If you want to have an "undercover" view of what poverty is like in towns like New Castle, where I live, I recommend "Trying to outrun poverty's odds," a sharp story by Anne Hull in the washingtonpost.com for Sunday, December 9, 2012. I met Anne in March, when she was in New Castle looking for stories about the recession and the Rust Belt. She was interviewing folks in the St. Vitus once-a-month food pantry. Anne won the Pulitzer Prize for an investigative story on abuses at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.
Read the story of Tabi and realize, as I did, how little you know about the place where you reside.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
An Election Dilemna
The two professors in my previous post articulated for me something I couldn't put my finger on in all the lengthy run up to November 6, 2012. Namely, the technical term intrinsic evil was hijacked for political purposes. But if one attempted to challenge the premise that the only issue in the election was one of intrinsic evil, and the only intrinsic evil which counted was abortion, one was immediately accused (without trial or judge) of being in favor of abortion or abortion rights.
Let me say again, that I stand with my church in opposing abortion as a horrific evil, which has tragically killed tens of millions of innocent lives in the womb. I further believe that opposition to abortion is not merely Catholic teaching, but a matter of universal human rights. The right to life is imbued in our nature by the Creator for all time and all people, and as such, abortion will someday come to be seen as the evil it is for all human beings, born and unborn.
The presumption by some Catholics, and other Christians, was that the issue equaled the candidate. To vote for candidate Obama was to vote for abortion. To vote for candidate Romney was to vote against abortion. Here's the way it was presented to me:
***If I vote for Obama, who is on public record in support of Roe v. Wade and the legal "right" to choose to abort an unborn child, I will ensure that abortion remains legal. President Obama will choose judges, and when one or more Supreme Court justices retire in his term, justices who support Roe v. Wade.
***If I vote for Romney, who is on public record opposing abortion (since 2001), then there is the possibility that Roe v. Wade will be one day overturned in his four years in office.
As I thought about this, I came into a road block. Some thoughts hindered my acceptance of this clear demarcation. One, as a voter I was voting for a person, not for an issue. "Abortion" (or any other issue) is not on the ballot. Candidates for office and in office have to deal with dozens, hundreds, of issues, not just one. Two, we have had pro-abortion presidents and anti-abortion presidents over the past forty years. The anti-abortion presidents and their administrations have brought us no closer to overturning Roe than the pro-abortion presidents. Three, if I play out the President Romney scenario in greater detail, I don't like the ending.
To wit:
***If enough anti-abortionists vote for Romney, he becomes president. President Romney will work in his administration for all policies which oppose abortion. He may have the opportunity to nominate one or two U.S. Supreme Court justices, if they retire or die during his term. In his process of deciding whom to nominate, he may choose judges who have demonstrated their opposition to Roe v. Wade through their previous decisions, or through their "judicial temperament."
If a President Romney does nominate one or two justices for the high court, the Senate (currently 55 Democrats, 45 Republicans) may agree with his choice(s) and confirm his nomination(s). When these justices sit on the court, a case may make its way to the Supremes which allows for a vote to overturn the sitting law (1973) of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Such a Supreme Court, at some time in the future then may throw out these two horrible pro-abortion decisions, and, opposing judicial reach, call for the various states to legislatively decide on whether or not to re-criminalize abortion (the pre-1967 situation).
All 50 state legislatures then take up the issue of whether or not to re-criminalize abortion. How may decide to outlaw abortion? Three, or five, or ten? (Alabama? Mississippi? North Dakota? Pennsylvania?) How many enact laws giving back to women the "freedom" to choose to abort the children in their womb?
At this point, it seems to me in this scenario, we are back to the same place in law we are now in the United States, with the exception of a couple of outlier states--that women alone have the right to decide if they wish to choose to kill the unborn child within them.
I don't like the string of "maybes", and I don't like the ending, which is back where we started, or worse.
