Abortion Politics (4th in a series of Church related articles)

I did not intend to write another article on abortion. It is so difficult to write about this topic since no one wants to talk about abortion. Most people interested in this subject simply want and expect everyone to act and think the way they do. I have had many Catholic progressives tell me that I can talk about almost anything, as long as I don't even get close to the topic of abortion. Unfortunately, it seems to me that abortion turns out to be the whole ball of wax. If there can be no discussion on this topic, then we have already ceded the operation of the Church to the more and more conservative American heirarchy. We are saying that they can call the shots. We are deferring to their authority which was in fact the subject of my last blog entry.

I am also forced to broach this topic at this time because of the Bishop's current involvement in the struggle over health care. I have heard many progressives agonize over the involvement of the bishops. These honest souls wonder if they are being hypocritical by wanting the Church involved in social justice issues and issues of war and peace, but are uncomfortable with church involvement on this issue. Let me explain my position as clearly as I know how to both progressives and the conservative bishops.

Catholic theology has always been known for its ability to make distinctions. Scholastic philosophy as espoused by Thomas Aquinas carefully makes important distinctions in its understanding of moral and dogmatic issues. Our Bishops are ignoring that heritage and plowing ahead, obfuscating issues as it suits their purpose. Perhaps they are just plain ignorant of Catholic theology, or perhaps they are just determined to have their way even if it represents faulty thinking. They are advocating for their position, but they are misrepresenting Catholic teaching. Let's explore the distinction between doctrine and politics or legislation.

Current Catholic teaching on abortion is quite clear and has not changed during my lifetime. Some like to point out that church teaching on abortion has not always been what it is now. That is interesting, but I don't think it is that relevant to the situation today. The Church clearly teaches that abortion is always wrong, even to save the life of the mother. That's pretty unequivocal and leaves essentially no wiggle room.

The politics and the legislative issues involved in the abortion debate, however, are another matter altogether. Let's just start with the obvious. No bill that I know of that is part of the bishop's political agenda bans abortion even if the life of the mother is in danger. Just on that one point we see that there is wiggle room in the legislative area. If that is so, can one say for example, that if you believe that legislation should also have an exception for the health of the mother, that you can be denied communion? The Bishops are treading on very thin ground when the issue is politics and legislation. While the Church can state what it believes about faith and moral issues and expect assent, it is another matter to say what legislation in these areas should look like. That is and should be the role of politicians and the consensus of the community.

Yet, it is precisely the legislative arena where the battle of abortion is being fought. The current amendment the American Bishops are demanding be included in the health care bill includes exceptions for rape and incest as well as to save the life of the mother. That does not represent Catholic moral teaching that we have just enunciated. Clearly, moral teaching and legislation are two different things. Bishops can insist on moral teaching, they cannot demand adherence to a specific legislative approach.

You might say that the Church and Church leaders have every right to engage in the political arena, and I would basically agree with that position. Those Catholics who recall Church involvement in Civil Rights and other social justice issues are instinctively correct when they are uncomfortable with saying the Church should stay out of politics. The problem, however, is that if you are going to play politics in this country you have to play by certain rules. The Church has every right to lobby for its position as does every other person and group in this country. They must recognize, however, that once they enter that realm they are functioning as any other group. They have a right to be heard, but they have no right to impose their will on the community, or leverage their power to get what they want. Their legislative position represents just one possible approach to dealing with a complex problem. Do they need to be reminded that everyone in this country is not Catholic and does not accept or need to accept whatever position the Church puts forward? To expect every Catholic legislator to adopt the Church's legislative position in every instance negates entirely the role of legislator. People make such decisions for various reasons, and religious beliefs is only one of those reasons.

The notion that Church leaders can blackmail Catholics or Catholic politicians to fall in line with their political agenda bespeaks the old ways of Catholic Europe. In Ireland or Italy or other such countries the Church may have been able to force its will on the politicians, but this is not Europe. Even in Europe their power is waning. No one can prevent a bishop from denying communion to a politician or telling his flock that they will be guilty of serious sin if they support particular legislation. Bishops may be able to do that. But they will also be wrong. Legislation goes through a process of compromise and determining what is possible. It represents the recognition of all points of view within a pluralistic society. Politicians have to develop legislation that meets the needs of all peoples.

Again the Church can push for any legislation it deems appropriate, but politicians, Catholic or not, must exercise their consiences and their political skills to craft legislation for all. No bishop can or should attempt to compell a politician to take the bishop's legislative lead. In doing so the Bishops seek to kill the whole idea of a marketplace of ideas for forging consensus. This is a democracy, so I say to the bishops, back off. Even if you win any temporary victories, over time you will have done harm to yourselves and the Church. You will have further damaged your credibility and lessened any meaningful influence you might have on the community at large.

Authority in the Church (3rd in a series of Church related issues)

Authority or the defiance of authority is certainly a favorite topic of mine. I could write volumes on this particular topic. Suffice it to say, I don't have much use for authority. So if this article seems somewhat biased and anti-authority, it's probably because it is. Oh, I'm sure there is a legitimate role for authority figures, I just haven't figured out yet what it might be. I do know that during my years in the seminary I was taught that the very worst argument one can use to prove your point is an argument from authority, eg. 'the bishops said'. I heartily concur.

The Church is a heirarchical institution and would appear to have a legitimate claim to exercise authority through the episcopate. The New Testament certainly references 'episkopoi' or bishops who seem to legitimately exercise authority. Yet it is also clear that this authority was not absolute. The Apostle Paul had no trouble rebuking Peter, ostensibly the first Pope, and even prevailing in his arguments about the Church's mission to the gentiles.

While in general someone needs to be in charge in any institution, the Church also manifests a very egalitarian structure at the New Testament level. From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that all goods were held in common among early Christian communities. Paul speaks of various charisms within the community, so that each member was valued and had something to offer. The Second Vatican Council stressed concepts of collegiality and the Church as the People of God, ie. the Church being not just the Bishops and heirarchy, but all of us being Church. A lot of bishops today would like to pretend these concepts don't exist, but just because a Bishop may have the power to refuse communion to members of the people of God does not mean this is not an abuse of power.

Church leadership in recent years has incrasingly been guilty of abuse of power. Abuse of power is a serious offense because of the imbalance between the heirarchy and those of us in the pews. We often hear that the Church is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorial repressive regime. Bishops are expected to exercise pastoral leadership. There are clearly some Bishops who need to ask the question as to whether their actions are truly representative of the way Jesus would exercise leadership.

Even conservatives don't practice or subscribe to blind obedience. We know that many feel free to ignore the Church's position on capital punishment or its current understanding of the just war theory. The social justice teachings of the Church are similarly ignored. I know a very active member of the Church whose religious philosophy is to the right of Archbishop Burke, the former head of the St. Louis Archdiocese, but she certainly doesn't follow a conventional philosophy of blind obedience. She actually delights in challenging priests and even Bishops if she does not believe in the rightness of what they are doing. Is it only progressives who must blindly adhere to their religious superiors? It certainly makes life easier if everybody simply follows the leader. it is unquestionably a much messier Church if we actually are expected to listen to each other, but it does have the advantage of valuing all its members. Pray pay and obey is just not good enough. Church leaders need to be challenged in every aspect of church governance.

The Church is not the only organization that emphasizes the need for strong discipline. The military and the FBI would be two examples. In fact years ago the FBI actively sought ex-seminarians to enter the bureau because they knew their training in discipline and obedience were similar to that of the bureau. And isn't that the point? Does the Church really see itself as a military organization? Even soldiers have had to learn that they can be liable for following unjust orders. The notion that personal consience and thought should cease with the publication of Humani Generis or the Pope announcing that there can be no further discussion on women priests or mandatory celibacy flies in the face of the world we live in. It might make life easier, but church leaders are going to have to recognize that ideas come from throughout the Church. Lay people are part of the Church too, and as an educated community have a stake in the future of the church.

Primacy of consience is actually a Catholic tradition embedded in the documents of Vatican II. The Declaration on Religious Liberty adopted from the writings of American theologian John Courtney Murray attests to a Catholic's obligation to follow his or her individual consience. Why then are Bishops denouncing individual Catholics for doing so? Again, church leaders would like to pretend that this is not part of the legacy of the Church but it is. The Church has made clear that you must follow your own consience. That consience is to be formed by Church teaching, but that does not mean that a Bishop can say that if your consience disagrees with Church teaching that it is a faulty consience. As Americans living in a pluralistic society we have a point of view that is sometimes not shared by Rome. Maybe it is Rome that needs to listen to us, just as they did at Vatican II. America has something to offer the Universal Church, even if Rome has determined to dilute American thought by appointing Bishops in this country who are sworn to do Rome's bidding in all things.

As in any strong organization, those with power hold the cards. If Church leaders want to be repressive they can. They can stifle the faithful, punish politicians and others. Lay people and simple clerics are at their mercy. Rome and the bishops can continue to move the Church down a dismal path until finally the spirit moves them and change comes to the Church as it did with Vatican II. This is precisely why I said at the beginning that abuse of power is such a serious sin. By its very nature it implies that there is really nothing a victim can do about it. The victim of abuse, as in the sexual abuse crisis is at the mercy of the one exercising power. That is why he who has the power has the greater sin. But this too shall pass.

