MONDAY DIARY: If you CAN make it here, you can make it ANYWHERE

What SNOPES has to say on the new bill in New York
What the New York State CATHOLIC CONFERENCE says.

LAWS AND GUARDS ARE NOT ENOUGH

We should get all guns out of the hands of American Citizens.

I was saddened to see signs in the student walk out that said (numerous places - who got that word around?) “Thoughts and prayers are not enough.”  They are right.  Thoughts and prayers are what maintained our Western Cultural society with its respect of life, marriage, women, the pre-born, and the taboos on such things as pornography, etc.  But the wholesale dumping of these things leave little to maintain in prayer.  

Unfortunately, for most people it seems, this leaves only the governmental mandated removal of guns from its citizens so that only those who work for the government have guns. The thought being (I suppose) is that the government will keep us safe and well fed so we don’t have to do it ourselves.  It doesn’t mean coming together as a community and calling each other to something higher, it means the norm becoming metal detectors, searches, guards, laws, increasing punishments, and the worse part being that it is not a governmentally mandated action such as in the Orwell book “1984” but that we as a nation are begging for it.

One other solutions is to support our Catholic schools and other like minded institutions that are not aligning themselves with this cultural trend.  Organizations that see that the only sane way out of the quagmire that we are in is the slow rebuilding of a respect for life, a respect for proper authority, a respect for what has been handed on to us culturally, and a respect for those who will come after us.  This is not something that can be mandated by a law, enforced by a government official, punished into you and regulated.  That is a return to the Old Testament law, enforced outward conformity.  What is needed is a change of heart, mind, and soul.  Not just a regulation of actions, but forming a well formed conscience so that we don’t have to be monitored at every moment of our lives.  If this is what you want, find, join, and support organizations and communities that support you.

Here is a link to a video I hope you are able to watch:  HERE.  Thanks D. S.

IS THERE ANYTHING GOOD TO COME OUT OF THE MURDER OF THE PRIEST IN FRANCE?

The murder of the priest in France is both sad and frightening.  It is difficult to find anything but tragedy in the whole situation.  Even the Pope made the statement, "Some might think it is war of religion. It is not. All religions want peace. Others want war.”  Is there even the slightest ray of hope or goodness in this situation or is it all just a horrible, black happening in a cold universe?

Today’s Gospel sheds light on this question.

In Matthew 13:47-53 it talks about the Kingdom of Heaven being like a giant net thrown into the water hauling up everything in its path.  This net would be about a quarter of a mile long and six to ten feet in depth with floating cork on the upper side and weights on the lower.  One team would keep an end on shore while the other team took the opposite end out into the water and then swing it around ending up a distance down the shore.  Then the two teams would haul it ashore and everything in the mouth of the net would be trapped.  The fishermen would then have to sort through that which was good and preserve it, and that which was bad and discard it.

The fish are all of humanity.  The fishermen are God’s angels.  The net is the final judgment that all must face.  Notice that both good and bad alike are caught in the net.  That means that the Kingdom of Heaven exists in the this world right along side the kingdoms of earth.  There is goodness and grace in the world right now.  The Kingdom exists whenever and wherever you live it.  

At the moment the story in France was taking place, both kingdoms were present and in action.  To many people, it appears that the kingdom of this world prevailed.  But we know that the matter was settled about 2,000 years ago.  It is not unlike the Japanese soldiers that were found still fighting WWII on islands years after they lost and the war over.  They may still fight and appear to win a battle on some island, but the matter is already settled.

As we all are, both the priest and his attacker are to face death.  When the final net is dragged in, that is when the victory of that particular battle will finally be revealed, not earlier this week.  So we do not fear.  We love life and are not afraid to die.  Death for the Christian is an entrance into true life where there will not longer be a mixing of the two kingdoms.

We mourn for the priest and that community.  We also know that there is still hope there and goodness to be expressed.  We pray for his attacker because he chose a path destined for loss. We have no need to answer with anger and hate.  

