– In good health or spirits.
– Principal, front, or upper.
– Of or relating to political conservatives or their beliefs.
– Socially approved, desirable, or influential.
– Formed by or with reference to a perpendicular.
– Straight.
– (Geometry) having an axis perpendicular to the base.
– Genuine; authentic.

The noun “wise”, as used here, is defined as:

– Way of proceeding or considering; manner; fashion (usually used in combination or in certain phrases): otherwise, in any wise, in no wise.

Okay, now that we more or less know what we’re talking about and know what the words may, can, or do mean, I’d like to recommend being righteous.
We’re desperately in need of more righteous men and women in every sense of the word, including political conservatives!
What’s a conservative really? As the name implies, it’s someone who want to conserve—presumably to conserve something of value in the judgement of that person, many persons of like mind, most persons, or everybody.
If we’re true conservatives, of course we want to conserve what is good—and develop and build on it as well. Naturally if it’s not good, we probably want to correct, improve, and better it, if possible—and if not, even start all over and replace it with something better.
You know, words are like weapons. We must always be careful how we handle and use them; it can be very dangerous and even harmful if we fire them off irresponsibly.
I think it’s a good thing to try to be an upright and moral person, virtuous, genuine, just, correct, truthful, sound, sane, of good spirit, principled, conservative, authentic, and all the rest.
In the best sense of the word, it’s good to be righteous. Righteous people are in short supply. Please help!


17 January 2021

“Courageous Priest Speaks The TRUTH…”

A few days ago I received an email asking my opinion of its attached video entitled “Courageous Priest Speaks The TRUTH About Joe Biden and Kamala Harris”.
I played the priest’s homily. My reaction to it was mixed. It was calm, measured, carefully developed. It was divided into two segments. The first about belief, teachings, and Christian responsibility I thought was very sound and solid. The second was a denouncement of the Catholic Joe Biden.
My opinion is, whether you sympathize with the priest’s point of view or not, that a direct and detailed criticism of one or another particular candidate is not an appropriate topic for a priest’s homily.
At college, which was a challenging time for me in my late teens, one thing I learned and learned to agree with was the “policy”, so to speak, of the educational program: “We’re here to teach you how to think, not what to think.”
That’s what I try to do. I don’t always succeed, but I try to call attention to the words of scripture, the teachings of Jesus, and the ever developing teachings of the Church and challenge my listeners or readers to consider them and make judgements that are consonant with them—but I try to avoid offering them any specific conclusions or advice.
I think this is the appropriate role of clergy—up to and including the pope! We should be teachers and preachers who try to persuade and lead people to what we believe is good and right—but we shouldn’t be making rules and imposing penalties (although this has often been attempted).
Every person is unique. No one is completely and totally identical with anyone else, even “identical twins”. This means that each of us may face a situation and the need for a decision or course of action that in some respect or other is totally different than any other before.

Of course, since we are not absolutely perfect by nature, we may get it right or we may get it wrong—and our motives may be right or our motives may be wrong.
“Politics is the art of the possible.” Idealists don’t make good politicians. The ideal is always the carrot on the stick—it draws us but we never 100% attain it. There are flaws and failings in every one of us, even when we’re striving to do the right thing.
Personally, I don’t think it’s my role to make a final judgement of anyone—it’s beyond my capabilities. However I can criticize and offer my assessment, for better or for worse of course, of the words they use or write, the effects I perceive them producing, etc.—but not a judgement of their essential worth or value, or goodness or lack thereof.
I don’t think any particular candidate for any particular office is a “saint” or a “devil”. Every candidate, every person, is a blend. We’re tempted to judge that the balance is tilted more one way than another, and that judgement may be right or wrong. Only God knows for sure.
Catholicism is a big tent and there’s room for all kinds, styles, and personalities. Catholics aren’t an army marching in step on parade, eyes left, right, or ahead as the command may be.
We’re more like a herd, wandering this way and that. We sometimes fall behind because we’re blindly grazing, sometimes race so far ahead, left, or right that we’re in danger of being separated or lost, and sometimes safely stick to the center where we’re surrounded by our own kind. There the dangers are being squeezed too much or the majority’s pulling you from the way!