Gay Rights and the Church (Second in a series of articles on Church Related Issues)

Several years ago the Vatican published its new chatechism for the Catholic Church. In very clear language the chatechism stated what the Church believes about homosexuality. There was nothing new in the document, but anyone who was hoping for some easing of the prohibition on homosexuality was likely disappointed.

Nevertheless, the doctrine itself remains pretty strange. Sexual orientation is not considered by the Church to be something that one can change, and therefore being gay is not a sin. There is just one problem. It is OK to be gay, but it is not OK to have sex. You can be gay as long as you don't do anything about it.

As strange as this formulation may seem, if you know anything about the history of the Church and sex, you would not be particularly surprised. Again, simply put, the Church is not exactly fond of sex. An early church understanding of marriage was not far different. It essentially said it was OK to be married, but it would be better if the couple refrained from sex. Finally, if sex had to occur then one should not enjoy it. One thing that hasn't changed is that marriage is all about having kids, so that if you're not having kids sex is basically unacceptable. The very notion of celibacy being somehow a higher charism than marriage suggests that sex is at best tolerated in the Catholic Church.

At any rate, my concern, is that after the Church reaffirmed its stance towards homosexuality it has done nothing to value those who are in fact gay. It seems to me that doctrinal reaffirmation freed the Church to treat homosexuals as real people and to be advocates for assuring that their rights as members of the community are protected. Since no one can doubt what the Church believes about homosexuality, nobody can confuse compassion and justice with approval of homosexual behavior on the part of the Church. Unfortunately, the Church too often has taken the side of those who would deny the gay community basic rights. In a current struggle over gay marriage in Washington D.C. the Church has said it will quit providing social services to the DC community if they don't get their way on pending legislation. This is Christianity at work?

Granted that sexual orientation is something one is born with, aren't these poeople of God entitled to the same rights as all other members of the community? How can the Church that steadfastly proclaims the worth, value and dignity of every individual stand by and in many cases support those who attempt to discriminate against gays in behavior and in legislation? Leave aside the issue of gay marriage for the moment. We are talking about civil rights in employment and housing, and freedom from hate crimes and violence. At what point does the Church stand up for the rights of this minority group to be treated as human beings?

The Catholic Church in the United States played a significant and positive role in the Civil Rights struggle of the 60's. The time has come once again for the Church to speak out about the treatment of members of the gay community. The need for this stance is particularly important when one considers how many members of the Church community are also gay. Gay Catholics represent the Church in positions of leadership both clerical and lay. If the history of the Church could be written or even known about in this regard there is little doubt it would be an eye opener not only as to the number of significant church personnel who are gay, but also as to the number of valuable contributions these gay members of the community have made to the life of the Church over the years.

Now let us take a look at the issue of gay marriage for a moment. Obviously the Church is not likely to approve of gay marriage any time soon, but I think there are some legitimate issues that ought to be considered. I myself have believed along with many others that marriage is between a man and a woman, and while I would support equal rights for gays in everything but marriage, I could not support gay marriage itself. Recently I have taken another look at this issue, and one organization that has caused me to rethink this issue is the Interfaith Alliance led by Dr. Welton Gaddy. Consider that marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. Marriage is a contract that is regulated by the state, and thus subject to the laws of the state. A couple of any or no religious persuasion can go down to the court house and enter into this contract and it will be recognized throughout the community. The Church on the other hand considers marriage a sacrament and makes decisions about who they will marry within their community. They set the requirements, regulations, and the norms for entering into a marriage within their community. The Church should not be infringed upon in this matter, nor should the state be infringed upon in regulating civil marriages. No Church is being asked or should be asked to recognize a gay marriage. However, the state makes norms for all citizens not just those of one or another religious persuasion.

One can disagree as to whether the state should permit civil gay marriages to occur. Yet the beliefs of a particular religious organization are not sufficient for denying the state authority to make rules in this regard. In fact, one must consider that there are indeed churches and religious groups that are more than willing to bless and approve gay relationships. What religion is the state to follow? Isn't that what separation of Church and state is all about? Finally there is another consideration. Our country has gone the route of separate but equal once before and found it wanting. It did not provide equal facilities, and it continued the legacy of segregation and discrimination. Even domestic partnerships do not provide all of the rights of marriage so in that sense they do not provide gay couples equal rights.

Although we can be all but certain that the Church will not change its position on gay marriage in the forseeable future, there are still some things it really needs to do. It needs to become an open advocate for the legitimate rights of all human beings including our gay citizens. Its doctrine speaks loudly and clearly, but what about its doctrine of love, compassion, and care for all the people of God. The Church should stand strongly against those who feel they can do harm to gays with impunity. Just as the Church has stood forcefully for illegal immigrants in our midst they also need to champion the needs of all the oppressed including those in the gay community. Finally, the Church needs to at least recognize that marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. If the state should recognize gay marriages, it in no way impinges or undermines the Church's own norms for recognizing marriages within its institution.

The Anglican Rite in the Catholic Church

Surprise! There is still life at the Vatican. The institutional Church is still breathing. Someone in Rome continues to actually think. While one would not consider the Church to have suddenly become a dynamic organism, at least there appears to be a flicker of life. The latest word from the Vatican on receiving Anglican communities into the Church represents potentially the most significant move in the life of the Church since Pope John XXIII flew open the windows of the Vatican and called for the Second Vatican Council.

Let me hasten to add lest there be any confusion, the new move also points to several negative issues. The Vatican's actions raise major concerns which will be addressed in some detail below. Yet in terms of what it could portend for the future it cannot be dismissed out of hand.

While we know very little about the details of this latest Vatican move, we do know that it creates a new structure within the Church. It is of course not really a new rite like one of the uniate eastern rite churches. Instead it is known as an ordinariate, akin to the military ordinariate which serves all of our men and women in the armed services. Anglicans interested in joining the Catholic Church will be able to join as it were en masse. They can retain their liturgy, customs, and probably even their heirarchy. The ordinariate to be established will be separate from our current diocesan structure. It will have its own leadership and will not report to any diocesan bishop. Married Episcopal clergy can continue serving as priests in this new ordinariate.

We are of course still waiting for the Apostolic Constitution which is a papal document that will provide the details of how this ordinariate will operate. There is little doubt that the Vatican will attempt to make the structure as narrow as possible so as not to engender more change to the Roman Rite than it intends. However, even if they are successful in doing so initially, it is likely that changes will occur over time, and the ordinariate structure offers within itself the possibility of some intriguing developments.

Certainly, a major issue for the Church here has to be that of a married clergy. We know that the history of the Church has included a married clergy during much of its 2000 year history. Less known is that the Church currently has married priests. There are Eastern Rite communities in union with Rome that have and have always had married clergy. There are also about 200 former Episcopalian and Lutheran clergy who have been accepted into the Roman Catholic Church in this country and are serving as married clergy today. If indeed there is an influx of Anglican communities in this country and other countries who operate with an existing married clergy it will represent a major change in the operation of the Church. Only time can tell what it means. At a minimum, however, it will provide a place for priests who want to get married to continue their priesthood while remaining faithful to the Church. There could be added pressure if there were significant numbers of priests who wanted to join the new church structure. It could provide an opening to more married priests even within the Roman Rite.

Additionally, it is possible that entire parishes within the Roman Rite might prefer the Anglican or Episcopal tradition and choose to affiliate with an Anglican community. It actually provides the opportunity for some of the diversity I have been speaking about in earlier blogs. Movement between the Roman Rite and this new ordinariate could provide choices that would make it possible for Catholic and Episcopal communities to adapt religious and liturgical practices to fit the worshipping needs of their community. While it is certainly not simple, you could almost choose what liturgical tradition you wanted to join. Those who prefer a return to a Mass closer to the traditional Latin Mass might be able to do that while allowing other catholic communities the option of maintaining and even updating further the Mass as it is currently offered in Churches around the country.

Let's take a look at some of the real negatives to what Rome has decided to do. These negatives exist both within and outside the Church. From within the Church one has to ask why we can reward outsiders with special privleges and yet have nothing to offer our own people. Marriage is permitted for clergy coming into the Church, but our own clergy, some of whom have served the Church faithfully for many years, are not permitted any options and are cast aside and turned away if they have chosen to enter the married state.

Of even greater concern is what it tells us about how the institutional church continues to operate. The Church essentially snubs its nose at the Anglican community and its leadership and provides a haven for any disaffected members. It has basically set out to raid another denomination. Specifically, the Anglican community is a denomination with which Rome has carried out good faith ecumenical dialogue seeking greater understanding and unity. Never mind what this recent decision means for the larger goal of working together as fellow Christians to respect and encourage one another in the faith. It is also striking that the Church found no way to help protect young boys from being molested by its own clergy, but when it came to gathering new converts and perhaps additional resources, church buildings etc, suddenly the Vatican was able to find creative and progressive means to enable something in its own self interest to proceed. Even worse it appears that communities are being rewarded specifically because of their stance on gay marriage and women priests. Trampling on the civil rights of others is not a particularly good way to enhance one's own image of a community of the Gospel.