CONSISTANCY

This is a short excerpt from this past Sunday's homily.

Last Thursday night we had a Parish Council meeting and somebody asked the question, “Is our parish seen as a place where a family contemplating seeking an abortion might come to seek council?”

Wow, what a question.  It made me stop and think.

I looked up some surveys online and the general gist is that women who have had abortions say they didn’t approach fellow church goers or their pastors because they feared they would be looked down upon.

Wow again.  That kind of stings.

As a Church we provide help for those experiencing unexpected pregnancies.  Parishes raise funds for and volunteer at pregnancy clinics.  We provide resources and counseling for those who choose life.  As a Church we provide counseling for mothers who had abortions and who are now grieving.  But in the very teeth of this action, can we love as God chooses to love us even with all of our faults and failings?  Whereas we can ever approve, assist, or give permission for this drastic act, can we none-the-less be seen as non-condemnatory and loving to the point that someone so desperate that they are contemplating having an abortion may see each and every one of us as a person to approach for prayer and guidance?

To lead them back to the God who loved them even before they were knit together in their Mother’s womb?

"PERSON"AL

I wrote a letter to the editor recently and it hasn't appeared so I thought I would share it with you.

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

In her letter, Maria Miranda (Resist Campaign to Restrict Abortion) states that “the decision to terminate a pregnancy is intensely personal and private. . .”  Unfortunately she does not tell us why this is so.  This statement is the same that has been used throughout history to shut down interference and conversation concerning the way husbands have treated their wives, how parents disciplined their children, and how persons have treated their slaves.  The only way Maria’s statement could make sense at all is if the being within the mother’s womb, that has all of the chromosomes and DNA of a unique human individual, is not a person at all.  That such a large percentage of citizens of the United States do recognize the humanity of the person within her womb makes the argument that this is a private matter as untenable in this case as it had at one time in those others mentioned above.

 

To quote Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a pioneer of the American Women’s Rights Movement, on her views on abortion, “When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

 

Rev. John A. Valencheck

UPDATE:  I spoke about this letter in my homily this past weekend at it started some interesting philosophical debates after Mass.  One of the most interesting was a distinction between a personal and private belief and that of action.  Our government has always been involved when actions start effecting other people, but personally held beliefs and thoughts of the individual we hold sacrosanct.  So that a person believes that abortion is a good that should be available to anyone at anytime is a right in our nation, but what we focus on is when that belief is put into action (and in this case, an unique human person's rights are destroyed.)  To have it any other way would have our nation act as thought police.  Nice distinction. 

NEVER STOP THINKING IT THROUGH

A little bit of marketing goes a long way. Putting the right spin on a topic may sway public opinion in any direction on any particular topic. Just for example, in many circles the Church is labeled as being more restrictive in rights of human beings such as in the case of abortion. Some ways in which this is done is by portraying the teachings of the Church in this matter as being the whim of white haired old men in Rome forcing their morality on women and the rights that they should have over their own bodies; rights that those cranky old men retain while taking them away from women. “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” is a common slogan.

It is proposed that pro-abortionists are more compassionate because they care about women and extending such rights to them; rights which “the Church” wishes to curtail. The two sides can then be separated into “pro-women” and “anti-rights” camps. If nobody bothers to think beyond these first salvos of the argument it seems to be pretty clear who cares more about women, rights, and freedom.

But is this the case? The Church puts forth that far from being more limited in extending rights that individuals should have over their bodies than the pro-abortionists, the Church casts a far greater net, includes more people, grants more freedoms and protects more rights. Human dignity, the right to life, the right to integrity of one’s body is preserved not just for those who can speak for themselves, not just for those with power, money, or influence, not just for those who can be seen, not just for those who have developed enough skills, not just those protected by law, not just those who are seen as productive to society, but all human beings, men and women alike, old and young, capable and challenged. No, the Church, the teaching of Christ are not more restrictive than Pro-Choicers, it is far more generous. And of course it will not seem so to those who wish not to recognize human life as human life and who feel restricted in their choice to end a human life that is not desired by them for one reason or another, but it cannot be argued (at least I think) that their net of human life to which they extend protection and integrity of life is far smaller than the Church – interestingly enough this is so even with those who are aborted who are female.

