POPE FRANCIS, THE DEATH PENALTY & HERESY

When there was such a thing as institutional slavery, the Church recognized this as a fact of the world and gave teachings based on those given in Scripture on how those who “owned” slaves should treat their servants.  Over the course of time, the Church recognized that, because each human person has an inalienable dignity, nobody could possibly be “owned” by anybody and to be a person who “owned” slaves was inherently evil.  This happened at a time when the Christian world was sufficiently awakening to the evil of this practice it was possible to bring this abomination to an end.  

This was not a change in the teachings of the Church.  It was a development in the understanding of the inherent worth of each individual human soul.  It was a slow and painful path.  But the moment there was any recognition that the oppressed person was in fact a person with a soul, with dignity and worth, who was saved by the Passion of Jesus Christ, it was inevitable that slavery would be done away with.  The very idea of a “slave owner” was poisoned with the first drop of Christ’s blood and every subsequent teaching and recognition of the value of life brought it closer and closer to death.

In my opinion, the recent teaching of Pope Francis on the death penalty can be seen in the same light.  What he now says (though I understand the difficulty in the way he said it) does not negate the realities and teachings of the past.  By the time we get to St. John Paul II, because of the advancement of culture and our ability to detain and isolate persons who are a serious threat to society, he had difficulty imagining any scenario in which the death penalty could be used.  He stood at the precipice of the seamless garment of the respect of human life, unable to imagine the need for civilized Christians to resort to killing an otherwise detained person for the sake of the salvation of the world.

As there was a point in which slavery was no longer a tenable option for Christians, Pope Francis says such has the time come for the death penalty.  

Many will disagree.  Many will disagree with the way he said it.  Many will disagree with the format in which he said it.  Indeed, the reader of his article may think the pope was either premature in this declaration or a bit of a Pollyanna in his worldview or that he took one step too far, but, in my opinion, the one wagon that no one should jump on is that he has been speaking heresy.  It is not only unhelpful to the conversation it does not display an understanding of how the Church has operated for 2,000 years.  

GUEST BLOGGER: CAPITOL ERRER

1. Guest blogger:  Bernard A. Smith, of St. Sebastian Parish, Akron, recently retired after serving over  three decades as a federal prosecutor handling organized crime, public corruption, labor racketeering and appellate cases. He obtained a bachelor’s degree from the University of Dayton in 1979 and a law degree from the University of Michigan in 1982.   

When Pope Francis spoke before a joint session of Congress in September 2015, he urged that the death penalty be abolished throughout America, a request with which one might presume a career prosecutor would disagree. Such an assumption would be incorrect, however, for Pope Francis’ request of Congress did not merely express a personal policy preference but was firmly grounded in Church teaching. As the State of Ohio contemplates executing condemned criminals for the first time since 2014, understanding why capital punishment cannot be morally justified is of paramount importance. Indeed, rather than tolerating executions, the citizens of the State of Ohio should demand that the death penalty be abolished. 

American criminal law traditionally has recognized a necessity exception to the prohibition against intentionally killing another person, taking several forms: (1) self-defense when faced with imminent threat of deadly force, (2) defense of a third person faced with a similar threat, and (3) soldiers in combat facing an armed enemy. To this list during the colonial period of our nation’s history might be added capital punishment, because secure prison systems had not yet been invented.² As secure facilities to imprison the most dangerous offenders did not exist, public executions were thought necessary both to incapacitate dangerous criminals and to deter others.³ 

Today, any issue concerning lack of adequate prisons has disappeared, as both federal and State prison systems contain maximum security facilities to incapacitate murderers and other violent offenders. This fact makes a definitive moral difference, as articulated by Pope St. John Paul II in his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, which defended the inviolability of human life. Discussing capital punishment, Pope John Paul stated:  “It is clear that…the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity:  in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (emphasis supplied).⁴ The Pope then declared that “if bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means….” (emphasis supplied).⁵ The mandatory character of the latter statement is unmistakable. 

In short, according to Pope St. John Paul II, the moral test of strict necessity governs when even a murderer may be executed and, because of security enhancements in modern prison systems, the set of offenders who must be executed in order to protect society is functionally a null set. Under modern conditions, therefore, capital punishment cannot morally be justified under the strict necessity test, a standard which helps to protect the bedrock principle that a person’s right to life is inviolable.

