NOTHING NEW?

Perhaps you have heard the brouhaha over the new teacher’s contracts in the Diocese of Cleveland.  I do understand the angst about them.  Essentially there is nothing different about them per se, but on the other hand there is something very different about them.

 

What is not different about them is that there is no new information in them.  What was implied before is now spelled out.  A public life lived in accord with the faith was expected before and is expected now.

 

What is different is now it is spelled out on more controversial topics.  Living in invalid marriages, publically supporting abortion rights, and a host of other points have been spelled out more explicitly.  This is partly in response to the new healthcare mandates, partly to help stave off litigation, and partly to reestablish a stronger Catholic identity in our schools.

 

Is it a good idea?  Not being a lawyer or a politician I am not sold either way.  But there is an aspect of this whole dust storm that is coming to light that illuminates a profound misunderstanding about what we are (supposed to be) doing as Catholic schools.  A reading of some Letters to the Editor as of late give example.

 

One of these letters read something like this: “It is a shame that the Catholic Church is forcing the issue on what constitutes a good Catholic.  By limiting the pool of teachers, we will be missing out on great educators, which can only harm our schools and our students.  We want our kids to have the best teachers.”

 

Such a statement betrays a deep confusion of the nature of Catholic schools.  A Catholic school is not a public school, it is not even a private school, it is a parochial school.  Unlike public schools which are becoming more and more limited in passing on culture, discipline, ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, or even God, and unlike private schools who are there to simply provide a superior education (hopefully), a Catholic school is also about the formation of the human person, imbuing ideas of the good with very clear ideas of what that is.  She passes on truth, concepts of what is holy, beautiful, and how one should live embracing the respect of life, family, the dignity of the human person, and all that entails with the 2,000 year understanding of the revealed truths of the faith.

 

It is culture that we are passing on, not simply knowledge.  If it were not for the faith and the culture we would close our schools or make them profitable private schools as has happened to so many of our colleges and high schools. 

 

So let’s say there is a police officer that comes to your child’s school to teach about staying off of drugs.  He is very effective.  The kids love him.  He is popular with the parents.  But he also has a website promoting illegal drug use and the kids know it.  He admitted to the kids that he regularly uses drugs though they should stay off of them.  He was quoted in the newspaper as saying that drugs should be made legal and available.  No matter how good he is in the classroom and while in the school building, do you really want him teaching your kids about drugs?

 

Our faith is a culture, not a set of facts in a book.  It cannot be taught like math.  It is caught, not taught.  No one can “teach Catholicism” while living a life contrary to it for then it becomes a dead message.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: WHAT EVERYBODY NEEDS IS A GOOD HOBBY

So I am driving yesterday and hear a story on NPR about how some investigative effort uncovered the fact that Hobby Lobby’s pension fund has a small investment in a company that owns a company that makes some of the drugs and devices that are the cause of Hobby Lobby wanting an exemption from paying for through the government health care plan.  My first thought was, “Ooooooh!  That’s not good.” 

 

Now, the thing about NPR is that they always brag (here I am going to do the same thing that I am accusing them of doing) about how they just report the news, they have no agenda.  They like to drag this statement out particularly during fund raising time.  It may even be that they believe it.  But I do not believe it; this segment being one example of why.  The questions being asked by the interviewer were so incredibly leading as to be humorous.  “So do you think that Hobby Lobby is being hypocritical?  Do you think they know and don’t care?”  The idea is to place Hobby Lobby in as negative a light as possible.  If this were a court of law I would think some wise lawyer would stand up and say, “Objection your Honor.  Leading the witness!”  If they were really interested in just reporting facts, a better question for the interviewee who can have any opinion they want would be, “What do you think this means about Hobby Lobby?” or some such thing.  There were a few more underhanded and double standard tactics that they took that really made me steam the inside of my windshield, but that’s for another day. 