Does this mean I am advocating voting (conveniently, after the election) for Obama? No. It only means that the "abortion is the only intrinsic evil" issue in the election doesn't make sense to me. Which, as I read the Vatican's documents, and the Faithful Citizenship documents of our country's bishops, is exactly what they say. All the issues, including abortion, are in play. And my decision and the decisions of hundreds of millions of voters are determined by conscientious, wisdom-seeking, church-guided prudential decision-making.
Further, such a simple connection fails to take account of the historical fact that our church has existed in a wide variety of political environments--tyranny, persecution, being the only official religion, and our own ways of democracy. The faithful and the church leadership have to engage the state in every form, in every era. Even now the USCCB is working, through lawsuits and, I trust, lobbying, to overturn the onerous HHS mandate, as well as advocating for many pieces of legislation to promote human life, marriage, the family, and oppose poverty, injustice, racism, and war.
It is my crazy idea that every Catholic stops and says, do we really want more polarizing fights among ourselves? Can we do better as a community of faith? Can we see that the goal of church teaching is not the election of a particular candidate, but coming closer to the in-breaking of the reign of God? Can we listen better than we shout? Can we think better than we accuse?
Time will tell.
Let me say again, that I stand with my church in opposing abortion as a horrific evil, which has tragically killed tens of millions of innocent lives in the womb. I further believe that opposition to abortion is not merely Catholic teaching, but a matter of universal human rights. The right to life is imbued in our nature by the Creator for all time and all people, and as such, abortion will someday come to be seen as the evil it is for all human beings, born and unborn.
The presumption by some Catholics, and other Christians, was that the issue equaled the candidate. To vote for candidate Obama was to vote for abortion. To vote for candidate Romney was to vote against abortion. Here's the way it was presented to me:
***If I vote for Obama, who is on public record in support of Roe v. Wade and the legal "right" to choose to abort an unborn child, I will ensure that abortion remains legal. President Obama will choose judges, and when one or more Supreme Court justices retire in his term, justices who support Roe v. Wade.
***If I vote for Romney, who is on public record opposing abortion (since 2001), then there is the possibility that Roe v. Wade will be one day overturned in his four years in office.
As I thought about this, I came into a road block. Some thoughts hindered my acceptance of this clear demarcation. One, as a voter I was voting for a person, not for an issue. "Abortion" (or any other issue) is not on the ballot. Candidates for office and in office have to deal with dozens, hundreds, of issues, not just one. Two, we have had pro-abortion presidents and anti-abortion presidents over the past forty years. The anti-abortion presidents and their administrations have brought us no closer to overturning Roe than the pro-abortion presidents. Three, if I play out the President Romney scenario in greater detail, I don't like the ending.
To wit:
***If enough anti-abortionists vote for Romney, he becomes president. President Romney will work in his administration for all policies which oppose abortion. He may have the opportunity to nominate one or two U.S. Supreme Court justices, if they retire or die during his term. In his process of deciding whom to nominate, he may choose judges who have demonstrated their opposition to Roe v. Wade through their previous decisions, or through their "judicial temperament."
If a President Romney does nominate one or two justices for the high court, the Senate (currently 55 Democrats, 45 Republicans) may agree with his choice(s) and confirm his nomination(s). When these justices sit on the court, a case may make its way to the Supremes which allows for a vote to overturn the sitting law (1973) of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Such a Supreme Court, at some time in the future then may throw out these two horrible pro-abortion decisions, and, opposing judicial reach, call for the various states to legislatively decide on whether or not to re-criminalize abortion (the pre-1967 situation).
All 50 state legislatures then take up the issue of whether or not to re-criminalize abortion. How may decide to outlaw abortion? Three, or five, or ten? (Alabama? Mississippi? North Dakota? Pennsylvania?) How many enact laws giving back to women the "freedom" to choose to abort the children in their womb?