On balance then this move by Rome is a difficult one to characterize. It is troubling to see the Church move in opportunistic fashion to lay claim to members of a collegial community. Boldly intruding on the internal matters of an ecclesial group with which we have developed cooperative relationships seems shameful in the extreme. It also reflects that continuing clerical imperialism that lets one know that the Church need not abide by what might be considered ordinary rules of decorum and courtesy. Yet, perhaps this may be a case out of which good may come from evil. While we await the details of the new structure, it seems likely that in one way or another the Church may have embarked on a course that will significantly alter its celibate clergy whether that was its original intention or not.

Women in the Church (First in A Series of Blog Entries on Church Related Issues)

A number of reports are currently surfacing on the status of women and American Society. Time magazine's current cover story and Maria Shriver's report for the Center for American Progress are two examples. I wanted to focus more specifically on where women stand within the Roman Catholic religious tradition.

Women religious have always had an active and influential role in the Church. Most of us older Catholics were taught by the nuns at some point in our lives. We often made fun of them and stories abound about how they rapped students' knuckles with rulers etc. Still there is no question that they had enormous influence in the development of generations of Catholics. Despite their efforts they have been undervalued - typically doing much of the work, but not considered when decisions needed to be made. Nuns always defer to the priest, because what would a woman know anyway. When it came to decision making, policy issues, or religious doctrine, women in the Church simply haven't mattered.

I must confess that in my mind there are also some negatives in giving women a greater role in Church leadership. Women in the Church have tended to promote some of the more excessive devotions bordering on superstition such as novenas, first Friday and First Saturday devotions. Many have also latched on to a rigid anti-abortion stance that leaves no room for accepting the fact that other people of good will may have a different view. Yet women in leadership in the Church have demonstrated wisdom, competence as well as many valuable virtues that some would consider feminine. These virtues which are often missing from our male dominated clergy and could provide a valuable counter balance to the operation of our Church might include gentleness, nurturing, compassion, and more open-mindedness.

Women in the United States continue to have many challenges as is pointed out in the reports on women that are currently emerging. Yet there can be no question that the status of women in our country is at a different place than exists in many other countries in the world including many western countries. Women in the US have achieved a level of equality and acceptance that is probably unique. The vast majority of Americans including men now believe that women can do essentially anything men can do and have a right to do it. Basically, it is discrimination pure and simple to say that women are not permitted to exercise certain functions. The denial of priesthood to women is essentially unamerican.

According to Time's "What Women want Now" almost 40% 0f women in the US are now the primary bread winners in the family. Eight in 10 respondents say that mothers are just as productive at work as fathers or childless workers. Husbands and wives negotiate family policies as to who does what to keep the family going according to 84% of those polled. Women serve as financial planners in 64% of homes, and as family accountants in 71% of families. Women also make 75% of the buying decisions. Again, women are clearly in a different place in American society than just about any other country. and what might be customary in other parts of the world does not work for American society. We need a church that is sensitive to the needs of women and the entire Catholic community in the US right now. John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter often cites the universality of the Church as a major reason why what Americans want cannot be the norm for Church action. It is time, however, for the US church to quit being denied what it needs to satisfy what might work for other countries in other parts of the world.

Biblical arguments are of course put forward as to why women cannot be ordained priests. A look at scripture tells us that womens' heads should be covered in church. It tells us that women should be obedient to their husbands. Clearly neither of these edicts of Paul are in effect today, and almost all would agree that these kinds of statements are conditioned by the mores of the time in which they were writtten. The notion that we should be held to such standards makes little sense.

The main argument put forward to rule out women priests is that all the Apostles were men. The tradition of the Church rules out the ordination of women. Yet there is clear evidence that women at least served as deacons in the early church, as well as in other positions of authority. Some scholars would go further and put forth evidence of female priests. The truth is it doesn't matter. There is nothing in the new testament that prohibits the ordination of women and the time has come. If Mary can be the Mother of God, surely a woman can preside at the Eucharist. The only impediment really is a 'good old boys network' in Rome who are set in their ways, don't understand societal changes and just like things the way they are - that's not good enough.

To be fair, women certainly have grown in stature in our Church particularly in our country. We do have female theologians, we even have female parish administrators, directors of religious education etc. But if there ever was a glass ceiling it exists in the Church. We are told the Church can't move cause much of the world is not ready for a greater role for women. Yet why should the western world, especially the United States, be prohibited from fulfilling its spiritual needs because others are not ready? We need more diversity in our Church and if countries make different choices why is that a problem?

So what happens now? The times cry out for change. The ranks of the clergy are thinning and are not being replenished with enough young priests. More and more often the faithful will be without access to the sacraments due to a lack of priests. The ongoing sex abuse crisis demands seeking alternatives to the current system.

Many Church issues are interrelated. What prevents us from moving ahead on women's issues is often embedded in church structure. The way decisions are made impacts our ability to make progress. No matter what large percentages of clergy and laity alike in Des Moines might feel, not only are they unempowered to make decisions regarding their needs, there is no forum for them to even voice their concerns. In fact if they should express their concerns, they may well be punished for having the temerity to speak up. That is why I wish to work on a series of articles on church related issues to illustrate how they are interelated and demand forceful action on the part of the Church, meaning Church as the people of God.

Our Neighbor to the North

It seems a good time to share some reflections from my recent trip to Canada. First of all, the major issues of the day all seem to be in transition. Although pundits are more than willing to declare failure on everything from health care to Afghanistan, the reality is that the verdict is out and will remain so until these issues play themselves out over time. Also it was a very special trip that deserves some space on this blog.

My wife and I just spent the better part of two weeks driving around eastern Canada. Our visit included Montreal, Quebec, Ottawa, and a ski resort in central Ontario. I might add that though we did no skiing we were able to see the beautiful countryside via their ski lift. The fall foilage was splendid, the people were extremely friendly, and the visit offered an opportunity to explore some interesting aspects of our neighbor to the north.

One interesting note is that the headline the day we arrived in Canada was about Roman Catholic Bishop Raymond Lahey of Nova Scotia, who had been arrested in Ottowa for having been found with pornography on his laptop computer. It turns out that Bishop Lahey had just recently been involved in negotiating a sex abuse settlement with a former altar boy in his diocese. Catholics appeared to be outraged, in some cases pointing out that celibacy hsd never worked, is not natural, and mandatory celibacy should be ended. Catholic Bishops for their part seemed to be saying that the answer is simply to ordain holier men to the priesthood.

I thought this story illustrated a couple of important points. It is not only the United States that has such problems, though perhaps our free press tends to give more extensive coverage to such stories. Human nature doesn't really change from place to place, and the Church still doesn't get it. Business as usual continues to be the heirarchical mantra, but this approach will catch up to the Church at some point.

My second reflection has as its focus relationships or interactions between French Canadians and those who speak only English. Many, including those in Ontario, told us that people in Quebec either do not want to or are unable to speak English, and with no knowledge of French we would have difficulty there. This proved not to be true. Everyone we spoke to in Quebec was most polite and helpful. Everyone spoke English to us as soon as they realized we did not know French. Upon discussion one person did tell us they have to speak English on their job, perhaps suggesting some reluctance on her part, but she was fluent in English and was very pleasant in our interactions.

What was interesting was that a number of people we spoke to in Ottawa had never been to French Canada and seemed to have little interest in going there, almost as if it was a separate country and they were quite happy where they were. On the other hand, a number of people in Quebec who spoke English told us they had gone to the Toronto area to study and learn their English. Admittedly these are very superficial observations on the topic but it does seem like the relationships involved are somewhat intriguing and it would be interesting to know more.

Finally, we also had a few, though certainly incomplete conversations regarding health care. Basically, there was clearly an acknowledgement of the fact that the taxes in Canada were considerably higher than here. I did not get the impression that anyone was particularly happy with that fact. Many said they would come to the "states" to make certain purchases. At the same time everyone seemed to accept their health care system as necessary and an important part of their lives. They receive their medical card at birth, and it seems it is pretty much impossible for them to conceive of their lives without this health care coverage. Many wondered how folks can survive without coverage in this country, for example, wondering what would happen to a young girl who is pregnant and had no insurance. For my part I can only say that I had an encounter with their health care system while on my trip and found all the health care officials who treated me to be kind, efficient, and competent.

The bottom line is that I just completed a truly memorable vacation in Canada. I have just touched the surface on a number of intriguing issues, but I would certainly be pleased to pursue any of them in much greater depth. In any case, our trip exceeded all expectations and I have nothing, nor do I have any desire to say anything bad about our neighbor to the north.

Politics and Education

On Wednesday, September 23, the Baltimore Sun reported the results of the recent Maryland High School Assessment Tests that are now required for graduation. It turns out that out of a graduating class of 62,000 students only 11 students were denied graduation because of the High School Assessments. In Baltimore City where everyone feared large numbers of students would fail to graduate, not a single student was denied graduation due to these tests. A few thousand students across the state completed special graduation projects in lieu of the tests, and some were given waivers or special certificates rather than actual diplomas. Still, it is clear that students in the state of Maryland were impressively successful in negotiating Maryland's High School Assesssments (HSA's)

Maryland introduced these HSA's several years ago. Passing rates were quite low with Baltimore City in particular having huge failure rates. The State of Maryland wanted to require these tests for graduation, but the requirement was delayed for a number of years because of fears that large numbers of students would fail to graduate and parents would be outraged. There was also concern about what it would mean if large numbers of students lacking high school diplomas were dumped on society.