SOMETIMES IT IS ABOUT ME

This guy asked me for money and I didn’t want to give it to him. I went to talk to my spiritual director. We had some discussion about giving versus not giving to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet that asks you for a few dollars. “Sometimes it isn’t always about money going to the right person,” he told me, “Sometimes it is that you need to be the type of person who can give it freely away.”

I think of that every now and then. It is not much different from our stand on life. We as Catholics defend life even to opposing the death penalty in, if not all, most situations. (John Paul allowed for the possibility that it might be employed in some unusual situation I believe.) Everybody knows of some seemingly unredeemable person that makes being anti-death penalty a very difficult position to hold. We have one in Cleveland at the moment. A man lured women to his home, had his way with them and then murdered them one after the other and buried them around his property.

How could one defend the life of such a person who snuffed the life out of so many other people? Does he appear redeemable? Will he ever be able to be set free again? Does he have any use to society? Is there any chance that he will have a major conversion and save his soul? It is quite possible that the answer to all of these questions is no. Even if he should live for a hundred more years. And the amount of money and time that he will use up – my money and yours – as he drones through the years is astronomical. Is it worth the off change that something – anything good might come from this?

Yes. Because it isn’t always about the “bad guy” earning redemption. Sometimes it is about us being the type of people who offer a chance for it.

WELL, WELL, WELL, - DEEP SUBJECT

There is an old saying, which I will rephrase aware that they are young readers under the age of 50, that states, “You don’t relieve yourself in your own well.” I would imagine that there are few people who are willing to dispute this. I would take it a step further. I would argue that it should also be a truism that one should not allow others to relieve themselves in your well either for the exact same reason.

This deep and aquatic reference is only tenable if everybody agrees that we are using the same well. It does not make any difference of you are only using “your side” of the well. Once your relief hits the watery reserve hidden beneath our feet, your relief becomes my anxiety. You may claim your right to use your side of the well as you see fit (it is, after all, on your side of the property line) but it effects me as it will you even though you prefer to deny that has any real and lasting impact on either of us.

Such is the trouble with the assertion of a recent Letter to the Editor in the Akron Beacon Journal. To quote the author asserts, “I am so sick and tired of hearing these people who don’t have a life of trying to tell women what they should or shouldn’t do concerning an abortion. This is a personal decision and is nobody’s business.”

This is a phrase often thrown out as a truism that is expected to be taken as obvious as the ones mentioned above. But I would caution the person on the other end of the argument from letting it pass. Here is truism that is not really all that clear. Is it true that this effects the woman and nobody else? Is it true that her decision to abort really has no effect on my side of the well? Can she keep her relief on her side of the water?

I think it would be much easier to prove that the decision to abort has a poisonous effect on society as a whole as a person’s personal decision to smoke has an effect on others in the room. It may not be as easy to quantify but it is still there.

I do wish the contraceptives and abortion worked for the betterment of society. I do! It would make my life a whole lot easier. I could say that, well, true the Church teaches this way but you know, it works, it does not effect me or society as a whole, and so knock your socks off. But I can’t. Hidden away behind all of the hype are the statistical conveniently ignored or maliciously obfuscated.

So how does that effect society as a whole? Look at our art, our movies, televisions, computers, billboards. See what is taught and reinforced in our schools. Aid from governments being held hostage to their direct intervention in family life. More and more woman treated as objects to be used and then set aside. Far from curing the problem of single parent households or youth parenting we have an explosion of it. This effects every fiber of our society. We are not islands. Our actions are not as private as we would like to believe. Just because the well is unseen or you wish not to believe it does not mean that what you pour into it is not having negative consequences for the people around you. It merely means you no longer have to deal with it. We all will have to. And not in the most pleasant of ways.

