Catholicism, holiness and spirituality

The President's Faith

I read an article in the Economist the other day about our collective fascination and preoccupation with the US President's faith perspective. Most Americans say they want a president with a strong faith, and I'm sure they want one who matches their own particular faith.

This seems like a rather recent thing, though, or maybe I'm too young to remember it. I don't remember people caring so much about the candidates' faith or religious affiliation back in the late 70's and the 80's. I'm sure it was there to an extent, but not like it has been the last 10 or 15 years. But does it really matter, and should we even care?

Let's say you liked the Clinton years - economic growth and prosperity, no major military hassles, life was good. How much of that had anything to do with Bill Clinton's faith perspective? Towards the end of his presidency it all kind of unraveled, and what role did his faith have in all that? He can talk about faith really well, but did his personal faith make a difference in his performance as president?

Now let's look at the current President Bush; his faith was mentioned in the elections and he has made no secret that it's an important part of his life. I know some people will say that his faith has had a negative impact on his performance as president; can we attribute anything positive to it?

Now we have Obama and McCain; both have problems with religion in regards to their campaigns. They come from two very different perspectives; even without any politics or campaigning, middle-aged black men and old white men most likely will talk totally differently about the role faith and religion play in their lives. And again, does it really matter?

I get the feeling that religion is being co-opted by politicians and political parties, and many if not most religious leaders are voluntarily going along with it. Religion is another way to slice & dice the electorate, it's just another demographic tag for them. It doesn't really have much to do with their own religious beliefs or their faith; it's more to do with political and religious leaders using religion as leverage on special interest issues.

Well, I don't mean to come across as cynical with all that; I'm just looking to put it in some sort of perspective that makes sense. I do believe that faith and religion can play a very positive role in a political leader's life and decisions; but at the presidential level there are so many other strong competing interests it feels likely to me that religion will most always end up as another one of the tools to divide and segregate instead of build-up and affirm. I think it's better to leave it out of the political discourse altogether.

A Fine Line

Did you catch the news that France's president Nicolas Sarkozy has instructed French schools to teach every fifth grader 'to learn the life story of one of the 11,000 French children killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust'? It seems to have created quite a stir in France, according to the NY Times article. Sarkozy went a bit further, too, by stating that 'the Nazi belief in a hierarchy of races “radically incompatible with Judeo-Christian monotheism.” I wasn't aware, but it seems Mr Sarkozy has been talking a bit more about religion:

But there is something else. Mr. Sarkozy is shattering another barrier in French intellectual life: religion. His public statements on the subject seem to reflect a deeply held belief that religious values have an important place in everyday French society — an iconoclastic position for a French politician.

When Mr. Sarkozy was made an Honorary Canon of the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome last December, he proposed a “positive secularism” that “does not consider religions a danger, but an asset.” He was even more provocative in declaring that “the schoolteacher will never be able to replace the priest or the pastor” in teaching the difference between good and evil.

In Saudi Arabia last month, he infused his speech with more than a dozen references to God, who, he said, “liberates” man. He also said last month that it was a mistake to delete the reference to “Europe’s Christian roots” from the European Constitution.

In France, a country where one’s religion is typically kept private, Mr. Sarkozy heralds his religious identity, referring publicly to his Jewish grandfather and wearing his Roman Catholicism on his sleeve.

“I am of Catholic culture, Catholic tradition, Catholic belief, even if my religious practice is episodic,” he wrote in a book of essays in 2004. “I consider myself as a member of the Catholic Church.”

Well, France's 'secularists' and 'political opponents' set off alarms about all this, and eventually started blaming the United States:

Other analysts blamed the confessional approach of the United States for infecting Mr. Sarkozy’s thinking. “Listen, it’s in the air of the times,” said Régis Debray, the philosopher and author, on France Inter radio Friday. “There is a religious sentimentality, a pretty vague religiousness, let’s say, in the world of show business, in the world of business, that comes from America. It’s the neoconservative wave of the born-agains.”

I can see why many in France might be uncomfortable with all this. I wouldn't want any US president dictating what should be taught in schools; that's a legislative action that ought to be made more by educators and parents, not politicians. Yet, I admire Sarkozy for not hiding his religious life from the world. He doesn't claim to be a perfect Catholic (who is?), but he acknowledges the positive role faith plays in his life and can play in society. Religion can be an asset, it can liberate, and it is at the root of much that is good in history and society.

And yes, religion can bind and suppress, it can be a drag on public policy, and many have suffered violence and tyranny in the name of this-or-that religion. That is also part of our history and our heritage. Like every other social movement, religion cuts both ways.

For those leaders and politicians who are religious, there is a fine line between religion that informs their decisions and religion that dictates their decisions. Hopefully, Sarkozy is tending towards the former and not the latter; and I hope the same holds true for our next US president.

Stooge or hypocrite?

I was reading a recent issue of America Magazine (a must-read magazine for Catholics, in my opinion) about Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism. As many people and writers do, it was probing the questions of the timing of the conversion and what it means to be a Catholic politician. Tony Blair led a country and espoused policies that promoted things that don't nicely line up with Catholic morality, so what does that mean about his conversion, or about being a Catholic politician? Good questions, all; but it was a different line that caught my attention - a common perception about Catholic politicians:

Vote with the Vatican and you are a Roman stooge; vote against and you are a hypocrite.