 

An interesting questions that keeps coming up however is can a corporation have religion?  NPR would say, “Of course they can’t.”  Adam’s Ale and its staff, contributors, executive board, foundation, and chaplain (all of whom are me) say, “Of COURSE the can and do.”  Our government has religion and right now it wants to pass on that new part of its religion that it holds most dear.  (I know I’ve said this before, please put up with me.)  There is no such thing as a neutral position.  There is no natural state that includes everybody.  If you actively remove God from the government, from schools, from business, from public life, from everything outside the four walls of a church, synagogue, or temple, that too constitutes a set of beliefs with its own vision of what man is, his purpose and meaning, what the foundational rules are, its own set of presuppositions, beliefs, and rules that creates its own world view and way of living.  That is not some vacuum in which tolerance reigns and we can all get along.  If we say, “Okay, Hobby Lobby, as a business you cannot have religion,” what we are really saying is, “You cannot have your religion.  You must have ours.”

 

Everything and everyone has a religion cleverly disguised as a set of beliefs and standards to be imposed in areas they find very important.  Right now we are asking the question, “May I exercise my strongly held beliefs in my own house, or does the government have the right to come in and establish its religion.”

RANT - COUNTER RANT: DON'T MESS WITH MY LITTLE SISTERS

Today I was poised (poised I tell you) to write a scathing article about reporters and editorialists who never took (or have completely forgotten or ignore) a theology class, a philosophy class, or an ethics class that dealt with the Catholic faith (which is a significant part of the population – more than half of all Christians are Catholic after all so this is no small matter) and then imagine they can think over an issue in the shower and come up with a sensible solution with which the Catholic Church, if it were in its right mind, should agree.  The problem being is that their level of competence is rarely up to the task.  This is not to say that they may not be extremely knowledgeable people in other fields, but sometimes I despair that it is obvious that a reporter has failed to even ask what an orthodox, faithful, and knowledgeable Catholic might have to say on a topic.

 

But then, Kevin O’Brien wrote an editorial in today’s Plain Dealer, E3 (January 8, 2014) concerning the health care mandate and the Little Sisters of the Poor entitled “Even the Little Sisters of the Poor are subject to Big Brother’s bullying.”  (On a side note, I am not sure why capitalization for titles is no longer in use in newspapers, but perhaps the rules have changed.)  I will grant that the article is a tinsy wincy bit acidic, but of course I like it because I agree with him.  But he nailed the issues that so many other news sources have not grasped, cared about, or have ignored for other motivations.  Read the article here.

 

It’s sad to see how much money the government is wasting defending desire to provide every man, woman, and child with contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations.  It is interesting to note that many of these very things have been offered for free from clinics for decades and others at very minimal cost.  Considering the vast amount of extremely expensive exemptions that have already been granted (government, you don’t have to participate – unions, you don’t have to participate) why is there such an effort to have the Catholic Church submit to this comparatively inexpensive item?  We are not opting out like the government itself is doing or unions, we just want this one exception.  (Not that I am recommending it, but it would be interesting to see how many decades the government could have supplied these services for free through clinics with the money they would have saved by just granting the exemption instead of having these expensive court battles that seem will continue well into the future.)

 

Of course, maybe it isn’t really about contraception or (an already very un-) level playing field.  Could it be that Catholics are not as worthy citizens as those who work for unions or in the government?  Is there another agenda at work here?  (Okay, maybe I am becoming jaded.)  But this seemingly little crack in religious freedom could be a hole in the damn.  Unless the Little Sisters stick their thumb in the hole, what will happen when another issue comes up effecting another matter or another faith and we look at precedent and decide, “Well, it was constitutional, for government interests, to force the Catholic Church to act against its core beliefs, therefore we may turn on you next.”

 

In this light, this is no small matter.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: WHAT'S IT REALLY ALL ABOUT MR. & MRS. JOHN Q. SMITH FROM ANYTOWN USA?

I can’t tell you how relieved I am.

 

Last week in the Letters to the Editor of the Akron Beacon Journal, Mr. Thomas Fann, while pointing out that many people feel that certain provisions of HHS mandate impedes their freedom of religion, he assures us, “It does not.”

 

I was worried.  I am so glad he cleared that up for me.

 

Of course, he goes on to say that there really are limits to freedom of religion so even if it does really impinge on your faith: too bad.

 

Back to feeling bad again.

 

“We are all free to believe what we want, conduct our lives according to our beliefs and worship as we please.”

 

Okay, I’m with you again.