ON YOUR MARKS!

Do you believe in the five second rule? An M&M saved from the floor and ingested by one party leaves the other party disgusted. The offending party cries out, “There’s a five second rule!” but the offended party steadfastly declares that there is no such thing. It is difficult for the discussion to move forward because each refuses to give way to the other’s basic set of presumptions.

Dr. Andrew Trew, a bioethicist that we are fortunate to have living in the Diocese of Cleveland points out that the reason life issues are so difficult to discuss is that we are starting with two completely different sets of assumptions. The beginning point is not the baby or the man on death row or what (or rather who) have you, but with an understanding of what life is. Here are two common points of view.

The first is the Christian, particularly Catholic point of view. Life comes from God and is therefore a gift entrusted to us. We are not only matter but also spirit made in the image and likeness of the God who fashioned us and we are to grow to become more like him. Because there is a God who created us purposefully and that there is a purpose to life, and goal to be achieved, there is therefore a universal order of absolutes and truth which can be reached through faith and reason. Thus all life is to be treated with dignity and respect and so the taking of life can only be done in the most dire and strictest set of circumstances.

The secular view, which runs counter to the Christian/Catholic point of outlook, begins from these presumptions: Life evolved by random consequence and therefore exists for itself so that the person who “has” life therefore owns it. We are material (animal) and, if we so choose, we are to develop the image we have of ourselves. Because life began by random chance there is no more meaning to life than what we declare it to have and therefore truth is subjective and open to opinion except that which can be proven through science and reason. Because of this life acquires the value which we assign to it and can be done away with morally through human legislation for scientific, safety, convenient, therapeutic, environmental, or other reason deemed beneficial by those in a position (have the power) to make such decisions.

This is part of the reason we have difficulty carrying on the debate. We are running two different races, running in two different directions with two different starting points, each yelling at the other as we pass, “Hey! You’re running the wrong way!” No we’re not. We are, each of us, running the right way to two different finish lines. In essence there are two different religions at work and both carry some mighty presumptions. Because of these presuppositions the beginning standpoint for the Catholic is the obligation of service and care for the other while the secular starting place is “my rights.” “Can’t we all just get along” is not a great option. It is like putting two teenagers in a room and telling one they have the right to paint the room green and listen to acid rock and the other can paint the room white and blast their Mozart – the positions are antithetical.

Thus the argument will not be won through simple rhetoric for we are speaking different languages. It will be won through the winning of hearts to the noble and well lived out cause.

THE END

Just in time for Right to Life Month the state of Ohio has executed a man who is accused of some pretty heinous crimes. The whole drama took on the scent of a made for T.V. movie as the pathetic man accused the state prison system of making him obese and, he hoped, making it cruel and inhumane punishment to execute him because the procedure might not work well and painlessly on so much flesh.

Well, be that as it may, it occurred without a hitch, at least not an earthly hitch, and the man is experiencing his eternal consequences whatever they may be. There are two comments in Tuesday’s paper about this death that are deserving of comment. The first concerns his parting words in an article entitled, “Cursing onlookers, Cooey executed.” When the warden asked him if he had anything to say he replied, “ You **** haven’t paid any attention to what I’ve had to say in the past 22 and half years, why are you going to pay attention to what I have to say now?”

Of course, maybe they tried. Who knows? But that lingering comment reminds me of one of the primary reason we are, in general, opposed to the death penalty. As horrible as this man may be, forever now he has lost the chance to redeem his soul. And worse than that is that somebody is responsible for his loss of opportunity. The scriptures said today about others who prevent God’s children from the chance of entering heaven, “This generation will be charged with their blood! Woe to you . . . you have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not enter and you stopped those trying to enter.” Heavy stuff.