After the publication of Evangelium Vitae, the discussion of capital punishment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church was revised. Now, paragraph 2267 of the Catechism says that the death penalty may be imposed, “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”⁶  It incorporates Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching that if “non-lethal means” suffice to protect society, then “authority will limit itself to such means” (emphasis supplied).⁷ Paragraph 2267 then concludes:  “…the cases in which the execution of the offender is absolutely necessary are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (emphasis supplied).⁸ In light of the Catechism’s teaching that, as a matter of practical reality,  circumstances in which capital punishment could be permissible do not exist, imposing the death penalty cannot morally be justified. To the extent that our legal system permits capital punishment, it is morally flawed. 

Other considerations also undercut any moral basis for capital punishment. In the Supreme Court’s 1972 splintered decision in Furman v. Georgia,⁹ which temporarily invalidated the death penalty nationwide, the controlling three-Justice plurality variously found that capital punishment as then administered was being imposed in an arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory manner largely because a jury’s discretion to impose it was unfettered. The death penalty was revived, however, only four years later in Gregg v. Georgia,¹⁰ where the Court approved a capital sentencing scheme requiring a trial bifurcated between guilt and penalty phases, lesser included offense instructions where applicable, a jury’s finding of at least one aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt, the weighing of mitigating factors against any aggravating factor(s) and  appellate proportionality review in relation to similar cases. In sum, a jury’s discretion concerning the death penalty would be guided by legal standards. The implied premise underlying Gregg is that the courts are capable of ensuring that a capital sentencing system will function fairly.¹¹ 

Forty years later, however, the data demonstrates otherwise. A 2005 study conducted by the Associated Press found that, in Ohio, a defendant who kills a white person is twice as likely to receive the death penalty as a defendant who kills a black person.¹² The organization known as Ohioans To Stop Executions has reached the same conclusion.¹³ Even more sobering, the final report of the 2014 Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio’s Death Penalty cited an ABA Ohio Assessment Team study indicating that offenders who killed white persons were 3.8 times more likely to be sentenced to death in Ohio than those who killed black persons.¹⁴ Racial disparity in capital sentencing based upon the race of the victim has been found in numerous studies conducted in other death penalty states as well.¹⁵ And, Ohioans to Stop Executions has found that “two-thirds of all Ohio murder victims are people of color, yet in 2013 three out of four new death sentences were for the murder of white people.”¹⁶

Imposing the ultimate penalty—death—based upon the race of the victim is inconsistent with the concept of equality before the law. Nor can this practice be squared with the basic principle that all human beings are of equal, infinite value before God. When the death penalty is imposed far more often against killers of white persons than against killers of minority persons, then our society has concluded that it values the lives of white persons more than the lives of minority persons because it systematically imposes a harsher penalty when the right to life of a white person is transgressed. The statistics show that murdering a white person effectively is regarded as a more serious offense than murdering a minority person because the consequences of killing one versus the other systematically differ. Such systemic racial discrimination inherent in the capital sentencing system must be condemned as morally bankrupt. 

Adding further moral weight against using capital punishment is the reality that the death penalty is sometimes imposed upon innocent persons. According to criteria established by the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1976 there have been nine exonerations of defendants who were sentenced to death in Ohio alone.¹⁷ “Exoneration” means that all charges against the defendant ultimately were dismissed, that the defendant was acquitted at a re-trial or that the defendant was pardoned based upon substantial evidence of innocence. No system of justice worthy of the name can tolerate not only the possibility that innocent persons might be sentenced to death, but also the established fact that innocent defendants have actually been sentenced to die, including in Ohio. 

In sum, the death penalty does not satisfy the moral test of strict necessity and is imposed in discriminatory fashion despite four decades of judicial effort to render the system fair. The citizens of the State of Ohio should conclude that capital punishment can no longer be tolerated because it is fundamentally indefensible and should demand its abolition. 

