Cardinal Francis Stafford Speaks

He was a young priest walking the streets of Baltimore strongly advocating for civil rights. He himself claims to have been motivated by the American Theologian John Courtney Murray who's great work on religious liberty was codified into Church teaching at the Second Vatican Council. He now finds Hans Urs von Balthasar and others as theologians more to his taste. Fortunately, the Document on Religious Liberty from the council still stands and Cardinal Francis Stafford cannot discard it.

It is difficult to ponder the Cardinal's words to a recent gathering in Washington. They are stark, condemnatory, and sound not a single conciliatory note. Reading the entire text of what he said as printed in the National Catholic Reporter is truly distressing. What has happened to this good priest from the Archdiocese of Baltimore? It is easy to say that he has been in Rome too long. He has forgotten what it means to work among the people. Maybe he needs to return to Baltimore, walk the streets, and find out what is going on in people's lives. What are the issues ordinary people, Catholics and non-catholics face? To what extent do the Cardinal's remarks have any connection to the real world that people live in?

What Cardinal Stafford learns from Balthasar and others is that the Curch needs to be counter-cultural. O.K. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Church needs to attack everything that seems to be part of modern culture, even though some of it may be good? Like Johannine dualism do we see the world as darkness and the Church as light? Stafford goes on to attack Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence of the country he used to be part of. Roe vs. Wade, he tells us, has produced a downward spiral in this country so that it can no longer be called the land of freedom. There is no mention of life issues such as war, poverty, caring for the oppressed, etc. etc. For Stafford the seeds of this evil spiral go back to our founding fathers and their acceptance of slavery even in the constitution. It is so easy to find fault with the government in this country. We are a nation becoming, and we have stumbled many times. But even the example that Stafford gives demonstrates movement toward progress in this country from the Civil Rights movement he participated in, to the election of an African American president which he deplores. Unfortunately there is not a commensurate look at the horrendous mistakes we find in the 2000 year history of the Church which continue to the present day in the clergy abuse scandal and its coverup.

Stafford has taken one aspect of the Church and has distorted the Church by diminishing many other equally important facets of Church tradition. God created the world and said that it was good as Genesis tells us. The Psalms proclaim the goodness of our God, as not only the forests and birds of the air, but trumpets, lyres, and human voices are raised in praise of the Lord. This is God's world, and we must examine the culture, not to condemn it, but to find what is good in it, find what is sacred in it, and work to enhance it and make it even better.

Yet the Cardinal's rhetoric about our new President-elect includes some really shocking statements. We are told that our country has become a dirty house in a gutted world. Obama's message is a very toxic anti-humanism. We are entering an era of the Garden of Gethsemanie as we weep over the violence concealed behind his (Obama's) rhetoric. Stafford sees the new administration as all about coercing individual consciences. I'm curious as to how it is that banning all abortions does not coerce individual consciences. Stafford seems unable to see the larger world in which people live. The fact that he has woven webs of intricate theological mumbo jumble (read some of the rhetoric in his piece) does not mean that everyone else subscribes to his statements. Of course for him, those who don't agree are acting in bad faith and therefore are without rights.

The Freedom of Choice Act seems to be what has the good Cardinal so upset. Of course there is no such law at the moment, but is one the congress will be dealing with in the future. It apparently is coercion when professionals are expected to provide information or services that are legally available. This is a delicate situation, and certainly the Freedom of Choice Act is worthy of legitimate debate. If American Church leaders have concerns about some possible provisions of such an act they should sit down with policy makers and express their concerns. No doubt solutions can be found. These solutions will not satisfy everyone, because that's the way a democracy works. All people and their rights must be protected, not just Catholics. That is the role of government. Maybe Stafford cares only about protecting the rights of the institutional church. It must be remembered, however, that Cardinals coming over here from Rome cannot dictate American policy and law.