So it seems that everyone would now be happy. Students have been successful in passing the tests, and parents have been able to enjoy seeing their beaming children walk across the stage. Apparently that is not the case. The high pass rate has generated a huge controversy throughout the state. The test must be too easy. The tests must be made more rigorous. Even the Baltimore Sun is already opining that more difficult questions need to be included on the exam.

The HSA's test minimum skills in English, Algebra, Government, and Biology. They are not college entrance exams. They attempt to prevent the awarding of a diploma to students who lack the most basic skills that society believes students should have to be considered a high school graduate. By and large the idea is to assure local employers that if they hire one of our graduates, they are hiring a young person who has the basic english and math skills an employer would expect of a new hire.

The history of such tests illustrates some of the problems that are inherent in this kind of endeavor. Baltimore City was a leader in the development of minimal requirements which began with proficiency tests in the early 1970's. The state of Maryland copied and subsumed Baltimore's tests into functional reding and math tests some years later. In every case history has repeated itself. Initially large numbers failed the tests and over time it became a routine activity that students negotiated successfully in one way or another. This is an extremely important point, but no one seems interested in focusing on it. The pattern keeps repeating itself, but what does it mean.

Are teachers teaching to the test? Are students over time getting used to the expectations of a particular test? Is there actually improved instruction and learning going on? What have we really learned and gained by introducing such a requirement?

The answer to the first two questions is a qualified yes. Teachers are not teaching the questions and answers that students will see on the actual tests themselves. They are however, pursuing a curriculum that focuses heavily on the kinds of information that will be covered on these tests. In many cases their jobs or their tenure depends on making sure that their students are successful. Repetition is also a significant aid to improvement on such exams. We even recommend that students take the college entrance exams several times as a way of improving their scores. So the fact that scores and pass rates improve over time should not be a surprise to anyone.

Are students really learning more? There is not a lot of evidence that this is the case. The problem with focusing so heavily on the content of the tests is that other areas of instruction are likely neglected. If the goal is to ensure that students know the material that is included on a particular exam then perhaps this may be a good way of achieving that goal. The real test may be how students perform in other circumstances apart from the HSA. Do they know the information on the exams only to successfully answer exam questions, or can they use this information in other settings?

Ome of the major difficulties is that everyone has their own expectations for these tests. It may be a good idea to be able to certify that students exiting our secondary schools have attained basic specific knowledge in certain high school subjects. The problem is that school officials, politicians, and the community want so much more. An urban school superintendent wants to demonstrate that his program is creating dramatic improvements in student learning. Politicians want voters to believe they have found a way to fix ongoing problems with our schools. We want to be able to point to a marker that shows how much better our schools have become. Parents want to be able to see and say that their child is developing well.

As with Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon we want all our children to be above average. Neither this exam nor any other is able to provide such information or all the other kinds of results we seek. We have forgotten the reality of what tests are designed to do, and the reality that different tests measure different aspects of the educational process. Perhaps if we could feel good about the fact that across the state are students are mastering important basic concepts, and if we continue to tweak the tests as needed to insure students know those things we feel are most important, we will then be able to move on to effectively confront other educational challenges not met by HSA's.

Liturgical Reform

The on-line edition of the National Catholic Reporter highlights reports of impending liturgical changes coming from the Vatican. Officials in Rome deny changes are coming and note that this is not the time for change considering that a new Missal is in process at this point. These denials seem to support the notion that changes are probably coming, but perhaps not for awhile. Some of the changes mentioned include an elimination of communion in the hand and having the priest turning around to face the wall. I wonder if Jesus turned his back to his apostles during the last supper.

Change that we know is definitely coming is a new missal which will go back to using more stilted English. Probably the most jarring for the people in the pews will be a return to the response of 'And with your spirit', when the priest says 'the Lord be with you'. Let me say here and now that I will continue to respond 'and with you' as I have been. Yes you heard it here. My big rebellion against the Church is in place. I can see the Vatican quaking in its boots already. Mind you, I won't be saying it loudly or holding up any signs, but let it be known that this is one Catholic who stands up for his beliefs.

Herein lies the problem with what are essentially ongoing reforms of the reform of the liturgy. None of the changes in themselves represent a big deal. To complain vociferously about any of these changes make one appear small and overly concerned about trivial issues when there are so many more important issues to contemplate. Such a reality makes it easy for the Vatican to little by little reverse the reforms that were put in place by the Second Vatican Council.

The truth is it really doesn't make much difference. When the new reforms were instituted in the 60's there was great optimism that the power of the liturgy would transform all of us into much better Catholics and Christians. There is little evidence of that. Traditionalists believe that making the liturgy more 'sacred' will instill greater reverence and thus holiness in the people of God. They too are wrong. I can assure you that I served many private Latin Masses for priests during my years in the seminary. Many of these Masses were completed in about 10 minutes. Prayers like the Gloria and the Creed were recited in seconds. It was precisely this kind of rote recitation of prayers not understood that led to the liturgical reforms in the first place.

The truth is, though we believe in "ex opere operato" (the power of the liturgy to be effective in itself) it actually has limited impact on parishoners regardless of its format. People in the pews do not easily connect with the Sunday worship so it is difficult to understand how separating them even more from what's going on will improve the situation. The only liturgies that I ever felt had a significant impact on the participants were very small group liturgies such as a family mass around the dining room table with a beloved priest presiding. Of course, such services would now be considered totally out of bounds.

As much as I hate to admit it though, I believe traditionalists are correct. In the forseeable future we will likely be returning to a eucharistic celebration much closer to the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass. Where I believe the traditionalists are mistaken, however, is in the belief that this return to something akin to the old Latin Mass will be any more permanent than the Vatican II changes. No doubt the reform of the reforms will stay in place for perhaps 50 to 100 years, but at some point people are going to insist on being more a part of their Sunday worship. Lectors, Eucharistic Ministers, altar girls and the like will be reinstituted.

The point that is being missed, just as it was during Vatican II, is that one size does not fit all. Just as some people love contemporary Masses and others find them terribly jarring, more variety needs to be provided. Our job as Church is to provide the kinds of worship that people can relate too. The availability of the Tridentine Mass in the Baltimore Archdiocese is a part of that. It might be instructive to note, however, that there has been no real clamor from the people to expand the latin mass offerings.

Finally, if people want more traditional devotions such as forty hours or perpetual adoration they should be available. I always loved 40 hour devotions growing up, even though it now seems to me to be pretty suspect from a theological perspective. There is no evidence Jesus instituted the Eucharist so that we could gaze at a jewel laden monstrance. But if people find meaning in such services there is no reason they shouldn't be available. More progressive forms of worship also need to be available. Again, as Church we need to provide for the worship needs of the entire community. At some point, I believe we will learn the importance of providing modalities by which all of us can best meet God and connect with our spiritual dimension. Clearly the robotic and perfunctory universal performance of poorly understood ritual cannot possibly meet the spiritual needs of all of today's Catholics.

Losing an Election

I know what it means to lose an election. I have a great deal of experience in that regard. My first vote for president was in 1964. I voted for Barry Goldwater. If you don't know who he is it may be because there never was a President Goldwater. In the ensuing years I voted for such household names as Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and my favorite, John Anderson. If you need to look him up check out the election of 1980. In fact in a total of 12 presidential contests I voted for exactly 3 successful presidential candidates.

For most people this is probably not a major catastrophe. Most of us fulfill our democratic duty and vote in presidential elections. We pay enough attention to choose the person we believe is the best candidate. If that candidate wins we are happy and if he loses we may be sad for a day or two. As my faithful Republican Dad always said, "No matter who wins, I will have to get up tomorrow and go to work". For a vocal and perhaps growing minority however, elections have begun to affect us at the very core of our existence.

For me, elections really began to matter in 1980. Everyone loved Ronald Reagan and he had certainly been one of my favorite movie actors. I was really troubled, however, by the direction of his administration. I simply could not understand why he appointed a Secretary of Labor who was aginst labor. Why did he choose an environmental leader who was anti-environment? Also, why was the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare seeking to abolish the office he led? President Reagan's policies seemed designed to hurt poor people and increase the gap in our country between rich and poor.

My point is that losing elections began to have an impact on who I was. I became disillusioned, depressed, began to question myself, and yes, became angry. I won't even begin to get into the Bush/Gore debacle of 2000. I might add that even though I voted for President Obama I was also disappointed for some time that my preferred candidate Hillary Clinton was defeated. What is important here is that I believe what is going on among the opponents of Barack Obama today is that they are having difficulty with losing the election.

Some of the almost bizarre actions and accusations coming from the anti-Obama forces reflect this inability to accept the election results. The absurdly contradictory cries of socialist, communist, and Nazi are relevant examples. The questions about Obama's birth certificate, as well as continued insistence on the existence of death panels in health care reform suggest such people are angry that their candidate lost. They have perhaps begun to believe that their candidate is entitled to victory and anything short of that is so unacceptable that it must be overturned.