Just as disturbing is the way that it was reported. Painting the man in the most vile terms possible (and arguably justifiably so) it then went to describe the almost pleasant way that he died. “Died peacefully . . . needles inserted gently . . . inserted without difficulty . . . he exhaled with a faint noise . . . and he was dead.” All very clean. All done. We’ve cleaned up the spot on the floor. I find it creepy that there was very little solemnity or notice that a man’s life was taken – even if you believe it was justifiable. Very every life taken lightly the next life is less valuable. I want Cooey’s death to be respected because I want your and my life to be held in high esteem.

Please do not assume because I may be cautious on capitol punishment that I am soft on crime. If someone stole from the parish I would be the first to call the police and persecute (I mean prosecute) to the fullest extent of the law. But (and this may actually sound cruel too I realize) I have always been disappointed in movies where the “bad guys” died in the end. If they die, that’s it. No more punishment. No more consequences (at least in this world). One of the best movies to counter this was “The Shawshank Redemption” where one of the villains who was tormenting our protagonist was so badly injured that he would be in a wheel chair eating his lunch through a straw for the rest of his miserable life. That is punishment. But it would also give him a chance to have a change of heart and soul.

Thanks for reading. This was bothering me and I needed to share. I’m sure not all of you will agree but that is why there is a comment section and a little button above that says, “Start your own blog.” ;)

IN OTHER NEWS:

Here are the answers to yesterday’s quiz. (Good job Katherine!)

MEN:
CPPS Society of the Precious Blood
CSC Congregation of the Holy Cross
CSJ Congregation of Saint Joseph
CSSP Holy Ghost Fathers
MM Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers
O de M Mercedarians
OFM Order of Friars Minor (Fransicans)
OSB Order of Saint Benedict (Benedictans)
SJ Society of Jesus (Jesuits)
SM Society of Mary (Marianists)
SSS Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament

WOMEN
FDC Daughters of Divine Charity
HM Sisters of the Humilty of Mary
HMSS Mercidarian Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament
IHM Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
OCD Discalced Carmelite Nuns
OP Sisters of Saint Dominic (Order of Preachers)
OSST Sisters of the Most Holy Trinity
OSU Ursuline Sisters
PCC Poor Clare Nuns
PCPA Poor Cares of Perpetual Adoration
PSDP Little Sisters of the Poor
SC Sisters of Charity
SJSM Sisters of Saint Joseph of Saint Mark
SND Sisters of Notre Dame

JESUS SAVES (BUT APPARENTLY I DON'T)

Somehow I lost today's post. Fortunately there are a couple of guest blogs on deck! Today's guest blogger (C) has written a good number of times for Adam's Ale and never fails to satisfy! Thank goodness she was in the mood to send something in! Enjoy!

When I was in my early twenties I had a favorite rock band, and through a weird twist of circumstances I met them. They came to Cleveland frequently during their tour, and I was always their guest when they were in town. I loved the attention - the lead singer sang to me at one of his shows and my friends thought I was too cool for words. But eventually the tour ended, and frankly all I ever did was drink their liquor and smoke their cigarettes (I was certainly no groupie) so I'm sure their interest in me was waning.

I went through a horrible spiritual darkness shortly after that. One of the questions I was trying to answer was, "When I'm 50, what am I going to say my life was about?" I finally decided I want only one thing: to get myself to heaven, and get as many people as possible to go with me. I had a special devotion to Divine Mercy, so I decided that every day at 3:00 PM I would pray for someone different. The list got very long, and I was running out of ideas of who to pray for, and I thought, hey, what about the guys in that band? At first I objected because in my mind they were somehow not really people, and they were probably hopeless (a heavy metal band - some of their lyrics would curl your hair). But they made the list.

Some commenters on this blog have pointed out their sympathy for rock stars who have died tragic deaths. Their stories ARE tragic! Kurt Cobain was a sweet happy child until his parents divorced, and his bitterness ended in suicide. Anthony Kedis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers had a drug dealer for a dad who bought Anthony hookers when he was 12 years old. Good and evil effect everyone. I think we neglect certain souls because they seem non-human somehow. Did you ever notice how it seems OK for people to lust over a celebrity, even if they're married, because somehow we think, well they're not really a PERSON. Maybe that crazy YouTube guy with the eyeliner was on to something, crying over Britney Spears, "She's a HUMAN BEING!" (OK, maybe he's just a freak, but you get my point.)