Finally, the Cardinal accuses Obama of violence. What about the violence of his words that might encourage others to do harm to our young president? To suggest that Obama is akin to the anti-Christ, or as he says it, Obama is apocalyptic because he goes "contrary to natural and divine laws regarding human life", is not a way to bring peace. We have already been told that there have been more threats against President-elect Obama than any other President-elect in history. Thanks for stirring up the pot. Isn't it interesting that Pope Benedict XVI congratulated Obama after the election and spoke to him on cooperating on issues such as poverty, war, and other areas of agreement. The U.S. Catholic Bishops also delivered a much more conciliatory statement. Cardinal Stafford could find nothing positive to say about the new administration. I don't think any American of whatever political stripe could read the full text of Cardinal Stafford's words and not be filled with disgust. Cardinal Stafford may be entering an era of agony in the garden, but American Catholics do not agree. The majority voted for Obama, and they are filled with hope and good will that despite the challenges he faces, the new president may be able to lead us into a better world. As we approach the Christmas season it might be well for the Cardinal to remember our Savior who brought hope to the world by becoming part of it, becoming like us in every way except sin. He chose to lift humanity up, not tear it down.

Change We Can Believe In

Every new announcement from the Obama transition team is greeted with the refrain 'I thought he was going to bring change, but this is more of the same'. I wonder what the media and others were expecting. Maybe if the President-elect were placing 18 year olds out of high school or 22 year olds out of college into cabinet posts it would be considered change.

First of all, I wonder where the notion came from that change meant rejecting the Clinton administration. I never heard Senator Obama say that he had a problem with the successes of the Clinton years. I thought change meant that we wanted to move away from the past eight years. The intent was to change the dynamics of the war in Iraq, to restore some of our lost civil liberties, to end torture as part of our policy, to bring competence back into our government (which by the way was a hallmark of the Clinton years), to restore our credibility and good name abroad, and to work with others both in and outside of our country as colleagues and not as flunkies to do our bidding.

The press has already demonstrated its distaste for everything Clinton, but it is time to put these withering voices aside. The press vented itself for whatever slights it may have received during the 90's all through the primary season and had much to do with sinking the Hillary campaign, but enough is enough. After all, Barack Obama is the President-elect and it is his judgement that matters as to who he wants in his cabinet. The press will have plenty of opportunity to judge the new cabinet on their performance so lighten up a bit. Also, whatever one may think of the principals themselves, their administration was filled with quality professionals who acquitted themselves well. They exude the experience that is needed for the many crises we face, and we should welcome them into the mix for the rough ride that is ahead. I would be interested in knowing who might be recommended for these posts that could bring anything to the table even close to what the likes of Rahm Emmanuel, Eric Holder, Larry Summers and others have to offer. Whatever problems Hillary may bring with her as Secretary of State are problems for the President-elect, not the New York Times etc. Unless, that is, the media is still determined to destroy the Clintons.

Frankly I am sick of it. Every new administration calls on the best and brightest of previous administrations. Unfortunately the experience gained in the current administration are not such that one would wish to call on their expertise. Obama is doing a good job of pulling the best and brightest together based on the needs of our country at this time. It is time for the media to stop expressing its disdain everytime anything Clinton is added to the mix. You saw to it that she did not become President or Vice President so stop with the nastiness.

I might just add for those who would say that the Clinton nomination has been handled poorly. I agree. I'm still willing to chalk that up to the growing pains of any new administration. Yet the media wants to blame the Clinton's for every bit of drama in this story. Andrea Mitchell was the first to break this story and she did not get the story from the Clintons. Hopefully it will get sorted out quickly. However, the constant determination of the media to ascribe sinister motives, and political intrigue to every Clinton move is truly getting old.

Transition from Candidate to President

It has been 14 days since Senator Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States and he has yet to announce a Cabinet member. Not only that, but the economy is still in trouble, troops are still in Iraq, and his two girls are still without their hypo-allergenic dog. I don't know about you, but this whole thing is just going too slowly for me.