We hear cries of secession and states refusing to accept any health care bill that may be enacted. Folks are buying guns and establishing new militias to protect themselves from 'something'. The incredulous outcry over the President speaking to school children suggests a refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Obama presidency. These erstwhile patriots seem to believe that allegiance to their country involves somehow destroying the President of that country. In the recent address to a joint session of congress we saw that these attitudes can emerge even from those who are supposed to be part of the government apparatus itself. The outburst from congressman Joe Wilson reflects this deep seated anger that could threaten even the veneer of civility needed to operate our government on a day to day basis.

I am not at all sure what solutions can be offered to end this stalemate. The fact that this group represents a rather small fraction of the electorate is not particularly helpful. In our modern technological society it is clear that a small fringe group can exercize inordinate power and dramatically impact the day's events. Yet I do believe it is time for the most extreme in this group to step back, reflect, and as patriots give some thought to the future of our country. As the President has said repeatedly, he will entertain thoughtful, serious proposals from anyone at any time. I recommend that we all dial back the rhetoric, force ourselves to put together cogent arguments for or against major issues, and attempt to influence the debate in ways that are appropriate to the democratic process. If it is not clear what might be appropriate, let me just say that bringing guns to rallies, and shouting down elected officials to prevent them from speaking are not appropriate.

Let me finally say as one who knows what it feels like to lose an election that really matters, it is helpful to take a longer perspective. This really is a great country and it has survived many crises. One administration follows another, and amazingly the country tends not to fall apart in 4 to 8 years. That's one reason this country has always had the good sense to change parties every eight years or so. Again my Dad used to say, "it's time to give the other guys a chance". That might be good advice for those who seem to be having so much trouble with the new guy. Despite my concerns, our country survived the Reagan years and even the last eight years of George W. Bush. This country will also survive the eight years of the Obama administration, so calm down.

My advice would be if you want to be back in power in eight years, demonstrate that you have something positive to offer to the policy debate. Forego the rancor, the wild and inaccurate statements, and personal animosity. We still are all Americans and while we will not always agree we all love our country. It was my son who insisted, when I began to have my doubts about George Bush, that he was not evil. President Bush was trying to do what he thought was right for our country. We should accept that fact as true for every president and administration before we begin to formulate our legitimate policy criticisms.

Living Gospel Values

The Funeral Mass of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy offers another opportunity to explore what it means to be Catholic and/or Christian in 2009. I intend no defense or elucidation of the life of Senator Kennedy. Those who know him well have been expounding on every conceivable aspect of his life. I do, however, wonder about some comments I have heard. One priest commented that he had prayed for Senator Kennedy at Mass the day after he died and was excoriated by a member of his flock for the sacrilegious act of praying for such a man. I would like to believe that this does not represent an acceptable attitude of a Catholic/and or Christian in our country today.

The central core of the funeral mass was the Gospel taken from Matthew 25. I must confess this passage has always been at the center of what I believed being Catholic and Christian was all about. Jesus describes the final judgement at the end of the world. He gathers to himself those who saw him hungry and fed him, thirsty and gave him drink, without clothes and clothed him etc. Those who did not do these things for the least among us were denied heaven. We tend to gloss over such biblical passages because we know that we all fall short in this realm. I know I certainly do. We learn that being Christian is really hard. Maybe that's why we concentrate on following rules and adopting a rigid orthodoxy of belief rather than focusing on how we live our lives and treat others each day.

We know that the greatest commandment is love of God and the second is love of neighbor. We also know that we have been told to judge not, lest we be judged. We need to be very careful about condemning others. I saw nowhere in Jesus words that in order to gain heaven you had to adhere to a prescribed set of dicta. In fact Jesus argument with the pharisees was all about keeping the finer points of the Mosaic Law but failing in the more important area of living good and upright lives.

These Gospel values provide the impetus for the social teachings of the Church which were also much in evidence in the recent Kennedy rituals. Pope Benedict XVI just finished a great encyclical focusing on these social teachings. Earlier he penned encyclicals on the virtues of love and on hope. He understands the Church and every Christian has a mission to reach out to those around us in need with meaningful responses to make things better. He also demonstrated these gospel values by responding with compassion and charity to Senator Kennedy's letter to him requesting his prayers. In doing so he again provides a great example of how we need to treat one another.

Another theme on display at the funeral mass was the Church's attitude towards redemption. Again Jesus said he came to save sinners. The prodigal son story reminds us of God's love for each of us and his desire to bring us into his care. We have become too caught up in castigating all those who may see things differently. As difficult as it may be for some of us to accept, forgiveness and reconciliation are things that all of us need, not just those who disagree with us. Again in Matthew 7Jesus asks how can I see to remove the speck from my brother's eye if I cannot see to remove the beam in my own eye? The truth is we need to be reconciled to one another. To do that we must first truly listen to the other, then force ourselves to understand his/her point of view, and finally be able to see how the image of God is present in each of those around us, even those we find difficult to love.

Common Sense

Let's start with people who have been carrying guns to presidential rallies and other town hall meetings. The second amendment, after all, gives me the right to keep and bear arms. Some state laws permit me to carry my weapons openly. Are you going to dare deny me my constitutional right to swagger up and down the street with an assault weapon thrown over my shoulder?

We have an absolute right to freedom of speech as well. For those who only know of the existence of the second amendment, we are speaking of the first amendment. However, it is understood that you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, unless of course there actually is a fire. No one questions the degree of anger and hostility that currently surrounds the issue of health care and the town hall meeting venue. There can be no good reason for brandishing a firearm in such a setting. Any one who fails to see this as a problem is clearly lacking in what was once known as common sense. I know, 'Guns don't kill people, people do'. Let me just say that if people continue to bring guns into such incendiary situations, people will.

Another issue arises from a recent Supreme Court look at a death penalty case. According to Time magazine Justice Paul Stevens noted that the risk of putting an innocent man to death was sufficient reason to reexamine the case. The court in fact ordered a Georgia court to look at new evidence in the case. However, Justice Scalia dissented, saying that the Constitution does not forbid the execution of a convicted man even if there is evidence that he may be innocent. So Justice Scalia has no problem with putting an innocent man to death as long as it is consistent with his understanding of the constitution. That is not my idea of common sense.

Finally, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who once said that 'Government governs best that governs least'. It is a good statement and one that I would certainly not argue with. The real question is what does it mean, and how is it to be interpreted in specific cases? For me the common sense application involves the question of whether government intervention makes things better or worse. Also, is the situation drastic enough that intervention may be required? The recent economic crisis is a good example. Even the very conservative Bush administration saw the economy in freefall and chose to intervene rather than allow the economy to collapse. Many Republicans in the Congress remained committed to their principles and as a result the government bailout nearly failed. Senator McCain kept vacillating as to whether to get on board due to intense pressure from conservative purists. Many said and continue to say 'let them fail' when referring to large banks, financial companies, auto companies etc. However, this is essentially 'laissez faire' taken to the extreme, because such failures would result in dramatic hardships for ordinary people all across the country.

Now we hear the cry in relation to Health Care. Any involvement of government is socialism or worse. These are all examples where sticking to principles becomes the enemy of progress and getting things done. The 'left' can be just as guilty of blindly adhering to what they consider a principled stand. Some on the left in congress today seem willing to kill any health care bill if it is not 'liberal' enough. As we contemplate the death of Mr. Liberalism himself in Senator Edward Kennedy, we should be reminded how he regretted not working with President Nixon years ago to get a pretty good health care bill. He learned the importance of making a deal, and taking a half-loaf if he couldn't get the whole loaf.

I know there are those who may wish to roll back the clock and dismantle Medicare, Social Security, and end government involvement in such areas as education and social welfare. Perhaps some may even yearn for a return to state's rights as understood in the Articles of Confederation we operated under at our nation's founding. This framework proved totally inadequate to the task of governing, even given the small nation we were at the time. The fact is, 'in order to form a more perfect union' we must do what is necessary to make that happen rather than becoming paralyzed due to a rigid adherence to principle. Now is a good time to be more practical, to work together to get things done, and to return to a once revered American virtue - common sense.

Making Sense of Health Care Reform

On July 7, I published a blog entry in this space that recommended we look to Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee as the place where a successful compromise health care reform bill might emerge. I further said that the idea of a cooperative might be substituted for an outright public option in the bill. It looks like we may well be moving in that direction at this point. What, however, has been going on in the interim? How has the August recess impacted this debate?

As predicted, the forces arrayed against health care reform have raised their collective heads with a vengeance. This summer the major debate has been whether or not the ruckus at town hall debates has been genuine or orchestrated. Of course, the answer is it has been both. Organizations tied to interested corporations have opposed health care reform and urged individuals so inclined to protest at town hall meetings. Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC show has clearly delineated many of the players in this effort. Individuals who are strongly opposed to every possible kind of government involvement have accepted the challenge to appear at these town hall meetings and create as much mischief as possible. It should be emphasized that this group of individuals while sincere constitute a very small proportion of the population. The real success for these opponents of health care, however, have been their ability to put doubts in the minds of more main stream Americans who just aren't sure any longer about the current health care proposals. Some have been influenced by the many myths that have sprung up. Even if they don't believe that 'death panels' will pull the plug on grandma, they wonder if maybe there are some provisions that might not be so good.