25 October 2020

Social-Sin Distancing

The September 2020 issue of Commonweal magazine has an challenging article by Rita Ferrone, “Will Anything Change This Time?”.
Amid recent public protests about racism and injustice, she reminded us of and suggested revisiting John Paul II’s teaching on social sin in his 1983 post-synodal exhortation, “Reconciliation and Penance”.
Her article called attention to the need expressed by the synod bishops to talk about “social sin, structures of sin, and systematic forms of oppression that magnify and perpetuate sinful situations”.
The Pope’s exhortation was concerned not only about personal reconciliation and penance, but also about communal responsibility and the ways personal sins contribute to social sin.
The Pope called attention to the various meanings of “social sin”.
– “. . . by virtue of human solidarity which is as mysterious and intangible as it is real and concrete, each individual’s sin in some way affects others . . . every sin has repercussions on . . . the whole human family.
– “. . . the term social applies to every sin against justice in interpersonal relationships . . . against the rights of the human person . . . against others’ freedom . . . against the dignity and honor of one’s neighbor . . . against the common good . . . and its exigencies in relation to the whole broad spectrum of the rights and duties of citizens.
– “The third meaning of social sin refers to the relationships between the various human communities . . . class struggle . . . is a social evil. Likewise obstinate confrontation between blocs of nations, between one nation and another, between different groups within the same nation . . .”.
Many religious people shy away from this kind of talk. They feel that we shouldn’t mix up religion with politics—that what’s in the church is the church’s business, and what’s outside isn’t.

But, if we are open to what John Paul taught, we have some new areas and kinds of sin, social sins, to add to our examination of conscience and to the amending of our lives. The main ones he describes are:
– to cause evil;
– to support evil;
– to exploit evil;
– to be in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, secret complicity or indifference;
– to take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world;
– to sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of higher order.
As Rita Ferrone observed, “An awareness of social sin, for John Paul II, summons each of us to invest personally in the work of dismantling structures of sin in order to build a civilization of love.”
You know, there’s a strange kind of uneasy comfort in regularly acknowledging, confessing, and repenting of a modest collection of familiar, almost habitual, imperfections, weaknesses, misdeeds, and failures.
We closely review our solitary thoughts, words, and deeds—sometimes painfully remembering and repenting of those involving another—but rarely does it occur to us that we share responsibility for communal or social prejudices, policies, procedures, and “structures of sin”.
As we view this world where we live, where evil is ever pandemic, and which we pray daily will become the kingdom of God, let’s try to remember to advance its coming a little by our “social-sin distancing”!


11 October 2020

Yester-me, Yester-you

It rained yesterday. Even though the sun is shining today, I know it is going to rain. Why am I so sure? — because, since it rained yesterday, today must turn out the same.
What an illogical statement! Of course yesterday’s weather is no sure guide to today’s. The weather changes all the time. Yet, when it comes to people, this is the kind of illogic we frequently use.
If Saint Peter were campaigning for the position of prince of the Apostles today, I can just imagine the propaganda of his opposition:
– Don’t vote for Simon. How can you trust him? When the going gets tough, he gets going. Remember Golgotha? Where was he when the Lord was being crucified? John was at the foot of the cross — where was Simon hiding? Do you want to be led by a coward?
– Simon is an out-and-out liar. He publicly swore before witnesses that he wasn’t from Galilee, wasn’t a disciple, and didn’t know Jesus. Can you imagine a man like that with leadership responsibility in the Church?
– Simon doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The Lord spent weeks trying to get the disciples to understand he was to suffer as Messiah — all Simon could do was to voice feeble assurances that everything was fine, that there was no need for worry. Remember, Jesus himself had to put him in his place.
– Simon failed as a fisherman; he often caught nothing. He abandoned a responsible fishing business without a thought for the future. He ran all over the countryside instead of caring for his wife and home. How can you count on him?