I just saw this morning that 80% of Russians would have voted for Obama if they could have voted. Babies all over the world are being named Barack. Even in the Middle East expectations are sky high, and yet, President-elect Obama keeps reminding us that we only have one president at a time and he is not yet the president. The world seems very much like a kid with a candy bar that has been told he cannot eat it until he finishes his dinner. I don't know how many peas we're going to have to eat before we get to dessert.

I might also say that I don't think I have ever seen a transition quite like this one. My recollection is that in general President-elects head for vacation right after the election. This President-elect is already putting in long hours. He wasn't even able to head back to Hawaii for his grandmother's memorial service. I wasn't around for FDR's transition, but given the gravity of the nation's problems in 1932, and the additional delay before the actual inauguration it must have been mind boggling. There is little doubt, that all President-elect Obama's hard work will help him hit the ground running with a strong staff in place on January 20th, but what happens in the meantime?

There are so many pitfalls to avoid, and so many traps to fall into. Do you cooperate or stay aloof from the current administration? Do you attend the global summit? Do you promote an auto industry bailout or not? Do you meet with world leaders, and which ones? Do you announce your cabinet all at once, or piece by piece? How many and which Republicans should be part of your cabinet? How far do you go to ensure that your cabinet has the right number of minorites, females, etc.? It makes me tired just thinking about it. That doesn't even include developing policies to address all the critical and multi-faceted problems staring the country in the face.

What have we seen so far, and what tantalizing bits of information can we glean from these first steps? First the leaks. A campaign with no missteps suddenly seems to be full of rumors and a little bumpiness. Rahm Emmanuel's name was leaked as the new chief of staff before the election. Then, he said he was mulling the decision over. Seemed a little sloppy. Names for various cabinet positions are coming from many sources. Maybe its just the transition from a small team of campaign advisors to the enormous number of people involved in the transition. Maybe some of the leaks like that of Hillary Clinton have been intentional. Maybe we just need to realize that no transition is perfect. No cause for worry at this point, but it might bear watching.

Although criticized by some Republicans the selection of Rahm Emmanuel is an excellent one. The importance of a strong chief of staff can not be over stated. President Clinton was at his best when Leon Panetta was his chief of staff. It remains one of the most encouraging signs of the in-coming administration that the best and brightest seem to be the ones Obama is inclined to call on. The list reads like a who's who directory: Bob Gates, Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Paul Volker, Hillary Clinton. The list goes on and on. The greatest difficulty will probably be in choosing the right person from each list. But the end result certainly looks promising.

Perhaps President-elect Obama is addressing the too high expectations best, by just slowing down a bit the public roll out of his administration. He is clearly working hard behind the scenes. Yet, I think he may be trying to get all of us used to the reality that positive change will be gradual, and we are not going to see a new problem solved each day. We are just going to have to wait awhile for that candy bar.

Taking a Look at the Catholic Vote

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has mined some interesting data from the exit polls concerning the role of religion in last week's election. In every religious category President-elect Obama did significantly better than John Kerry did in 2004. Even among weekly church goers of all religions the Obama vote increased from 35% for Kerry to 43% for Obama. Among Catholics Obama received 54% of the vote as opposed to Kerry's 47%.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Bishops this year have been more adamant about opposing pro-choice candidates than in any year in the past. There were a small group of vocal bishops opposing Kerry in 2004. That number grew in 2008. Can it be that there is an inverse relationship among Catholics in that the more the heirarchy warns against voting for a candidate, the more likely they are to vote for that candidate? Catholics, as all other Americans, do not expect to be told who they are allowed to vote for, and they will not tolerate it even from their Bishops. In this democracy the right to vote without any kind of coercion is a sacred right. Add to that the dismal record of our Bishops in the sex-abuse scandal and any kind of credibility they may have had is diminished. Do the Bishops really want to take on a President Obama on abortion related issues and reduce their relevance even more?