 

“However, our religious freedom does not give us the right to force others to change their behavior to fit our beliefs.” 

 

Of course it does.  Mr. Fann demostrates this himself.  His system of beliefs says that it may force another individual to violate his belief system by making him become directly culpable in what amounts to an intrinsic evil to him.  You can’t have it both ways.  Either we can force others people to behave according to a belief system or you can’t. 

 

“Attempting to prevent or impede what many employees feel are valid (and legal) health-care choices is not a religious freedom protected by the Constitution.”

 

Here again Mr. Fann plays the game of denouncing a behavior for those he’s against, and then shows how perfectly logical it is for him to do it.  None of the people against the HHS mandate are forcing anybody to do anything.  Nobody is protesting that such items should be taken out of the store; nobody is protesting clinics because they are handing out free birth control, but Mr. Fann places the desire of one person to have birth control paid for by a person who finds it morally repugnant over and above the religious freedom of the provider.  One can still have the freedom to act according to his conscience (and have it paid for), the other may not.

 

And “legal” does not mean moral.

 

And since when is it not protected by the Constitution?  Of course it is.  On what planet is protection of religious liberty not a part of the Constitution?  It is a handy argument to make up with absolutely no citations or references.  “It just isn’t” is not an argument.

 

“Employers are free to reject contraception for themselves, but religious freedom does not give them the right to make that decision for their employees.”

 

First, I am thankful that Mr. Fann has given me permission to reject contraception.  But I have not read a single article anywhere of an employee of any company has been fired because they used contraception even though his employer finds it to be morally abhorrent.  Or maybe there has been a rash of front page articles that I missed. 

 

The only person making demands on anybody’s behavior (and tapping their resources) is Mr. Fann and backers of this portion of the HHS mandate.  (This reminds me of 2 Maccabees chapter 7).

 

“Where are the employees going to get the money?  From their paychecks, from the same employer who refuses to pay for contraception coverage on the grounds of ‘religious freedom.’ I don’t see the difference.”

 

And that is the problem.  You don't see the problem.  First of all, I highly recommend that you do not take a job writing an etiquette column.  If I give you a gift, it is yours.  I no longer have control over it.  If I give you twenty dollars and you use it on cigarettes, there is really not much I can do about it.  A paycheck is the same thing.  Once I give you the money it is yours.  What you do with it is your business.

 

Secondly, I recommend that you do not take a job writing an ethics column.  There is a huge difference between indirect and direct culpability.  It is one thing for me to give twenty dollars to a teenager who then goes out and buys smokes, it is another thing to make available smokes for the teenager “because he is going to smoke anyway.”

 

There is one thing Mr. Fann and I do agree upon.  It is this sentence: “This issue really isn’t about religious freedom; it is about control.”

I couldn't have said it better.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: KNOWING WHAT YOU REALLY WANT

“There should be a less moralistic choice.”  This was the opinion expressed by a minister in this weekend’s Akron Beacon Journal in the letters to the editor concerning a local hospital joining the Catholic Health Care system.  Like so many people, this minister has been hoodwinked into thinking that there is some sort of neutral position when it comes to ethics.  He does not want fewer morals as he thinks he does, but a different set.

 

Let us begin with toying with idea of if there is a God or not.  If one does not believe that there is a God, the basis of moral grounding changes dramatically even if, on the surface, they may seem the same as Christian.  If there is no God, then there is no Creator.  If all that there is has no intelligent design behind it, then it is a fluke.  If it is a fluke, then it has no real meaning.  If it has no meaning it really can’t progress toward anything – it is simply what it is.  If that is the case, then a human being is no more wonderful than a stone.  (Many people like this idea.) 

 

If all that is the case, then the case for goodness, for morals, is entirely based on a social contract.  The social contract will be largely shaped by those with power.  So “I won’t burn your house down if you don’t burn my house down,” holds as long as the two home owners agree to the contract and are able to enforce it.  But if there is no absolute good, breaking the contract may really make someone mad, but in the end it doesn’t matter.