Even so, Jesus picked this very fearful, blundering, blustering, impulsive follower to strengthen his fellows and shepherd the Church.
The frightened fisherman who fled from Calvary became the fearless father of the flock. The denier of the suffering Messiah in Jerusalem bravely faced a death similar to his in Rome.
The Simon Peter of yesterday is not the Simon Peter of today or tomorrow.
People repent and change. Daily, new experiences prompt us to new understandings and decisions. We grow day by day, discovering new strength and wisdom. The grace of God is powerfully operative in each of our lives.
How can we be so illogical regarding other persons? Or, perhaps, the question is: How can we be so merciless and unforgiving regarding other persons? How can I be so sure that today’s you is exactly the same as yesterday’s you?
Naturally, we use this peculiar illogic only with others. When it comes to ourselves, we know full well that we change and grow. Oh, the so many deeds of the past that we repent of and wish undone. But, with the help of God, we do not necessarily repeat yesterday’s mistakes and failures today and tomorrow.
Lord, help me to use the right logic with every other person — for it is the logic of compassion and love that you use with me.


(Published in
one, 30:6, November 2004)

Bound by God

The biggest religious holiday for Muslims is Eid al-Adha, the Feast of the Sacrifice. All over the world, devout Muslims recall the sacrifice of Abraham — his willingness to offer the life of his dearly hoped for and dearly loved son in total obedience and submission to the will of God.
Christians and Jews also commemorate and celebrate the submission, faith and sacrifice of Abraham, although not in total agreement with Muslims about all the details of the story.
For Muslims, Abraham is willing to offer up his first-born son, Ismail (Ishmael), child of the slave Hagar whom Abraham took to wife in response to the pleading of the barren Sarah. This is important to Muslims, for Ishmael is considered the great forefather of the Arabs.
For Christians and Jews, Abraham is willing to sacrifice his second-born son, Isaac, the miraculous son of Sarah, the heir of the promise. The symbolism is important to Jews, for Isaac and his son Jacob (Israel) are the forefathers of the Jewish people.
Christians don’t appeal to an ethnic relationship with Abraham but extol him, in the words of the Roman Liturgy, as “our father in faith.”
Later Jewish tradition speaks of the sacrifice not so much as that of Abraham as of Isaac. This faith event is called the Binding of Isaac.
It is the boy, filled with faith like his father, who submits to the supreme will of God and willingly offers his own life in sacrifice. No wonder, then, that Christian tradition sees in Isaac a figure of Jesus, who freely offered his life in sacrifice in obedience to the will of the Father.

When we look at the sacrifice from the point of view of the son, its great lesson is that he suffered himself to be bound. The son freely and willingly surrendered all that he was and had to the will of God. He freely chose to be bound by God’s higher authority. He accepted ultimate restraint upon his freedom and autonomy.
Would that all those who proudly affirm “we are children of Abraham,” whether by human descent or by faith, be his children in deed — and suffer themselves to be bound by the demands of the will, the justice, and the love of God.
Individual persons, families, clans, tribes, ethnic groups, nations, governments — we are all reluctant to be bound by anything or anybody. Our supreme value is to be free.
What binds the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Isaac? Do religious traditions bind the behavior of nation states? Do treaties, conventions, and the resolutions of the United Nations limit the options of governments?
How about all those other, spiritual children of Abraham, peoples rooted in revealed truths and the divine will? What binds people outside the Middle East when it comes to their personal liberties or the actions of their leaders?
Hopefully Muslims, Christians and Jews who recall the same sacrifice also share the same insight of faith — when we allow the Lord to bind us, we become truly free.