At this point, it seems to me in this scenario, we are back to the same place in law we are now in the United States, with the exception of a couple of outlier states--that women alone have the right to decide if they wish to choose to kill the unborn child within them.
I don't like the string of "maybes", and I don't like the ending, which is back where we started, or worse.
Does this mean I am advocating voting (conveniently, after the election) for Obama? No. It only means that the "abortion is the only intrinsic evil" issue in the election doesn't make sense to me. Which, as I read the Vatican's documents, and the Faithful Citizenship documents of our country's bishops, is exactly what they say. All the issues, including abortion, are in play. And my decision and the decisions of hundreds of millions of voters are determined by conscientious, wisdom-seeking, church-guided prudential decision-making.
Further, such a simple connection fails to take account of the historical fact that our church has existed in a wide variety of political environments--tyranny, persecution, being the only official religion, and our own ways of democracy. The faithful and the church leadership have to engage the state in every form, in every era. Even now the USCCB is working, through lawsuits and, I trust, lobbying, to overturn the onerous HHS mandate, as well as advocating for many pieces of legislation to promote human life, marriage, the family, and oppose poverty, injustice, racism, and war.
It is my crazy idea that every Catholic stops and says, do we really want more polarizing fights among ourselves? Can we do better as a community of faith? Can we see that the goal of church teaching is not the election of a particular candidate, but coming closer to the in-breaking of the reign of God? Can we listen better than we shout? Can we think better than we accuse?
Time will tell.
Intrinsic Evil and the Election
I wish I had been a fly on the walls of the annual fall meeting of the U.S. Catholic bishops three weeks ago in Baltimore. The 2012 U.S. presidential election was over, President Obama won a second term, U.S. Catholics were split about right down the middle (according to pollsters), and some bishops were caught with their teachings leaning way too close to telling the faithful what party and candidate to vote for. What did the bishops who were so vociferous against Obama thinking and feeling? What were the off-the-record comments of the bishops who stayed silent? How about the ones (like my bishop) who tried mightily to teach Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in all its messiness and adult responsibility? What is Cardinal Dolan, the president of the USCCB, going to do now, in Obama's second term?
In discussions (ha! more like screeds and angry lectures) I had or listened to over the last several months, Catholics seemed to come down to two camps: the "I can never vote for a supporter of abortion rights" camp, which mostly meant "vote for Romney" and the "you have to consider all the issues" which was code language for "vote for Obama." One of those words which repeatedly came up was "intrinsic evil." Here was the thinking presented to me:
#1. Abortion is an intrinsic evil.
#2. President Obama is a support of abortion.
#3. I believe abortion is an intrinsic evil, therefore I must vote for the other guy, who does not (since 2001) support abortion.
#4. If I vote for Obama, I go to hell, or worse, should be excommunicated and thrown out of the Catholic Church.
So much for "discussion."
Two articles which came out about the time of the election shed more light than heat on the topic of intrinsic evil. One was a blog post on the website "Catholic Moral Theology" by Dr. Jana Bennett, a professor of ethics at the University of Dayton. "Voting Against Intrinsically Evil Acts: A Working List?". And the second appeared in America magazine, by the Notre Dame theologian and legal theorist, M. Cathleen Kaveny, "Intrinsic Evil and Political Responsibility." (October 27, 2012).
Let me summarize some very insightful thinking.
Bennett takes the time to list those actions, in her definition, "done by humans which are considered by Catholics to be always and everywhere wrong, regardless of circumstance." She refers to Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor for support for the definition.
Please allow me to put her list here, as she says in her blog post, in no particular order:
1. Abortion
2. Rape
3. War of aggression
4. Adultery
5. Physical Torture
6. Masturbation
7. Human cloning
8. Gay sex acts
9. Calumny
10. Racism
11. Bodily mutilation
12. Usury
13. Sex with animals
14. Using artificial contraception
15. Lying
16. Slavery
17.Polygamy
18. Sexual Abuse
19. Pornography use
20. Mental torture
21. Arbitrary imprisonment
22. Pornography production
23. Prostitution
24. Murder
Bennett also mentions a couple of "Catholic voter guides" which stated that there are only five intrinsic evils: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, euthanasia, and cloning. She also again references Veritatis Splendor, where the pope lists many more intrinsically evil acts. But from the context of his writing, the paragraph (80) does not seem to be a definitive accounting, but rather more of a sermonistic acknowledgement of the evils human beings are capable of.