We delude ourselves that there are people beyond prayer. I think part of the reason why people loved Ozzy Osborne's reality show is because you got to see glimmers of humanity, weakness, and even kindness in someone that we all assume was evil at worst and inhuman at best. A friend of mine had a short-lived relationship years ago with a charming guy who manipulated her, lied to her, and played with her head. He called her recently to tell her that he had quit drugs and alcohol and that he just wanted to say he was sorry. I asked her, didn't you think he was just a hopelessly evil person, and she emphatically answered yes! I suppose on the flip side of that, priests and nuns don't get prayed for because they are thought to be untarnishably good.

I was watching PBS a couple of years ago. It was December and they were playing a concert of Christmas music by a rock band. I was looking at the guys playing and suddenly I said "John? Chris? Hey, these are my guys from that metal band! They do CHRISTMAS music now!?" Now I know that doesn't make them saints, but compared to the stuff they USED to do, it is a VAST improvement.

ONLY UBERMEN NEED APPLY

Here is a quiz of a different sort. Would you say yes or no to the following scenarios?

Scenario One: A married couple has decided that they have enough children and want no more. They receive a doctor’s prescription for birth control but when they go to the pharmacist, the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription stating that use of the drug is tantamount to abortion and abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Should the government intervene and force the pharmacist to prescribe the drug?

Scenario Two: Another couple cannot have children and so they go to a fertility clinic and produce what is popularly known as “test tube babies” conceived in a Petri dish. Say doctors can tell boys from girls as well as other factors. Should we be comfortable and open to the possibility that we could produce a number of potentially birthed children that we can pick and choose from?

Scenario Three: A man has a terminal and severely painful condition. He has refused further treatment and wants to live as well as he can, that is, until the pain becomes too much and then he wishes his physician to help him commit suicide. Should this be legal?

Similarly worded questions (and more) to these are posted outside the exhibit to “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race” now showing at the Maltz Museum in Cleveland. Participants can put chips in clear plastic containers stating whether they agree with the statement or not. Thus far Scenario One is receiving many more no votes than yes, Scenario Two is similar, but Scenario Three has twice as many yes votes as no.

The underlying questions in these scenarios are, “How deeply may governments be involved in the moral medical sensibilities of its people? How far can we go in producing “market perfect” humans? Do we have freedom to do whatever we want with our bodies?”


The raw questions (the second set) are ones that make us stop and pause. They seem like the questions of Nazi Germany, not the United States in 2007. But they are not foreign questions for us. Long before Nazi Germany, eugenics was a popular notion among many of the world’s physicians, scientist, and politicians. In 1929 the New York Times ran this headline:

SCIENCE PICTURES A SUPERMAN OF TOMORROW
Superior Intellect, Immune from Many Diseases, Greater Span of Life, and Able to Choose Sex of Child

Of course, when one has the eye on the perfect human, what does one do with all of the other humans running around the earth? Positive eugenics says to not allow the middle class to use birth control. Negative eugenics says take people with mental illness, retardation, who are criminals, have genetic diseases or alcoholism and sterilize or segregate them or have marriage restrictions.

In 1927, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck vs. Bell made the case for forced sterilization saying that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” This is a case of negative eugenics.

Later in Nazi Germany were such practices were performed in the extreme, it was always the most vulnerable of German society that were at risk, especially those with physical and mental disabilities. One wonders how a whole society, or at least enough of one could develop that would make such atrocities common and accepted, as banal as breading cattle to get better meat.

Yet science in our country is taking is to higher and subtler forms of many of the same ideals. We have the capability of genetic engineering, the creation of humans to harvest from them to aid others, the ability (and legality) to abort people because they may not be a physically or mentally capable as we would like, the idea that our bodies are just another object to be indulged or done away with as we wish, and the list goes on and on.