 

With this is the groundwork, those without power begin to lose out – those without a voice – who cannot defend themselves.  Abortions become a right for the woman, using people in other countries to make cheap goods for us makes sense, marriage becomes about the right of happiness for adults rather than the good of the community and the raising of children, and porn becomes enshrined as free speech.  Following close on those heals could be physician assisted suicide, euthanasia, and less care for the elderly, the poor and the troubled.  Slowly the edges erode away so that it is possible to fall into an undesirable and therefore less protected (or not protected) category.  This lead John Paul II to refer to this modern swing in society as a culture of death.

 

With a God however there is a Creator.  With a Creator there is a giveness and a love for that which is created.  If something is loved (with far more than a feeling) it has purpose and a goal.  If it has a goal it has meaning.  If it has meaning it has value and that value is simply in the created’s being, not in their power or usefulness.  Concepts of “the good” and right and wrong have much more traction, are clearer, easier to defend, more universal, and are easier to rectify when they have gone off track.  The baby in the womb, the sick, the elderly, the parent with dementia, the foreigner, they all have value because they are, not because of how they benefit us.  It is a culture of life.

 

Now, to remain neutral is not to stay out of these arguments but to make your own metaphysical claims about the human person and his worth.  These will become the foundations of a philosophy that will have implications in civil law and civility.  It will burn Judeo/Christian capitol (instead of enjoying its fruits) and the nuetralist’s presuppositions will lead him toward the lessening of the value of life.  Staying neutral is not staying out of it, it simply warps the only two existing systems and acts as a transition out of one toward the other.

 

The good reverend on Sunday was not asking for “less morals,” for he will be left with the exact same amount of morals the day after his wish comes true as the day before.  What he wants is a different set of morals.  God help his grandchildren if he gets it.

HOW DO I TALK ABOUT THE HEALTHCARE MANDATES?

The debate and battles over the new federal healthcare mandates are likely to go on for five years (before the Supreme Court hears it) and the real fallout only hitting in about one year when all institutions and individuals will be forced to adhere to the new laws (conveniently after the November elections.) So much for pro-choice in these matters. As you enter into these discussions it will be tempting to be sidetracked into other discussion that, while worthy, are not helpful in the healthcare debate. In order to assist you in these discussions, a couple of talking points are suggested.

1. Others (and perhaps you will be tempted) will try to move the topic of conversation to abortion or contraception or universal healthcare for the poor. Do not be so mislead or tempted. As worthy as those topics may be, that is not what this debate is about. Nor is it about the Catholic Church. It is about the Constitution of the United States being blatantly violated. Because of this, it is a cause of concern for all citizens, not just Catholic citizens.

2. This is the part of the Constitution about which we are concerned:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This new law severely undermines this amendment. Core beliefs of a faith are not only being trampled upon, a religious organization is now forced to spend its funds on matters to which it is fundamentally opposed. That it focuses on Catholics today is one thing. But what about when for the “common good” other rights of other faiths can be ignored and its freedoms abused because of the precedent begun with the Catholic Church?

3. The amendment does not say that laws may not be passed except for those that are very popular, or except for those laws that are deemed for the common good, but that no law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

4. Catholics cannot “opt out” as many people suppose they can. “Catholics do not have to avail themselves of these services if they do not want to” is not a worthy argument. Catholics will be forced to pay for these services even if they have no intention of every using them. We become material agents in acts we see as totally morally corrupt. That is not opting out.

5. Most American would see a new federal law with accompanying penalties that required permits for

assembling at which an official representative of the government must be present a horrendous trashing of the Constitution. Whether one’s rights are being violated or not by this new federal mandate, one should see this action as a similar disregard for the Constitution and for the freedom of the citizens of this great nation.

6. Catholics, practicing Catholics, are equal citizens as all others. We are deserving of the same protection of our rights as all other citizens.

ADDENDUM:  The first commenter reminds me of this other important fact.  The establishment clause is not only about the right to worship, which we will still have of course.  IT IS ABOUT THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION.  There is a subtle difference here but it makes all of the difference in teh world.  There has been a shift in wording and that wording has significant ramifications.  One only concerns what we do for an hour on Sunday, the other is far more reaching and is what is protected by the Constitution.