The second article by Professor Kaveny challenges the simplistic notion that only by identifying the intrinsic evils can one best make good prudential decisions on whom to vote for in an election. She states that this technical term of moral theology (so clearly explained in the article) is not much help in deciding whom to vote for. She sees the term not as analytical, but prophetic. For support she quotes at length the same paragraph 80 of Veritatis Splendor, and sees a parallel with the prophetic word "infamies" in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes. The term intrinsic evil "is meant to start an urgent discussion among people of good will about grave injustices in the world. It does not provide a detailed blueprint for action. Identifying infamies is one thing. Deciding upon a strategy to deal with them is something else again."
See my next blog post for my thoughts.
In discussions (ha! more like screeds and angry lectures) I had or listened to over the last several months, Catholics seemed to come down to two camps: the "I can never vote for a supporter of abortion rights" camp, which mostly meant "vote for Romney" and the "you have to consider all the issues" which was code language for "vote for Obama." One of those words which repeatedly came up was "intrinsic evil." Here was the thinking presented to me:
#1. Abortion is an intrinsic evil.
#2. President Obama is a support of abortion.
#3. I believe abortion is an intrinsic evil, therefore I must vote for the other guy, who does not (since 2001) support abortion.
#4. If I vote for Obama, I go to hell, or worse, should be excommunicated and thrown out of the Catholic Church.
So much for "discussion."
Two articles which came out about the time of the election shed more light than heat on the topic of intrinsic evil. One was a blog post on the website "Catholic Moral Theology" by Dr. Jana Bennett, a professor of ethics at the University of Dayton. "Voting Against Intrinsically Evil Acts: A Working List?". And the second appeared in America magazine, by the Notre Dame theologian and legal theorist, M. Cathleen Kaveny, "Intrinsic Evil and Political Responsibility." (October 27, 2012).
Let me summarize some very insightful thinking.
Bennett takes the time to list those actions, in her definition, "done by humans which are considered by Catholics to be always and everywhere wrong, regardless of circumstance." She refers to Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor for support for the definition.
Please allow me to put her list here, as she says in her blog post, in no particular order:
1. Abortion
2. Rape
3. War of aggression
4. Adultery
5. Physical Torture
6. Masturbation
7. Human cloning
8. Gay sex acts
9. Calumny
10. Racism
11. Bodily mutilation
12. Usury
13. Sex with animals
14. Using artificial contraception
15. Lying
16. Slavery
17.Polygamy
18. Sexual Abuse
19. Pornography use
20. Mental torture
21. Arbitrary imprisonment
22. Pornography production
23. Prostitution
24. Murder
Bennett also mentions a couple of "Catholic voter guides" which stated that there are only five intrinsic evils: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, euthanasia, and cloning. She also again references Veritatis Splendor, where the pope lists many more intrinsically evil acts. But from the context of his writing, the paragraph (80) does not seem to be a definitive accounting, but rather more of a sermonistic acknowledgement of the evils human beings are capable of.
The second article by Professor Kaveny challenges the simplistic notion that only by identifying the intrinsic evils can one best make good prudential decisions on whom to vote for in an election. She states that this technical term of moral theology (so clearly explained in the article) is not much help in deciding whom to vote for. She sees the term not as analytical, but prophetic. For support she quotes at length the same paragraph 80 of Veritatis Splendor, and sees a parallel with the prophetic word "infamies" in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes. The term intrinsic evil "is meant to start an urgent discussion among people of good will about grave injustices in the world. It does not provide a detailed blueprint for action. Identifying infamies is one thing. Deciding upon a strategy to deal with them is something else again."