1. added above
2. Banner, The Death Penalty:  An American History, p. 23 (Harvard University Press, 2002). 
3. Ibid., pp. 10-13.
4. Evangelium Vitae, para. 56. 
5. Ibid.
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2267.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
10. 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
11. Lazarus, Closed Chambers:  The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court, p. 117 (Penquin Books, 1999).
12. Akron Beacon Journal (May 7, 2005)(reporting the Associated Press study). 
13. www.otse.org.
14. Joint Task Force to Review the Administration of Ohio’s Death Penalty, Final Report and Recommendations, April 2014, Commentary to Recommendation 29.
15. Lazarus, Closed Chambers, p. 168 (summarizing the results of the famous Baldus study in Georgia); see generally, Bedau, The Death Penalty in America:  Current Controversies, pp. 29, 271 (Oxford University Press, 1997).
16. www.otse.org.
17. Details about Ohio’s exonerations are reported at www.otse.org.

TOLLERANCE - BUT ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND ONLY ON THE TOPICS THAT I CHOOSE

Here’s an interesting statistic for you:  Approximately 300 persons per year are killed in the state of California in hit and run accidents.  That means most days a Californian will kill another Californian with his car and then drive away to avoid responsibility.  Yesterday on NPR an official of the state said (and this is an approximate quote since I was driving and unable to write down what I heard) that this is a horrible situation – near four times the national average – and that “a cultural change must take place.”  His concern is California’s lack of concern for accidents in which human lives are effected.  You cannot simply hit a human being with your car and then drive away.

 

But I thought, “Why not?”  Is change what California really wants?  Are they prepared to do what would be required in order to effect a “cultural change?”  Or do they have exactly what they want?

 

Consider this about the Golden State:  They are on the verge of allowing physician assisted suicide.  They are a death penalty state.  Abortion rights are vigorously upheld.  The state self-funded embryonic stem cell research.  And these are just some of the issues that over a period of time teach a people that when life inconveniences you, you may do away with it. 

 

If you teach a rectory dog to bark whenever someone rings the doorbell, you can’t expect him not to do so on the occasion that this time it is the bishop that is ringing the bell.  In a similar way, when you teach a body of people that when your life might be change in a way that you don’t like you have a right to ask for death, you can’t expect that people to keep such a belief in tight little boxes.  Why is it Okay to kill a child in the womb that will take away my college career or Okay to allow grandma to do away with herself before she eats up my time or inheritance, but it is not Okay from me walk away from an accident (after all, it was only an accident right?) since it will simply eat up my time, attention, and resources and not really solve anything?

 

So California, are you really ready for a “cultural change?”  My prayers are with you.

THE (OBJECT/SUBJECT) OF MY AFFECTION CAN CHANGE MY COMPLECTION FROM WHITE TO ROSEY RED.

In the past week, three separate but similar incidences have occurred with people connect to this parish.  The details of all three are mixed together in order not to embarrass those involved.

 

It goes something like this:  “Father, I received a phone call from my sister.  They found my mother in a closet and want to know if I want her.  If not they are just going to start throwing everything, including her, into a dumpster.  What should I do?”

 

This is becoming less and less rare a conversation.  (Life as a priest is interesting.)  The reason it is becoming less rare is twofold:  1) The Church relaxed its rule against cremation and 2) the continued loss of respect for the dignity of the person including and especially the body.  

 

The first:  Now that the Church is no longer fighting the heresy concerning the resurrection of the body (there were those who were using cremation as a theological statement against the Church’s teaching – go figure) it no longer feels it is necessary to have a moratorium on cremation. 

 

Unfortunately that coincided (secondly) with a growing mentality of the person as an object rather than a subject (brilliantly pointed out by a priest friend at a recent meeting.  Hi O)  While living, the respect and dignity that we owe other human beings because of their inherent nature of being made in the likeness and image of God (even if they don’t look “right,” or are too small or have thrown in it away . . . ) has greatly diminished causing human beings to be objects to be used.  The greatest promoter of this mentality is porn.  No, if you look at porn today, you will not be a destroyer of humanity tomorrow, but nationally it feeds a mentality that some people can be used and then discarded. 

 

Abortion double feeds this.  It allows a woman (and in some incidences a man) to be used to fulfill a personal sexual need and when everything goes according to Hoyle and another person is conceived, the baby may be aborted thus cutting any natural ties you may have had with the woman and any responsibility toward the child.  I can walk away.  For much the same reason contraception is frowned upon.

 

A long list could be developed here but that will suffice.