ADDENDUM II:  Maybe this will help:  Suppose everybody in the nation - your place of business, was forced to pay to keep up Catholic Churches.  Many would scream, "You can't use my money to fund something that I don't believe in!  That is a violation of my rights!"  And what if I said in return, "This does not change what you do on Sunday morning.  You do not have to participate in Mass."  That would not be a satisfactory anwer.  Perhaps that will help some to see why this is such a mess.

Remember these points.  Print them out and hold on to them until you here a better stating of them.  Great things are at stake here.

IT'S MY BLOG AND I'LL POST WHAT I WANT! (or is that selfish?)

Is there such a thing as good selfishness? Then again if it is beneficial is it selfish?

Saint Charles Borromeo (who feast day it is today – patron of our minor seminary here in Cleveland – say a prayer for the boys) said in a sermon given at the last synod he attended and which is found in today’s Liturgy of the Hours, “Are you in charge of a parish? If so, do not neglect the parish of your own soul, do not give yourself to others so completely that you have nothing left for yourself. You have to be mindful of your people without becoming forgetful of yourself.”

He wisely points out that if you give yourself completely away, you become no good to anyone and end up causing more harm than good. Perhaps it is actually an act of selfishness to think, “I must do it all. Nobody else can. If I don’t do it, it won’t be done (well, right, quickly, or at all.)” In reality if you don’t do it, perhaps the Church will still survive, perhaps the world will not end, perhaps souls will still get into heaven, and perhaps you will live to work another day.

This is a message for all. Everyone can find themselves in this role. Most devastatingly I see it among well intentioned people who dedicate themselves to the care of a very sick loved one. This is very high and noble thing to do. It is an act of mercy. It is one of those things that Christ calls His sheep to do in order to enter into heaven. And sometimes there is no choice but for a person to work themselves into the ground because there simply is no other help.

But, way too often, perhaps because of an over developed sense of responsibility, or guilt, or love, or wanting to please God, or even to look good or just a fear not too, the well person spends themselves so deeply in the care of the sick person that they end up dead long before the sick person does. After all the sick person receives care, but rarely does anyone take care of the caregiver.

Caretakers: TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF! It is not selfishness to make sure that you don’t end up not being able to take care of the persons you love. It is not weakness to reach out to others. It is not cruel to admit that you are in over your head. Are you responsible for another’s health? Do not neglect the health of your own soul, do not give yourself to another so completely that you have nothing left for yourself. You must be mindful of the other person without forgetting yourself lest you find yourself with nothing left to give and in need yourself.

ONCE, TWICE, THREE TIMES A POSTING

Here are three short posts pieced together into one. Hopefully you will find something among them of interest to you!

FIRST: Today is Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. Don’t forget that we get to fast and abstain as a Church community today and so with the help of those around us begin our path to greater discipline which is so deeply connected to joy.

For some Lenten reflections look here and here and here.

SECOND: It is official! We had an organization meeting for the new Chesterton Society. First on the agenda we were going to call it the West Akron Chesterton Society but were afraid people would ask, “What are those WACS up to now?” So we decided to change the name to "The St. Sebastian Chesterton & Friends Society". W. said, “If we do it in Latin "Societatis Chesternonii amicique Ecclesiae Sancti Sebastiani" we could use the acronym "SCAESS," but I don't know where that gets us, but it's easier than pronouncing "’SSCFS.’"

The structure of the meeting which is intended to last an hour at least officially is:
Prayer
Recap anything that may have come up as a result of the last meeting.
The presenter read an interesting passage from the reading.
Discussion
Choose next presenter – meeting time etc.
Prayer.

Of course unmentioned here is eats and libations.
April 5 at 6:30 as the date of the next meeting.
If you are interested please send me and Email for more information at JAVALENCHECK@AOL.COM. Also, visit the blog here for information and to read what we will be discussing.

THIRD: Last week we had a Mass for the healthcare workers of our parish. I was asked to publish the homily so here it is:

I got my undergraduate degree at the University of Akron in theater arts. I was mostly involved in design, construction, direction, lights and such. I became involved in theater because I truly believed in the power of it. When someone comes to a production they are presented with a view of life. At that point they must either reaffirm their personal beliefs or be moved to change.