See my next blog post for my thoughts.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Sermon in a Bottle
31st Sunday in Ordinary Time - B. "Hear then, Israel, and be careful to observe them."
Whether we know it or not, each of us has many, many power relationships. We may be "one-up" over a younger sister or an employee; equal with our teammates or fellow baptized Christians; or "one-down" in relationship with a boss or bully.
It strikes me that it is very hard to love someone who is "above" us in a power relationship. In this situation, we are usually weak, they are strong. But when we have power over someone, then love is not just possible, but commanded -- and easy to evade. Think of the Good Samaritan. The beaten pilgrim had no way of repaying the Samaritan. Laying half dead on the road, he is the epitome of "one-down." What are the "one-down" relationships in your life where you can bring love?
Whether we know it or not, each of us has many, many power relationships. We may be "one-up" over a younger sister or an employee; equal with our teammates or fellow baptized Christians; or "one-down" in relationship with a boss or bully.
It strikes me that it is very hard to love someone who is "above" us in a power relationship. In this situation, we are usually weak, they are strong. But when we have power over someone, then love is not just possible, but commanded -- and easy to evade. Think of the Good Samaritan. The beaten pilgrim had no way of repaying the Samaritan. Laying half dead on the road, he is the epitome of "one-down." What are the "one-down" relationships in your life where you can bring love?
Multiple Masses
November 1, the Feast of All Saints, and November 2, the Feast of All Souls, flew by. In the Province of Philadelphia (the eight Latin Rite dioceses in our commonwealth) the Feast of All Saints is a holy day of obligation. Among our four parishes, we scheduled nine Masses for the convenience of the people. I only had to celebrate two Masses for the holy day.
Old-timers like me remember that there is a special permission for priests on the Feast of All Souls. Back in 1915, Pope Benedict XV signed a decree giving priests permission to celebrate three Masses on November 2. He specified that the three intentions were for the faithful departed, for the priest's intention, and for the intention of the Holy Father. Following canon law, however, the priest was only allowed to take one stipend.
On Nov. 2 I read this in the "Ordo," the little book that Paulist Press publishes annually to help clergy, liturgical ministers and planners follow accurately and precisely the Church's liturgical calendar. And I laughed. I have no doubt that in decades past, and maybe today in some monastic houses, many priests would have taken this opportunity to celebrate the Eucharist three times. When I attended St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, back in the 1970s, I heard stories from the older Sulpicians about how the many private chapels behind the pews were taken by priests saying three Masses, one immediately aftern another. Each priest would get a seminarian to help him, respond to the dialog, and serve as altar boy. Maybe the priest would slip the sem a few quarters for his help.
But that was then, and this is now. Today, it is a rare week when I only celebrate one Mass a day for five days in a row. For example, today I celebrated the regularly scheduled 7 am, and a 10 am funeral Mass. Saying three Masses on a weekday is "no big deal." The past two weekends have been "light" for me: only four Masses between 4 pm on Saturday and noon on Sunday, two weeks ago, and five (including one for Robert Morris University campus ministry on Sunday night) this past Sunday. There was a stretch in October, when because of weddings, funerals, my installations as pastor by the bishop, and one of my associates being out of the country on pilgrimage, I celebrated eight, seven and nine Masses over a weekend.
Let me be clear, and not misunderstood. I truly like being a priest, and love to celebrate Mass. It could be this morning's Mass in Mary Mother of Hope's tiny chapel with 13 people, or a full St. Vitus church with 900 on Easter Sunday morning. It could be silent, or with full music and cantor. As the church's doctrine teaches, the Eucharistic Sacrifice has infinite graces.