Catholic Theologian, Richard McBrien, in an October 27 column in the National Catholic Reporter makes some important points. First of all, he emphasizes that the official teaching of the Catholic Church is not in question. He goes on to make clear that the position of the Bishops has not varied. The Church can and will in no way endorse any candidate for President of the United States or any other position. Furthermore, no bishop is to speak in opposition to a candidate, since that is in effect a form of endorsement. These points have been made in writing in a number of documents. A Catholic, as McBrien noted, had every right to vote for either presidential candidate.

Why then do we hear a growing number of clerical voices raised against pro-choice candidates, and so few voices raised to challenge these Bishops? It really is a matter of politics. The pro-life voices are very loud, and no Bishop seems to want to speak against them. There is a strong pro-life lay faction in the Church that is demanding stronger and stronger action against any one considered out of step with the pro-life aganda. This is not about church doctrine. It is about strong arm tactics to promote a point of view and running rough shod over anyone else who might have even a slightly different perspective.

I read with sadness many of the responses to Dr. McBrien's column in NCR. The narrow, single issue point of view is destructive to the Church and our country. The notion that overturning Roe v Wade, which is not Church doctrine by the way, is more important than what happens to our economy and working Americans, the lives of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, is disturbing. The Church needs to come to grips with some of these issues. The Bishops need to demonstrate enough courage to put forth a balanced, nuanced approach to this issue, that remembers that people of goodwill may differ, and deserve to be heard as well.

The Church is better than the rhetoric we are hearing and its high time some leadership develops that leads us away from the brink. Of course the Church should continue to speak out on its legitimate positions in this area. I don't believe demonizing anyone who may disagree even marginally is the right thing to to do. Just because some religious and lay leaders from various faith traditions have decided to demagogue this issue, does not mean that should be the position of the Catholic Bishops of this country. Perhaps the election results will convice Bishops that they may be hurting their cause more than helping it, and becoming more intransigent may just isolate them further from the communinty they seek to influence.

President Obama

I had been a strong supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton for president. First of all, I liked her and felt she would be a very good if not great President. Additionally, I also felt that the notion of this country electing an African American President was just not a realistic one at this point in time. I was not alone in that belief. It should not be forgotten that African Americans also strongly supported Hillary Clinton, because they too had difficulty seeing Senator Obama as a serious candidate. It was not until Obama won in Iowa, a predominately white state, that African Americans began to believe that white America would actually vote for a black man for president.

There can be no doubt that this election represents a very historic moment in American History. Those of us who lived through the Civil Rights Movement are overwhelmed at where we are in this country today. The vivid scenes of peaceful demonstrators being attacked on our television screens each evening remain very much with us. Being a part of school integration, and then watching as very quickly schools essentially became resegregated and stayed that way did not give one much reason to hope. Yet America really has changed. Is there still racism and discrimination in our country? Of course. Are there blocks of voters out there who would never consider voting for a black man for president? Absolutely. But the undeniable truth is that the percentage of such people was simply not large enough to change the outcome of this election. President-elect Obama received about 44% of the white vote, which is actually more white votes than Bill Clinton ever received. It is also true that white voters no longer represent as significant a prpoportion of the electorate as in the past. African American and Hispanic voters voted in large numbers for Obama.

As historic as this election has been, it is interesting to note that young voters don't have the same perspective about the magnitude of the event as older voters. Two thirds of voters under 30 supported Obama. These young voters, however, whether they were black, white, hispanic, etc. did not factor race into the equation to any extent. They latched on to a young, intelligent, competent candidate with a good program, and they voted for him. In that sense I think their attitude is 'what's the big deal', he was the best candidate and he won.

Where do we go from here? The election of any new president brings a period of good will, and I believe even most Republicans understand the logic of what happened in this election and are prepared to meet the new president half-way. The challenges are enormous and patience is the name of the game. I believe it is critical for President-elect Obama to put together a truly bi-partisan administration with not just a token cabinet member. I believe all Americans are filled with hope, and certainly prayer will be important as well. Our hope, however, has to be based on the quality of the people called to serve in the administration, and the leadership a President Obama can deliver to move effectively, however gradually, to address the severe problems we face in the economy and in foreign affairs.