Where do we go from here? Are we to be outraged at the tactics of the opposition and draw lines in the sand as to what we expect in health care reform? A number of liberals are taking exactly that tack. Sixty democratic congressmen have written to the president that they will not support a bill without a public option. Is this a noble stand on principle or a potential end to health care reform for years to come? Liberals insist that it is the failure of the Obama administration to stand firm that has brought us to this point. Some, including those in the news media, fault the president for not submitting his own bill to congress, yet the truth is that congress never approves anything until they put their own stamp on the legislation.

The major problem now is the lack of agreement among Democrats on this issue. Democrats representing conservative districts and those representing more progressive districts view the issue differently. The differences are real and need to be respected on all sides. A fight among Democrats can only result in Health Care Reform crashing down around them. Are Democrats prepared to allow that to happen in order to be faithful to some principle?

The missing element in all of this is the unprecedented level of agreement that already exists among most parties. The compromise bill that can fairly easily be crafted if only there is a decision to do so, is several giant steps better than what we have now. The focus on preventive medicine, the establishment of exchanges, the changes in insurance regulations to enhance consumer protections, if not the ultimate is at least the beginning of a major overhaul in the way health care operates in this country.

It is also true that such a compromise is preferable at this time to a one-sided bill. While I may favor a single payer system it would not be right for our country. In fact the protests at town hall meetings has been a good thing for the health care debate. It should remind all of us that we are not a monolithic country, and that even minorities need to be heard. It reminds us that fashioning a compromise is more American than the alternative. No, we can not please everybody, nor is that the goal. However, we need to craft a bill that reflects the genuine sentiments of all corners of the country. The bill will not be perfect, and it certainly can be improved upon in future years as consensus for changes surface, but it meets the needs of our country at this time and it is the way to go.

If there ever was a time for people to stop yelling at each other and pursuing the art of the possible, now is that time. We do not want a repeat of the 1990's. We want a bold but thoughtful step forward. That is very doable. Let's get it done.

The 'Beer Summit'

Now that the dust has settled on that all important 'beer summit' perhaps I can venture a few comments about race and what I see as its relationship to the incident at Cambridge. Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. of Harvard was arrested by police officer James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Force in a now celebrated incident at the professor's home. Clearly, the incident was blown out of proportion and generated way too much news coverage. Over time this incident will be forgotten and have little or no impact on race in the United States either positively or negatively. Yet I believe it highlighted a number of racial realities that are usually papered over. Does the President regret having stepped into this issue? My hunch is that he regrets it not at all, even if it may have lost him some support among one or two percent of white voters.

Let me start off by saying I am a white male. I share what I believe to be typical white male reactions to such an incident. I believe the President should not have stepped into this case, especially without knowing all the facts. I believe it was a mistake to use the word stupidly, if only because it could be and was misconstrued as saying that the Cambridge police were stupid. He was actually saying that it was not a very bright course of action to arrest a black man in his own home. To take it one step further lest there be any doubt about my white male credentials, I might also say that I was shocked and troubled over the jury verdict in the O. J. Simpson case.

President Barack Obama is a black male. I believe the incident represents the reality that black and white American males see potentially racial issues in very different ways. I can never fully understand a black man's perspective on such an issue even though I have spent more that 30 years working in the black community. But I believe the President responded at his news conference as an authentic black male. He has experienced racial profiling in his own life and had no question that this was an example of such racial profiling again. It made him angry, and he expressed his anger and frustration.

I can only come up with one meaningful example of racial discrimination that I experienced in my own life, and I can tell you it left an indelible impression. I was on a family trip to a southern state that will remain unnamed. My oriental children and their oriental cousin were denied the use of some of the recreational facilities at the place where we were staying. I was outraged, yelled a lot and received some rather pointed threats from workers there. This has not been a common occurrence in my life, but it is a daily occurrence in the life of African American males. It does not predispose one to be trusting and generous in one's assumptions about others.

It is possible that my assessment of the situation with my family as racial was incorrect. It is also possible that Professor Gates was wrong in characterizing the situation with Officer Crowley as racial. Yet, I have no doubt that what my chidren experienced was racially motivated. African American males in this country experience such indignities on a regular basis. Is it surprising that their collective first reaction to such an event is to assume the worst? Clearly white and black America view similar situations from entirely different perspectives, but there are important reasons why this is so. It is in understanding these realities and differences on both sides, that we might begin a real dialogue on race in this country. The President as president had to dial back the rhetoric and that is a good thing, because he is the leader of the free world. But at that moment we did get to see a genuine reaction to an ongoing situation that is a reality for black men all over this country.

Will we ever be able to have a meeting of the minds on such an issue? Can we ever understand and accept each other on this issue? I believe Sergeant Crowley believed he was right and Professor Gates believed he was right. Did the 'beer summit' change any of that? I don't know. But all of us could benefit from a greater effort to understand what another person's experience might be. A person's experience makes a difference. Again, I believe that for one brief moment President Barack Obama showed us just a bit of what it means to be an African American male in the United States of America.

Why Can't Government Get Anything Done?

The choice between doing something and doing nothing is too often answered by doing nothing. Except for the rush to war which Democrats participated in much too willingly, the eight years of the Bush administration essentially had the Democrats focusing on stopping everything the Bush administration wanted to do. Now it is the Republican party's turn to be the party of 'no'. I think the best example of the desire to do nothing can be seen in the Judiciary Committee's treatment of the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to be on the Supreme Court. Once the hearings were completed the decision was made to have a vote the following Tuesday. The vote was delayed for one week. Why? Because it could be. Procedurally, Republicans had the right to delay the vote for one week - so they did. Why would anyone want to do something today, when they could do it next week? So goes Washington.

Another problem is that it is so much easier to kill legislation than to pass it. As soon as any bill is laid upon the table it is open to criticism. It is easy to take pot shots at any new plan that is delineated. This is why health care reform as an idea is always more popular than any particular bill. It is also why Republicans don't want to put out a detailed bill of their own which would give Democrats something to attack. Using words like Socialism, government takeover, loss of your current coverage are terrific talking points that everyone can get behind. It doesn't matter if they represent truth, they get people worked up and often succeed in killing whatever legislation comes along.

Lobbyists are also hard at work to maintain the status quo and ensure their own continuing success. Returning to the subject of the vote for Supreme Court Justice, the NRA publicly announced they would go after any Senator who voted in favor of Judge Sotomayor. No subtlety there. For the NRA to be that powerful suggests we are living in dangerous times. But that is a topic for another day. Insurance companies are also working over time to kill any kind of a public option. They are afraid that a government run option could put them out of business. So there is a lot going on, but does anyone in this process have the goal of trying to craft a plan that will actually benefit consumers??

Democrats can't get their act together either. Blue Dog Democrats who represent conservative districts have to tread lightly to have a chance of being reelected in 2010. They must be seen as holding the line on spending. Liberals want to forge ahead without bipartisan support to craft a bill more to their liking. Lisa Miller in a recent Newsweek article talks about the religious left which feels the administration is not doing enough for the poor. While such a perspective is understandable, such groups seem to have little recognition of how strong the resistance is to doing even those things that are planned such as an overhaul of the health care system. The religious left may have an important prophetic role to play, but in the sausage making that is legislation they may or may not be helpful.

In the midst of this struggle, we find a minority Republican party that is tightly unified. Either they don't care about reviving their political fortunes or they believe their revival is tied to how much of the new administration's agenda they can kill. In the process truth seems to be a major casualty. The latest talking point states that the new health care plan will result in the death of seniors. Obama health care workers will be forcing people into hospices and everyone will have to have a yearly conversation about how they want to die. Apparently the sooner, the better. Actually, what is being referred to is a provision to alert patients to the option of having a Living Will, which most people would agree is a good thig. Can people putting forward these kinds of outlandish notions really be taken seriously? They fall into the category of the notion that President Obama was not born in the USA and therefore his presidency is illegitimate.

Congress is about to leave for its August recess. Health care status includes a bill just passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that seems to represent a pretty good compromise. It also includes no bill out of the Senate Finance committee which doesn't seem to be making meaningful progress. We will see a barrage of adds on both sides of the issue for the next month. Members of congress will be hard at work in their districts trying to develop momentum either for or against reform. How is the consumer going to be able to make sense of all of this? Change is not easy. Doing nothing always seems to be a safe fall back position.

However, I would submit that we have lived through eight years of an administration that has brought us to the brink of financial collapse. Those same Republicans have suddenly got religion and don't want to spend any more money. They have labeled the economic stimulus plan a failure and not a single house Republican voted for the bill. Yet while the first quarter GDP was down 6.4 %, the second quarter data just released is down only one percent. That is a pretty remarkable turnaround. More and more people are beginning to see an incipient recovery. The stock market has certainly taken notice. Unemployment is and will certainly continue to lag, but perhaps that's all the more reason to take action on health care, energy , and stimulus programs that can over time produce the jobs we need for the 21st century. Maybe it's time to take a bit of a risk. We voted for change, maybe its time to give change a chance. Otherwise we can be certain that nothing will change.