But at the same time there are human limitations. Here is what the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church states:
Old-timers like me remember that there is a special permission for priests on the Feast of All Souls. Back in 1915, Pope Benedict XV signed a decree giving priests permission to celebrate three Masses on November 2. He specified that the three intentions were for the faithful departed, for the priest's intention, and for the intention of the Holy Father. Following canon law, however, the priest was only allowed to take one stipend.
On Nov. 2 I read this in the "Ordo," the little book that Paulist Press publishes annually to help clergy, liturgical ministers and planners follow accurately and precisely the Church's liturgical calendar. And I laughed. I have no doubt that in decades past, and maybe today in some monastic houses, many priests would have taken this opportunity to celebrate the Eucharist three times. When I attended St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, back in the 1970s, I heard stories from the older Sulpicians about how the many private chapels behind the pews were taken by priests saying three Masses, one immediately aftern another. Each priest would get a seminarian to help him, respond to the dialog, and serve as altar boy. Maybe the priest would slip the sem a few quarters for his help.
But that was then, and this is now. Today, it is a rare week when I only celebrate one Mass a day for five days in a row. For example, today I celebrated the regularly scheduled 7 am, and a 10 am funeral Mass. Saying three Masses on a weekday is "no big deal." The past two weekends have been "light" for me: only four Masses between 4 pm on Saturday and noon on Sunday, two weeks ago, and five (including one for Robert Morris University campus ministry on Sunday night) this past Sunday. There was a stretch in October, when because of weddings, funerals, my installations as pastor by the bishop, and one of my associates being out of the country on pilgrimage, I celebrated eight, seven and nine Masses over a weekend.
Let me be clear, and not misunderstood. I truly like being a priest, and love to celebrate Mass. It could be this morning's Mass in Mary Mother of Hope's tiny chapel with 13 people, or a full St. Vitus church with 900 on Easter Sunday morning. It could be silent, or with full music and cantor. As the church's doctrine teaches, the Eucharistic Sacrifice has infinite graces.
But at the same time there are human limitations. Here is what the 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church states:
Canon 905 §1. A priest is not permitted to celebrate the
Eucharist more than once a day except in cases where the law permits him to
celebrate or concelebrate more than once on the same day.
§2. If there is a shortage of priests, the local ordinary can
allow priests to celebrate twice a day for a just cause, or if pastoral
necessity requires it, even three times on Sundays and holy days of
obligation.
As I read this canon, the presumption is that a priest only says one Mass a day. For a "just cause" a priest can celebrate twice on a weekday, or "even" three times on Sundays. Now, a just cause is a low threshold, and the needs of the faithful take precidence over the desires (and energy?) of the priest.
But it is well know that several priests in our diocese celebrate five, six or seven Masses each and every weekend (Sunday anticipated on Saturday night and Sunday). Our bishop is an "Energizer bunny," often celebrating three Masses on Saturday and on Sunday. I have no doubt that situations are worse (more Masses), in rural dioceses in our country and in mission lands.
As I grow older (whine coming!), I find it is harder to draw the energy to celebrate three, four or five Masses in one day. A canon lawyer once told me that this canon is there for the benefit of the people. A priest worn out cannot do justice to the celebration of Mass, and may by his inattentiveness or haste cause the faithful not to appreciate the graces of the Mass, or preach well to open the riches of the Word of God. And priests are not "Mass machines," just turning out the Lord's Supper at the drop of a hat.
Blessedly I can still celebrate multiple Masses, but when will my energy run out? And when will our parish Sunday Mass schedules change to reflect the fewer priests we have?
I don't have any answers, but from today's perspective, that 1915 decree by Pope Benedict XV, issued with undoubted desire to increase the holiness of the clergy, looks more and more like a musty historical artifact, like telegraphs, horse-drawn buggies, and muttonchops.
Sermon in a Bottle
30th Sunday in Ordinary Time - B. "And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent."