 

So now there is Great Aunt Feefee’s ashes.  Instead of treating her body with great reverence and giving ancient custom of respectfully burying the body (even if it is only ashes), the body becomes an object to be used.  It is made into jewelry, passed out like party favors, or kept on display on the mantle until it ends up in a closet and someone else divesting an estate comes across it and throws it in the trash.

 

OF COURSE holding on to ashes is done with the best of intentions.  People have the desire to be close to their loved one and to have a connection.  But as Catholics we believe in the communion of saints.  The connection we have through prayer is far more real and immediate.  A body is much different than holding on to a rosary or picture or piece of jewelry.  We owe our loved ones the dignity of being a subject in their own right and to treat their body as a former Temple of the Holy Spirit, not an object of our desire to be turned in to a conversation piece.

GET SMART

When I was in college I was eligible for Social Security benefits because the government felt that my father did not make enough money.  But, don’t you know, just as I was entering college they raised the threshold just enough that I would not receive any benefits.  Go figure.

 

But that was Okay, for the very next year my father was retired for half of the year and his income was less and therefore I was once again eligible for benefits!  Except that they had changed the standards again and I was out of the group.

 

But that was Okay, because the next year my father would have been retired the entire year, making substantially less than he did just two year ago and once again I was eligible.  Except, of course, that they changed the requirements once again and once again I was left out of the group.

 

This is not about a social security check.  The fact is that I didn’t need it although it might have been fun.  But it is an example on how slight changes in law can leave you out in the cold if you are on the margin.  One slight change and you can go from favored status to non-favored status.

 

That is what the pro-life movement is about.  When any person is considered Okay to put to death, the pool of what it is to be human with dignity and rights grows smaller and those not at the center of the pool see the edge move closer toward them. 

 

The scary thing is that it doesn’t take much to be moved from the center of the pool to the edge.  An accident, a false accusation, a disease, old age, loss of a job, an incident that can take place in the twinkling of an eye can move you from the center of the pool to the edge.  (Look at the minister from Hudson in jail in a foreign country accused of human trafficking.  Though seemingly innocent, things could go terribly wrong very quickly.)  I remember being shocked at a Pro-Life march in Washington D. C. seeing people in wheel chairs holding signs that asked the question, “Am I next?”  That they could even think that a possibility says something about where we are going as a people.

 

Today, in particular, we are encouraged to pray for the legal protection of unborn children.  Masses for Peace and Justice are being celebrated.  Thousands of people are weathering the bitter, bitter cold on the Life March in Washington today.  You are encouraged to pray and fast.  It doesn’t even have to be a full fast.  Give up the last cup of coffee.  Leave the last cookie on the plate.  Don’t grab that handful of nuts.  And every time you have the urge and wish that the beautiful, steaming, yummy mug of coffee was at your hand, offer it up with a prayer for those whose lives are not held as dear and worthy as yours.

TRUST ME - THIS IS A KILLER

Yes . . . It’s a guilty pleasure . . .

 

I will admit that I watch “Dexter.”  For those unfamiliar with this show: it is the story of a mass murderer trying to live a normal life – except for those pesky murders.

 

For those familiar with the show: Don’t worry.  I will not be giving anything away.  I’m only on season three. 

 

Now, let me say from the start that much of the show is reprehensible.  That is the great thing about Netflicks: the “ff” button.  I do not recommend the show.  That being said if one pays attention carefully (at least in the three seasons that I have seen) they do grapple with lots of hot button issues concerning life, love, the role of faith, the dignity (or lack thereof) of the human person and so forth.  I rarely agree with the title character no matter how sympathetic they try to make him with swelling music, kind words, and someone saying to him, “This is the right thing.”

 

Dexter supposedly is unable to have feelings; particularly complicated feelings such as love.  He works hard then trying to figure what to do to express love to those close to him and make them feel love.  It is a radical decision for the other with little consolation to himself.  Inside his head he is saying, “This is all fake.  If they only knew I don’t know a thing about love.”  From a spiritual standpoint he is in the deepest throws of love.  If he acted lovingly toward those for whom he had great feelings of love, big whoop.  As Scriptures says, “even the pagans do the same.”  But he overcomes his deficit to love mightily.  His is probably the purest love in the show. 