(Published as “Isaac Unbound” in
CNEWA World, 29:3, May 2003)

Antidisestablishmentarianism

“What’s the longest word in the English language?” was a challenge in my grade school. “Antidisestablishmentarianism” was supposed to be the correct answer.
The word refers to opposition to disestablishing, in particular, the official Church of England. This is almost the exact contrary of the popular American idea of separation of church and state.
Many British colonists in North America were religious dissidents who had fled religious oppression in their homeland. When political structures for the United States were being developed, it was agreed that there should not be any official, government-established religion.
This was a radically new idea that went against the tide of history.
For example, the ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, and Roman empires all saw state, religion, and culture as indivisibly linked.
Many early Christians were killed not for being followers of Jesus, but for denying public veneration of the divine Roman emperor. Their religious convictions made them appear as traitors to the state.
When Christianity became the imperial state religion in the 4th century, the tables were turned, but the same linkage of religion and state prevailed. In the Byzantine East, until the 15th century, the emperor was head of the Church and “Coequal of the Apostles.”
It was the emperor who convoked and presided at the early ecumenical councils — and set much of their agenda as well.
After the fall of Rome in the 5th century, again the linkage prevailed, but this time the religious authority, the pope, took on the power of the state.

Popes continued as temporal rulers in the West until the 19th century, when they lost their lands to a new, unified Italian state.
Union of church and state characterized many Catholic countries right up until the Second Vatican Council.
Sometimes religion was displaced by another, pseudo-religious ideology, but one still linked to the state — for example, rationalism/secularism in France, Nazi socialism in Germany, and Marxist Communism in Eastern Europe.
Notwithstanding the American inspired idea of separation of church and state, in much of the world today, in effect, an “antidisestablishmentarian” view prevails.
Wherever Muslims are the majority, Islam is the prime constituent of society. Islam does not know a separation of religion from government. Islamic states, whether secular, moderate, or extremist, all still have an “established religion.”
Israel was founded as a Jewish state. It still struggles to define its identity and the role and rights of its non-Jewish citizens.
Paradoxically, the United States, so concerned for separation of church and state at home, supports both the Jewish and some Muslim states in the Middle East while wrestling with its relations with the other Muslim ones.
Moses was a ruler; so was Muhammad. Jesus denied that his kingdom was of this world, but it has been taking his followers a long time to really get the message.


(Published in
CNEWA World, 29:2, March 2003)

The March of Folly

In 1985, Barbara Tuchman published The March of Folly, a book about three key moments in Western history. Her definition of folly was “the pursuit of policies [by rulers and leaders] contrary to the government’s own interests, despite the availability and knowledge of feasible alternatives.”
She used the story of the Trojan War as a symbol of folly. Tradition has it that serious voices were raised against allowing the wooden horse of the Greeks within the walls of Troy, yet the decision was taken to allow the horse in, resulting in the loss of the city.
Tuchman’s first historical case was the division of Western Christianity under the Renaissance popes. She made it clear that there had been ample warnings about the danger of schism in northern Europe if the policies of the papal court and the behavior of the popes did not change. Yet, these warnings were not heeded. As a result of this folly, half of the Western Church broke with Rome.
The next case was the loss of the American colonies by King George III. Clearly, the American Revolution could have been averted if only the king had heeded the advice of moderates in his government, who were well informed about the conditions and sentiments in the colonies. Their advice was ignored.
The author’s third case was the futile war of the United States in Vietnam. There was a great deal of information available to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson that proved the hopelessness of the war, yet it was either the advice of the hawks of the time or a fear, basically, of losing face that drove the war on and on.

I wonder how Barbara Tuchman would describe some of the conflicts of our day: the apparently endless struggle of India and Pakistan over Kashmir — the pointless border war between Eritrea and Ethiopia — the fifty-two years of intermittent violence and retaliation between Israel and the Palestinians — and, now, the possibility of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Are these examples of governments pursuing sound policies or of pursuing policies contrary to their own long-term interests, in spite of the availability of alternatives?
Folly is not limited to the behavior of governments. There are other kinds at other levels.
For example, as Eastern Catholic immigration to the U.S. increased, the American bishops petitioned the Holy See to forbid married Eastern Catholic priests from ministering there. A consequence of this policy was the conversion of hundreds of thousands of Eastern Catholics to Orthodoxy.
Folly can be found at the family and personal level, too. Many times a family is broken up by the harsh decision of a parent that could have been different.
How many times have we taken personal decisions, knowing better alternatives, that were against our own long-term best interests? Isn’t this one way of describing sin?
The march of folly goes on. Please don’t be one of the marchers.


(Published in
CNEWA World, 28:6, November 2002)