When I preach on a set of texts, I try to concentrate on "the big idea." But this Gospel intrigues me with a suble picture-in-picture by Luke. Blind Bartimaeus is begging, hears the popular miracle-working Jesus is coming down the road, and cries out. Some of Jesus's disciples shuss him. He cried out the louder, and maybe over the din Jesus hears him. He calls him over. Immediately the two-faced disciples change their tune and say to Bartimaeus, "Take courage, get up."
What a bunch of hypocrites! My personal opinion is that Luke accurately reported the story he heard. Luke deliberately left this embarassing scene of lack of love by Jesus's disciples in the story. Every generation of us ministers of Jesus does the same thing.
When I preach on a set of texts, I try to concentrate on "the big idea." But this Gospel intrigues me with a suble picture-in-picture by Luke. Blind Bartimaeus is begging, hears the popular miracle-working Jesus is coming down the road, and cries out. Some of Jesus's disciples shuss him. He cried out the louder, and maybe over the din Jesus hears him. He calls him over. Immediately the two-faced disciples change their tune and say to Bartimaeus, "Take courage, get up."
What a bunch of hypocrites! My personal opinion is that Luke accurately reported the story he heard. Luke deliberately left this embarassing scene of lack of love by Jesus's disciples in the story. Every generation of us ministers of Jesus does the same thing.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Catholics Care! Catholics Vote!
This is the headline in a parish - bulletin worthy handout offered by the U.S. Catholic bishops on their website, www.faithfulcitizenship.org . It is the Cliff Notes version of the Cliff Notes version of the document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship."
Today is Election Day across the United States of America. Citizens in 34 states have already had the opportunity of voting, through early balloting. We in fuddy-duddy Pennsylvania have not yet picked up on this trend, hence today is it, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
So, if you are reading this on November 6, VOTE! As Bishop David Zubik says in his letter in the most recent Pittsburgh Catholic, "Take your faith into the ballot booth."
Remember, too, that our "faithfilled exercise of citizenship" only begins with voting. It does not end there. We citizens with a specific moral perspective have a similar responsibility to follow-up on the elected officials, at whatever level, to observe their votes, to share with them our opinion on pending pieces of legistlation, and to try to establish a relationship with them (or at least their staff in local offices) so that they know what issues are most important to us. When wealthy people and corporations do this, they call it "lobbying." When folks of modest or little means do this, they call it "organizing." Either way, it's the "American way" of doing politics.
As the bishops state in FCFC, "In this coming election and beyond, we urge leaders and all Catholics to share the message of faithful citizenship and to use this document in forming their own consciences, so we can act together to promote and protect human life and dignity, marriage and family, justice and peace in service to the common good. This kind of political responsibility is a requirement of our faith and our duty as citizens."
(A more cynical view of voting from Rob Rogers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)
Today is Election Day across the United States of America. Citizens in 34 states have already had the opportunity of voting, through early balloting. We in fuddy-duddy Pennsylvania have not yet picked up on this trend, hence today is it, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
So, if you are reading this on November 6, VOTE! As Bishop David Zubik says in his letter in the most recent Pittsburgh Catholic, "Take your faith into the ballot booth."
Remember, too, that our "faithfilled exercise of citizenship" only begins with voting. It does not end there. We citizens with a specific moral perspective have a similar responsibility to follow-up on the elected officials, at whatever level, to observe their votes, to share with them our opinion on pending pieces of legistlation, and to try to establish a relationship with them (or at least their staff in local offices) so that they know what issues are most important to us. When wealthy people and corporations do this, they call it "lobbying." When folks of modest or little means do this, they call it "organizing." Either way, it's the "American way" of doing politics.
As the bishops state in FCFC, "In this coming election and beyond, we urge leaders and all Catholics to share the message of faithful citizenship and to use this document in forming their own consciences, so we can act together to promote and protect human life and dignity, marriage and family, justice and peace in service to the common good. This kind of political responsibility is a requirement of our faith and our duty as citizens."
(A more cynical view of voting from Rob Rogers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)