It may not seem scary, but that is because we are used to it now. We are alive and personally unthreatened by it and those it does threaten we do not often see. They have no voice. You and I live among the “beautiful people”, those who are accepted.

Will an enlightened people of the future look back on us in horror? Will our generation be used as examples of atrocities? What a blessing it would be if among the pictures and displays of these scenes from the culture of death, you and I, and Catholics in general could be remembered as the Bishop of Munster, Clemens August von Gallen is in the “Deadly Medicine” display. There he is pictured in all his regalia giving a public statement in 1941 as all of these things are taking place. A spokesman for the weak and voiceless standing against the politically correct and popular position and stating, “Have you, have I the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognized by others as productive . . .? Who will be able to trust his doctor anymore?”

A PROPOSAL FOR A CATHOLIC MISSION STATEMENT - PART 3 OF 4

This is a continuation of the series on the four issues of concern for Catholics as denoted by the USCCB and the Bishop of the Diocese of Cleveland. For more information see Monday’s post.

3) RESPECT OF LIFE

Looking out from the window of his room at the cathedral in the heart of the city the bishop reports seeing the poor trying to find a warm place to sleep on the steam grates that dot the pavement. Seeing such people as persons of dignity deserving our respect and concern is at the core of respecting life.

Respect and dignity are not afforded to persons because they can afford it, or that they earn it, or that they can directly add to the conversation, or fight for it, or even care to live it. It comes from only one source and that is that each person is made in the image and likeness of God.

It is said that the Church can only be truly renewed when the people of God first renew themselves. The same can be said here. It is only when we realize our own true dignity and worth that we can come to understand another’s.

We were lost in sin. In fact, it is still impossible for us to live without sin for any extended period of time. God’s forgiveness, love, and salvation are pure gift and the strongest, richest man in the world is just as (if not more so) in need of God’s mercy than the poorest and most defenseless. There is only one thing going to heaven with you, your choice to love God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul and your neighbor as yourself. We will stand naked before the judgment seat of God with only this in our hands.

Yet, even though we rejected Him, He chooses us. And He not only chooses us, but He pursues us despite our wanderings. That is what drives up the worth of earthy goods: demand! And that is exactly what gives us worth in heaven: the Almighty’s high demand, desire, and untiring pursuit of us! It’s like Christmas time in the 1980’s and we are a bunch of Cabbage Patch Kids and God is a Yuletide shopper. He’ll take whomever He can get at any price and give us good homes.

And God is so great and so encompassing that for Him to love someone else as overly abundantly as He does you does not in anyway lessen His love. He is too great and too greedy for us. He is greedy for the guy sleeping on the street, for the woman addicted to crack and in jail, to those other oriented, to those in the womb, to our enemies, to those who can no longer directly add to our benefit. And whereas some may need to be deprived of certain liberties for their safety and/or the safety of those around them, they are of no less dignity than anyone else.
Every time anyone is thought “less than” and are treated as such, all of humanity suffers in some way. Every time there is a sanctioned killing everyone moves one place closer to being included in that number. The further away you are from the cutoff line, the harder that is to see. The closer you are, the scarier that it is.

Of course, the exact opposite is true also. Every time we uphold the dignity of another human being we all benefit from that lifting up. Every time we see a spark of the divine in another and attempt to build up that spark, the world becomes a safer, holier place. That is what the call to witnessing to the quality of life is all about. To even love in the teeth of hatred, that’s heroics, that’s going a lot further to fixing society’s problems than, except in the most extreme cases, eliminating enemies or those who inconvenience us from the face of the earth.

We as Catholics are called to find some way to engender a general respect and sense of dignity for others. It will not always be met with gratitude or cooperation, but that is not why we do it. We do it because we are undeserving of that love from God yet receive it none-the-less, and so as persons unworthy to withhold it from others, love even the difficult to love.