...And That's the Way it Is

I find it difficult not to write something on the passing of Walter Cronkite. He was so much a part of the lives of all of us who lived through the decades of the 1960's and the 1970's. Those who have no living memory of those years will not understand the kind of attachment we had to Walter Cronkite. I heard one younger person state that after all he was 92 and just maybe suggesting 'what's the big deal'.

I believe it was Bob Schiffer who stated that in fact Walter Cronkite was the news. It has also been mentioned that he is the one who brought us the news of the Kennedy assasination, Civil Rights marches and protests, the Moon landing, the assassinations of MLK and RFK., and the events of the Vietnam War. Noteworthy also is his documentary on the Vietnam War after which Lyndon Johnson is to have said, "if we've lost Walter Cronkite, we've lost Middle America."

These are important facts, but they don't capture the connection we felt to Walter Cronkite. At 6:30 p.m. I would turn on the television and watch the Evening News. However, I was not alone. Millions of other Americans and their families were watching the same newscast at the same time. We were watching it together. During my years at St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore we were literally watching Walter Cronkite together in our recreation area. Together we sat listening to him in shock, numbness, and profound sadness during the entire week of coverage of the Kennedy assasination. In short we were not just connected to Walter Cronkite, but we were connected to each other through him.

It is not possible to duplicate the way TV held all of our attention at the same time during those years. Our choices then were limited to three major networks. Technology has changed all that, either for the better or the worse. But from 1962 to 1981 Walter Cronkite held sway in our living rooms. Today, we don't even hear the same news. We hear the news which fits our own preconceived notions whether it be Fox, CNN, MSNBC the Internet or the Daly Show. Those looking for a more balanced perspective might watch parts of all these media outlets and then distill out what they believe to be the actual news of the day. Walter Cronkite, however, was the news.

Pope and President Meet

The headline seems to be that the Pope stressed life issues in his meeting with the President, and was firm on abortion and stem cell research. While I'm sure the Pope did just that, I doubt that constitutes an accurate assessment of the overall purpose of this papal and presidential get together. Do you think that extraordinary efforts were made to insure that these two men met at this time in order for the Pope to reiterate his stance on abortion? Couldn't he have just mailed his statement in? Does anyone not know what the Pope believes about abortion?

Benedict XVI is walking a fine diplomatic line in his dealings with the new President. There is every indication that he has warm feelings toward the vision and direction of the President's policies. As has already been noted by many, his new encyclical, Caritas in Veritate is significantly to the left of the new President. Yet the new thrust of the growing number of conservative bishops in the United States is to target this presidency on abortion policies and to attack him at every turn. Their efforts to have his invitation to speak at Notre Dame rescinded is indicative of that approach.

Benedict XVI needed to assure his bishops that he was on their side, so the message that was released stressed his comments on abortion. Yet at the same time he has also implied in various ways that he is not totally pleased with the bishops' behavior. According to the National Catholic Reporter, the Apostolic Nuncio, who is the Pope's personal representative in the United States has told the bishops that there are a number of areas where they can work in concert with President Obama, and to tone down the Anti-Obama rhetoric. In Nicholas Cafardi's article it was also noted that the Pope met the President at 4 p.m. which is against papal protocol, and simply is not done in Rome during the month of July. This concession was apparently made to accommodate the president's tight schedule. Finally, a former Papal theologian, Cardinal Georges Cottier, recently praised the President's approach on abortion that seeks to find common ground and implement strategies designed to reduce the number of abortions.

Those who only have interest in one issue will not be able to understand what is going on here. If abortion is the only issue that matters, why have anything to do with someone who does not support your position? The Pope however is juggling a few additional matters that he considers important. Despite the rants of conservative church leaders and lay persons, the Pope still actually cares about the Middle East peace process. He cares about a draw down of troops in Iraq, and new strategies in Afghanistan. He actually cares about problems in Africa as well as the problems of the poor. He is concerned about the global economic crisis. His new encyclical is a dramatic reaffirmation of Catholic Social Teaching going back to Leo XIII. He was anxious to actually confer with the President and receive an update on progress on these issues.

In addition he demonstrated an important Christian quality that all of us tend to forget at times in an effort to promote our own point of view. He demonstrated respect for another individual. In so doing he affirmed the worth and dignity of all human beings. He showed that he was able to see value and dignity even in someone with whom he has disagreements, and even with someone who is not part of his own Roman Catholic Communion.

I believe both Benedict XVI and Barack Obama have given us a lesson that we would all do well to learn. We cannot treat people with genuine respect if we do not believe that they represent something valuable even if their beliefs differ from our own. Refusal to admit the possibility of error makes it difficult to find value in the opinions of others. Humility and acknowledgement of our own limitations might help us all to recognize good will, genuineness, and sincerity, in those around us. We might all learn more if we actually listen to what others are saying.

Let's Talk About Health Care

The effort to reform our health care system has been going on since the time of the Truman administration. For those of us who have difficulty counting, that is more than 6o years. Almost no one doubts that there are serious problems with our health care system and significant change needs to occur. The issue is not a partisan one, as there was a big push for health care reform under Richard Nixon. With legitimate bipartisan concerns about the costs, the inequities, and the problems of the uninsured why can't we get this job done?

We keep seeing the same pattern repeat itself. There is initially great enthusiasm for reform and the polls show overwhelming support for improving the system. Yet as we get closer to making it happen, the enthusiasm wanes, the polls shift, and nothing changes. Clearly the devil is in the details. Yet what details are we talking about, and is the rhetoric getting in the way of completing the task?

The fact is that powerful forces are arrayed against health care reform. These forces don't seem to be interested in the details. They just want to see reform fail. This time we don't even seem to know where this resistance is coming from. The expectation was that this time would be different. Doctors, employers, insurance companies are all at the table. Yet the rhetoric we are hearing is the same or worse than what we heard during the Hillarycare debate. The jargon of socialized medicine, government takeover, and the loss of your own personal physician is alive and well. It seems to me it is one thing to debate the details and hammer out a solution that will forge a meaningful consensus. It is another thing to continue to rant and rave about things that are simply untrue. Such rhetoric suggests a determination to kill any bill as opposed to working for a better bill.

What can be done to get sonething done this year in the face of this opposition? Is the opposition just coming from Republicans in congress who are determined to see this President fail? Are Democrats and liberals also at fault for insisting on a bill that meets their criteria, even insisting on a single payer system which simply does not have enough support to become law? I guess for me the bottom line is what is the point of supporting a policy, no matter how good it may be, if it is not possible to enact it into law? As is often said, 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'.

I believe success will require a bi-partisan approach. What we need to look for is a bill that nobody really likes. Then we will know we have achieved a true compromise. The notion that the Democratic congress should pass whatever it chooses with just 51 votes is not a good idea. The progress that has been made thus far has come from a coalition of all interested parties agreeing to several points. These include, the need to insure the uninsured, the need to reduce costs, and especially the need for a universal mandate. The fact is if everybody doesn't participate you will not have a buy in from the wealthy or the young who feel they don't need insurance. Social Security has worked because everyone is required to pay in. Auto insurance has been effective because you must purchase insurance to operate a vehicle. Universal insurance dramatically increases the pool making it possible to hold down costs and eliminate preexisting conditions. The focus must be what is best for our country and our people, not what is best for me.

Therefore, I believe the Senate compromise being fashioned by Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Charles Grassley is the way to go. To reach an effective compromise each party will have to let something go and recognize they can not have everything they want. I believe the health-care "cooperatives" that are being talked about may offer some interesting possibilities for the bill, especially if they can be worked into some kind of acceptable "public option". After the bill is crafted amendments can be offered to improve the bill. I believe this process is the best way to achieve success. Sixty years is long enough to wait for this program to be enacted. Let's get this job done. If it doesn't come out perfect we can certainly tinker with it in future years, just as the prescription drug program passed by the Bush administration needs some work. The notion, however that we need to take our time and not rush into health care reform is ludicrous. The fact is, time is running out. Let's get this job done, now.

Protests in Iran

Well, it appears to be all over but the shouting. Repressive force has won again, as it too often does. What are we to make of the recent events in Iran, and where if anywhere can we go from here? Did the protesters miscalculate? Was there ever any possibility of success? Has anything been gained by the bravery and sacrifices of those who took to the streets?

Certainly the lead up to the election was promising. It almost seemed as if democracy was breaking out in Tehran. People were speaking their minds and the government was permitting it and perhaps even encouraging it. As the election ended early reports suggested that reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi had won a great victory. No sooner had these reports surfaced than government reports announced that it was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who had emerged victorious instead. In the space of a moment everything had changed.

Where was the regime in all of this. Did they also miscalculate the strength of Mousavi's candidacy? Were mixed signals the result of inner conflicts within the governing heirarchy? If they had no intention of permitting a change at the top why did they allow the election process to go forward unchecked?

The ensuing protests appeared to be a spontaneous outpouring of surprise and outrage at the turn of events. There was hope that the results could still somehow be turned around. The use of technology inspired excitement, and the media loved the story. Perhaps the regime doubted the importance of this outpouring from determined citizens who wanted and expected to have their voices heard, but not for long. International media was silenced quickly. Beatings, arrests, and humiliation of protesters followed. Protests dwindled in number and intensity. The brutality was too great to bear. The regime had won.