In terms of race relations in America, the encouraging thing we have seen is that our young people really are moving beyond race and want to live and work together in a more perfect world. As Ambassador Andrew Young put it, he still has the scars of his long struggle that he can't fully put aside, but Senator Obama does not have these same scars which made it possible for him to be a post racial candidate. All Americans now, young, old, black, white, and others need to join in that post racial world and maybe we will have gotten to the promised land of Martin Luther King and can begin to sit down at that table of brotherhood where all God's children can be free. No we have not arrived at Utopia, but maybe we can have the audacity to hope.

Word Games

For Democrats the code word has always been Social Security. Mention of this word is designed to send fear into older voters that Republicans will damage their future security. The Republican refrain of tax and spend liberal has been equally powerful in destroying many a Democratic candidacy. It matters not if these words have any true validity in a particular case, their power comes simply from using the word.

This campaign, however, has worked overtime at promoting words with little or no substance behind them. The McCain campaign has resorted to name calling with almost daily escalation of the words used to describe Barack Obama. We have heard he's going to raise your taxes, despite anything Obama has said to discount that charge. We are hearing free floating charges of liberal, escalating to socialist, and even Marxist or communist. We know these words have negative connotations, so accusing a candidate of such a connection may be enough to defeat him. Senator Obama used the phrase spread the wealth around, so he must be a Socialist. Of course, there is no reference to the redistribution of wealth to the top that has been going on under the current administration. A campaign lacking substance is beneath John McCain and the Republicans, but it seems to be par for the course in a losing campaign.

Why do these empty words work so well? According to Jon Meacham in an excellent Newsweek article in the October 27th issue, it may be because the United States continues to be a conservative country. The words resonate because compared to Europe we are more religious, more socially conservative, and our libertarian streak makes us averse to taxes and government programs. The point of Meacham's article is that even if Obama wins he would do well to govern from the center or center right, or his presidency will be brief.

There is much truth to Meacham's article, especially if the comparison is to Europe. We have had different experiences. The great war did not have the same effects here as it did in Europe. The social issues of gun control, abortion, and gay marriage have hit a responsive chord among many Americans. Yet, as Jonathan Alter's opposing viewpoint in Newsweek points out the country is changing. Most importantly these changes are being seen among the young, which suggests that changes will continue especially on social issues. Additionally, if nothing else, Americans try to be abundantly fair. This is why we have seen over time significant changes in civil rights for minorities, women, and gays. Eventually Americans change because they see it as the right thing to do, and that it is simply required by what our country stands for - freedom for all, not just some. Even when it comes to tax policy at some point the question beomes are we really being fair to all, if our tax policy is designed only as pro-business. Most would agree with Senator Obama that the middle-class deserves a tax break.

It is also worth noting in response to Jon Meacham's article, that the Democratic presidencies he cites as over reaching can also be interpreted differently. For instance, Lyndon Johnson lost not because of resistance to the great society, but because of Vietnam. Jimmy Carter's failure resulted from the Iran hostage crisis, not his liberal policies. Finally, Bill Clinton was reelected despite the scandals of his administration, because people liked his center-left policies. Democrats were even supported in 1998 over impeachment happy Republicans.

But ultimately, I think the problem may be that the wrong question is being asked. Fundamentally, the issue of whether the country is liberal or conservative is the wrong one. The circumstances of the 2008 election have demonstrated that Americans are basically neither conservative nor liberal but pragmatic. They want their government to work. Whether a policy is liberal or conservative matters not if it will get the job done. Congress had so much trouble with the so-called rescue plan on ideological grounds. People were amazed. Their only interest was, would it work. If it qualifies as socialist, but rescues a failed economy, it really doesn't matter. I believe Americans have looked at Katrina, failed policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on other foreign issues, as well as the serious financial crisis, and see their government as being broken. They want it fixed, and will take a chance on anyone who is willing to try some new strategies. After all it fits in with our adventurous spirit, and it looks like we are about to begin an exciting new adventure on Tuesday.