The only problem with this was that if I wanted to eat (make a living at it) I would have to quite often put forth a message with which I disagreed with as much professionalism as I did one with which I did agree. This was something that I was not willing to do for the rest of my life and is one of the reasons I became a priest. I believe in what the Catholic Church believes. Here was a message I could feel good about putting forth. I could proudly stand behind what was presented each week.

I imagine that if you are in a healing profession you have similar reasons for choosing it. In this path you have chosen more than a profession. It is a vocation. Not everybody gets to live their loves doing something so close to Christ’s mission as you do.

Here is what Jesus came to do. 1. To announce the kingdom. 2. To forgive sins. And 3. To heal the sick.

Remember what we heard in the Gospel today. Christ, the Divine Physician taking a man aside who had a malady and brought him to wellness – to wholeness. That is part of Christ’s overall plan.

Did you ever wonder why God calls certain actions sin? Sin is that which always brings harm into the world even when we do not perceive it. It brings harm to you physically, mentally, or spiritually, or to someone else, or it messes up our relationship with God. But Jesus is always calling us to unity and to healing. That is what virtuous acts are; healing spiritually, mentally, and physically.

As person in the healthcare professions whether directly or indirectly you play an important role in that healing, in establishing unity.

The healing of the young man who was deaf and had a speech impediment was not able to hear and speak well. Now he was able to communicate. He was able to connect better with the community. There was healing – there was a move toward greater unity. That is what you are called to in your vocation.

And as in all true vocations you are not alone. Because of the hours and demands you need the support of those who love you in order to be fully effective. So family and friends, this Mass is for you too.

It is a noble life and I do not envy it. If you are Catholic you are under attack morally. Who would have thought that being one who brings healing could be so controversial? From pharmacists, to caregivers, to nurses, to doctors, to researchers, to every aspect of the field, it is going to continue to be more and more difficult to stay true to your beliefs and maintain your vocation.

You are more on the front line than I am. People see my collar and they expect me to maintain a 2000 year moral tradition. You are not so lucky. You are thrown on the front line
often without detailed moral teaching
often without a lot of back up
often without the support of your peers
sometimes with fears of repercussions: Your job or your faith.

I do not envy you
I admire you
I pray for you
I fear for you
I respect you
I hope you are strong
I hope you are protected
I hope you persevere

And we pray this Mass today that you may one day receive the abundant rewards in heaving to the good that you did in doing your best to maintain the mission of Christ here on earth.

BEFORE RUNNING A RACE - DECIDE THE RACE TO BE RUN

(The following is constructed from my notes taken during the Mullen Lecture at Saint Mary Seminary, Cleveland. The presenter was Fr. Keven FitzGerald SJ)

We talk a lot about the race against disease but the question must be asked, “What kind of race to we want to run?” There are different courses that could be tackled. The predominate goal line toward which we run today seems to be that which may have the greatest monetary reward and may affect percentage wise a very small amount of people at some point in the future. But we know that hundreds of millions of people today could be saved from death and disease right now if they had access to clean water and had proper sanitation. And it would be comparatively inexpensive to achieve.

The touted theory is that there will be a trickledown effect by attacking these highly complex problems. By spending most of our dollars and time on celebrity diseases eventually what will happen is that these cures will be made accessible to the masses. Yet, without any further research, we can state categorically that hundreds of millions of people can be preserved from a profuse amount of diseases and suffering and even agonizing death if they have sanitation and clean water. And we could afford to do right now. Yet this simple solution has not trickled down.

The axiom, “What is more important than you health” has many answers. It is possible that a pill could be developed that would solve all of your problems. But what if you were the only able to afford it? What if the perfect pill for one reason or another made you the loneliest but healthiest person in the world? On the other hand, instead of a pill, what if life met you with a chronic illness but provided you with such a deep love that it made life worth living?

That is not to say that all research in diseases should be stopped. I hated that my father died of Alzheimer’s and my mother of cancer. Yet if I knew that if they endured that (and that I may have to also) that hundreds of millions of people would live far better and longer lives, it would choose it. My cure may not come in my life time – but if my cure is at the expense a X1000s of others’ cures, “no greater is there than this; to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

These are questions worth thinking about for they will tell us what race we are going to run.