The endless battle about whether President Obama had said too much or too little seemed so academic. The truth is the United States had almost no impact on the events in Iran. Obama's Cairo speech had helped turn the election in Lebanon and had initially given hope to those seeking change in Iran, but fundamentally events in Iran were not influenced either pro or con by anything said in the United States. The real value of the Obama position was that it made it difficult for the Iranian leaders to blame the United States for interfering in their domestic affairs.

So what has Iran accomplished? They have demonstrated that might makes right. We have seen this occur too often in our world. The school yard bully beats up on the defenseless youngster. Politicians, even in our own country, use demagoguery to maintain the status quo. Repressive regimes control the statements and actions of their citizenry. We know the drill. It is not that hard to crush a rebellion.

There are however, some costs to doing so. The stature of this regime has dealt itself a major blow. They were unable to control their people with a call to nationalism, religion, or belief in the trustworthiness of the government. They had no choice but to resort to attacking their own citizens, forcing them to profess untruths in humiliating staged confessions, showing the worst side of the regime's determination to stay in power. I suspect that no other nation in the region can look on Iran now and see anything like nobility in their cause.

The people will never forget this moment either. The leadership itself seems to have been fractured. The people of Iran will never look on their government in quite the same way again. The notion that protesters themselves are guilty of conspiracy to kill Neda, the young woman martyred on the streets of Iran who became the rallying cry for protesters, is simply not credible. The notion that the regime can blame the United States and other western countries for fomenting unrest is not believeable. Twitter, Facebook, e-mails and cell phones have made such patently false declarations meaningless.

The government in Iran does not seem to care whether anyone believes them or not. They have determined that they will move forward as they choose, and in the short term they will succeed. The media's short attention span has run out on this story, and certainly the death of Michael Jackson has literally pushed every other story off the front burner. However, the seeds of change have sprouted among the people. By winning, the regime in Iran may well have lost. Change will come to Iran, and it will come because the people have willed it. We know not how long it will take, but the mullahs have themselves by desperately and ruthlessly clinging to power sealed the fate of their own regime.

Pat's Post: Being Catholic in the USA in 2009

Pat's Post: Being Catholic in the USA in 2009

Being Catholic in the USA in 2009

This column might be considered a primer for anyone considering joining the U.S. Catholic Church of 2009. I limit my comments to the Church in the United States because I can't really profess to know what it's like being Catholic in other countries. I feel pretty confident, however, that despite the notion that the Church is monolithic and unchangeable, the experience of being Catholic varies from country to country.

The good news is there's not much to know about being Catholic for a U.S. Catholic these days. There are really only a couple of things you need to know and follow. Once you have accepted these parameters the rest is actually easy. The bad news, however, may also be that there isn't much to know today about being Catholic in the USA.

Let's face it. The primary piece of information you need to know centers around abortion. In case you hadn't heard, it's bad! Well that really doesn't cover it, does it? If the issue were that abortion were bad I believe you would find almost no one who would not concur with that characterization. To be a good Catholic, however, you need to know and accept that abortion is 'more bad' than anything else one can name. It is worse than the holocaust, worse than all the evils of war, worse than a possible nuclear attack, far worse than the murder of an abortion doctor (which is actually a good thing, because the recent murder permanently closed an abortion clinic). One issue politics should be the norm for all Cathoics, because even if the world goes to hell in a hand basket, it is O.K as long as we address the abortion issue in the terms dictated by the heirarchy.

Like the two great commandments of Jesus in the New Testament, the second criterion for being Catholic is in some ways like the first. Simply put, this criterion is about obedience. If the Pope, Bishop, priest, or your local conservative Catholic newspaper says it, follow it. Do not think, do not deviate, certainly do not voice the slightest hint of disagreement. If you follow these prescriptions you will have fulfilled the whole law. Anything short of that prohibits you from considering yourself a 'real' Catholic.

I wish I could say at this point that I have just written a caricature, a satire, or an exaggeration of what it means to be Catholic, yet I am hard pressed to see wherein I have exaggerated. Don't misunderstand. It is of course true that many pro-life Catholics are as horrified at the recent murder of the abortion doctor in Kansas as anyone else, and it is not my intent to denigrate their heartfelt beliefs in any way. My criticism here is of the heirarchical Church and the way it relates to the laity and the larger community.

It continues to be a sad commentary that the more than 200 year history of the Church has for all practical purposes been reduced to these two items. Certainly the history of the Church has its own dark periods, scandals, etc., but it also has immeasurable riches, true holiness, and ideas that have so much of value to offer the modern world. Catholic Social teaching going back to Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 sought to elevate the poor and give worth and dignity to every individual. Priests, Nuns, and other religious marched side by side with their African American brothers and sisters in the 1960"s to help guarantee basic justice for African Americans.

In earlier generations the Church accommodated itself to paganism, other religions and cultures, and even totalitarian governments. It grew strong under American democracy and the notion of the separation of Church and State. Now it seems to have forgotten the many lessons it learned during the 20th century about tolerance and operating in a pluralistic society. The reality of the sexual abuse crisis, the failure of leadership by the bishops, and the attempt to exercise discredited leadership by denying communion to politicians or threatening excommunication rather than being exemplary pastors have all conspired to exacerbate a leadership crisis in the U.S. church.

Too many of 'John Paul II's bishops have come to power in the USA exemplifying an authoritarian leadership style. The result can be seen in such recent actions as a total of 60 bishops criticizing Notre Dame for inviting President Obama to speak. Other more supportive bishops remained silent. This continuing movement towards repression and the imposition of a rigid conformity demonstrates how the Church in the United States has become bankrupt and bereft of all that has made it a welcoming beacon for past generations.

Part of the answer needs to come from the people in the pews. We must begin to speak up. We must organize and exert lay leadership. We must demand our Church back. We must challenge patently irresponsible and unjust actions by Bishops. We must refuse to support and follow Bishops who seem to believe that being a pastor means to bully and threaten all who question them.

Government Motors

I believe everyone, including President Obama, would agree that it would be better if the United States government was not involved in the auto industry. The notion of 60% of General Motors being owned and perhaps operated by the federal government is not a particularly happy thought. Yet, I also believe there are a number of points that one should consider before attacking this acquisition as some unspeakable socialist plot.

Let us begin with the reality that General Motors and Chrysler were both companies that were in the process of failing. Additionally, General Motors in particular is not just any company. I must confess that when I think of General Motors I think of Dinah Shore back in the 1950's, singing every night that we should "see the USA in our Chevrolet". For those who need to ask the question 'Who is Dinah Shore', I can only say that there is and has been a special relationship with our American Car companies and the notion of letting them collapse is not easy to accept. Two Presidents with very different points of view on almost every issue were in agreement that everything possible had to be done to retain our American automotive industry.

The recession has been real, and doing nothing did not seem to be a reasonable option. It is not just sentimentality that demanded action on General Motors. Clearly bankruptcy was imminent. The ramifications were also pretty clear. Thousands of auto workers would be out of jobs. Thousands more retirees would have likely lost their pensions. Car dealerships would close and more jobs would be lost. Suppliers to General Motors and Chrysler would be forced to shut down adding to the domino effect that would intensify and deepen the economic recession, perhaps even resulting in a depression.

Those who advocated doing nothing may have been tough minded, but it still seems irresponsible to have sat idly by while so many were suffering and to continue to advocate letting the free market determine the future. Some might say that the government's efforts have been a waste of time and money as both companies have wound up in bankruptcy anyway. No one, of course knows what the ultimate result will be, but I believe we may already be seeing some potential bright spots.

Allowing these companies to fall into bankruptcy would almost certainly have produced the drastic results mentioned earlier. The structured bankruptcies we have seen in Chrysler and that is just underway with General Motors seem to represent a very different process. Many dislike the government's intervention, but that intervention has produced a structure that essentially laid out exactly what would happen while the company was in bankruptcy. Some complain that the Union was given preferential treatment in the process, but the reality is that the company was going under and everyone had to take a hit and they did. It appears that Chrysler is just about to come out of a brief bankruptcy with a chance over time to be successful again. General Motors has already had some success in selling off the Hummer and Saturn. We can hope that their bankruptcy period may also go smoothly and we will again have a viable auto industry.

Many things can still go wrong. The recession itself can still produce many pitfalls ahead. I believe, however, that the greatest danger we have in this country today as far as progress is concerned is adhering to a rigid ideology of either the right or the left. For example, government intervention of any kind is always wrong. Such an attitude results in such questionable actions as the Governor of South Carolina refusing stimulus money even though it means teachers and other employees of his own state will lose their jobs. Another example would be an inability to see that government is the only entity that can and will spend money during the recession to attempt to get the economy moving again. At the other end of the spectrum it has been shown that raising taxes during a recession can also do damage. The times demand a pragmatic approach rather than an ideological one. President Obama and his team will not always make the right decisions, but I for one am glad we have a team in charge that is trying to find out what will work to make things better for the American People and moving to implement those programs. A certain amount of trial and error is going to be necessary during these difficult times, but working together I believe we can make this nation hum again.