 

Well, except for those murders.

 

That is the part of the show that peaks my interested.  The producers go through great lengths to make Dexter a lovable character.  And he had a code by which he lives; he will only kill those who kill and have escaped responsibility for their murders and who will most likely kill again.  So if you would become friends with Dexter, you most likely would never experience the dark side of him that “needs” to kill.  You would only know this great guy.

 

Think of that for a moment.  Allow Dexter to not be safely on the other side of the screen.  Suppose he was a true friend of yours and you know about his propensity for snuffing out life.  Could you be his friend and allow him to live his life as he allows you to live yours?  Though a bit odd and maybe a tich distant, he is thoughtful, friendly, pleasant, helpful, and fiercely loyal.  And really, he only takes the life of those many would say “deserve to die.”  Some would day that he is making the world a better place.

 

But he is in your living room having a beer with you and you can sense that you about to have a severe disagreement about something.  Though he says he would never turn his butchery on you, do you completely trust him?  Can you?  Would you not have some fear that the line that separates the “worthies” from the “worthless” might slip – maybe even for just a moment – and in a moment of passion you would become a victim instead of one of the protected class?

 

I submit that this is a wonderful analogy for our modern state which Pope Benedict calls a throw away culture.  The list grows of people we can discard – that are on the wrong side of the line.  This week was a story that there are more people on death row in Ohio than in a long time.  There is physician assisted suicides, euthanasia, abortion, and now we are on the verge of federal mandates forcing churches to be direct agents in actions they believe to be violations of human dignity.  There are questions about how we treat the poor, the insane, the refugee, the addict, the ignorant, the disenfranchised, and even the criminal. 

 

For every person added to this list of undeserving of life, the line that separates each of us from the undesirables creeps up.  It may seem a far distance away, but it is only an accident, a false accusation, or change in government away.  Many priests talk about the future and wonder if we will now end up in jail some day for teaching something that has been a part of our core beliefs for 2,000 years.

 

It’s the Dexter effect.

 

And it makes me wonder.

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

DEATH AND SEX IN THE STATE OF OHIO

Mike DiSalle, former governor of the State of Ohio called it “temporary Godlike power.” It is the decision of a man to decide if another man will live or be “legally” put to death by the state that he governs. Our new governor, Ted Strickland, could face that decision as the 24th of April approaches and we as a state are scheduled to put to death James Filliaggi by lethal injection for the shooting death of his wife. It is the decision that Pontius Pilate had to face.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer asks today, “Put aside the legal and moral arguments over capital punishment in Ohio for a minute.” Not an entirely easy thing to do. After all, the decision to be made is whether we want to become what we hate, to have absolute power of life over another human being and to choose to snuff it out. “Consider instead the decision that a governor faces alone each time he allows an execution to move forward. What must it be like to hold a man’s life in your hands?”

“It is a time for reflection and prayer,” former governor Taft is reported as saying. “If you believe in God, it’s something you have to take extremely seriously.” Mr. Taft oversaw the death of 24 condemned persons in Ohio.

It is even harder and less popular to hold up the pro-life banner when it comes to executions. Emotions run high and even some ardent supporters of life in the womb waver when it comes to the death penalty. It can be politically damaging. Former Ohio governor Celeste who opposed capitol punishment commuted the sentences of eight inmates on Ohio’s death row before leaving office in 1991 creating great controversy. That takes courage. Do we have that kind of fortitude to stick by our convictions?

Further in the paper is more news coming out of the governor’s office. Governor Strickland has stripped the funding for abstinence education because, “Quite frankly, I don’t believe that abstinence-only education programs work in the long run. There is evidence that they may delay the onset of sexual activity, but over the long term there’s not data there that show they prevent, in a statistical sense, sexual activity outside of marriage.”

This despite statewide statistics that show, “teen pregnancy rates have dropped from 42.3 pregnancies for every 1,000 females ages 10 to 19 in 1997 to 33.1 in 2005.” Do you ever feel, as a Catholic, like a political orphan?

“We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common . . .” Preamble to the 1852 constitution of the state of Ohio.

“With God, all things are possible.” State motto.

These are not concerns for Ohio alone. Many people face them. This is what this man feels called to do. What do you feel called to do?