Well, that seems to me to be a true statement, as far as perceptions go. John Kennedy had to confront it; John Kerry was called a hypocrite by a lot of people. I understand that a politician represents the people, and in the best case works for the common good of his or her constituency. And someone has to govern, after all. I suppose being a politician is a sort of vocation, or calling. If God blessed me with the gifts to be a good consultant, then I'm sure he blesses others to be good politicians.

I'm fortunate in that my line of work doesn't really have the possibility of coming into conflict with Catholic moral teachings, but Catholic politicians are not as fortunate in their calling.

And then there is the calling we all have to not only live in the world but to transform it - to work for peace, justice, salvation and so on. We are all called to do that, regardless of what we do to pay the bills. And this is where politicians face a tough dilemma - their constituency is pushing them into conflict with church teaching in a number of areas - abortion, capital punishment, war, solidarity and so on.

So I think there needs to be some middle-ground, some nuance between stooge and hypocrite. We Catholics will consider a fellow Catholic politician's positions and past decisions that conflict with the church's moral teachings. That's just natural. Hopefully we will put every candidate in that same light. What we need to do, for the good of the political process as well as to make progress on peace, justice and salvation, is to explore that middle ground between stooge and hypocrite. In my opinion, we will be better off as a result of that exploration, that conversation, than when we close off dialog with the stooges and hypocrites.

Politics

How's that for a title: Politics.

Politics have been on my mind lately, and I'm just not sure what to say about it all. But here's a start...

How many millions of dollars have been raised by presidential candidates in the primaries? Not just a few million, but hundreds of millions! Just in the primaries. That could feed, shelter and care for a lot of needy families in the US. Like war, we can find millions of dollars to support a politician's campaign. But when we ask for money to fund public safety, community development, health care or other basic human needs we often come up short. What's up with that?

Some may remember my involvement in a local pro-life pregnancy counseling center. I'm actually chairperson on the board of directors. And it seems like I'm the only person in the organization of volunteers and supporters that is not a conservative, single issue, any-tax-increase-is-bad Republican. Oh, and I'm not a creationist, either. I voted for a local tax increase this week, and I've voted for Democrats in the past. And oh yeah, capital punishment ought to be outlawed. One can be against abortion without being a conservative Republican and (dare I say it?) without advocating a repeal of Roe v. Wade. Single issue myopia, fueled by special interest groups and pandered to by politicians, has driven from the public consciousness a desire for the common good. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

I'm already tired of the presidential campaign, and we still have a year to go! Politics is big business, I suppose. Like the Christmas shopping season, why not start earlier so you can sell more?

Yes, I'm cynical about politics. I don't need politicians to sell themselves to me. I need a politician willing to sign on for the common good of the country, of humanity.

An American Catholic

This morning I was reflecting on Independence Day, the state of our country, and what it means to be an American Catholic. America Magazine had a couple good articles – an editorial titled Independence Day and an article about David O'Brien titled American and Catholic. Elsewhere I read articles about the state of the union today – the war in Iraq, how other nations have a lower favorable opinion of us than they used to, how we spend so much money on the presidential race, and so on. They all make sense, and they left me with an impression that indeed our nation does have problems. But then, no one had a reasonable solution to offer, either.

Then I picked up a book that I had started reading a while ago, a book that my wife recommended: The Gift of Change, by Marianne Williamson. I had bookmarked a certain page, which I often do when I come across things that I want to revisit. So, I took a look at that particular page, and it pretty much hit home with how I am feeling about being an American Catholic. The quote is a bit long, but the context is needed:

This is an all-hands-on-deck kind of moment on earth. It's not OK to be stuck in the smallness of our narcissism when our greatness is so needed. It's time for each of us to face once and for all whatever demons have kept us chained to our neuroses and pain; to stand up for ourselves as a way of standing up for God; and to take our places in God's plan for the salvation of the world.

This is an exciting time and a critical one. It's not a time to be a lone ranger. It's a time, despite whatever our pain and heartbreak, to reach deep into ourselves and humbly towards each other. For there we will find God, and in God there is every answer we are looking for, every solution we so desperately seek, and every joy we might have come to think was gone and gone forever. This is the time, and we are the ones.

And why are we not already functioning at a higher level of mastery? What holds many of us back is not spiritual ignorance but spiritual laziness. We know many of the principles of higher consciousness; we're just too mentally and emotionally undisciplined to apply them universally. We apply forgiveness where it's easy, faith where it seems to make rational sense, and love where it's convenient. We're serious, but not really...

Now contrast that with the advocates of hate.

Do terrorists hate us just some of the time? Do they have a casual commitment to their cause? Do they take less than seriously the goal of full manifestation of their worldview? The only way we will triumph over hate is to become as deeply committed to love as some people are committed to hate, as deeply committed to expressing our love as some people are devoted to expressing their hate, as firm that love is our mission as some are that hate is theirs.

I don't believe we can separate our Catholic identity from our American identity. In fact I believe we're called to integrate them, and the starting point for that is love of God and love of neighbor. It's love that leads to liberty and justice for all. Love leads to good governance of the people, by the people and for the people. And in this crazy world of war, terrorism, immorality, crime, oppression and poverty, it is love that will make America great.

A Catholic View on Immigration Policy

I don't watch TV news or follow many issues in-depth via other sources, but it's impossible not to notice the rancor these days around immigration reform. It seems to me that the US does have a particularly large problem with illegal immigration across its southern border, and that we have, perhaps (but how does one know for sure?), millions of illegal or undocumented immigrants in the US.

The illegal immigrants are working here, raising families, going to church, being parts of communities, and dying here. Most of them are good, hard-working, honest folks, and there are some who are troublesome criminals, too. In my opinion, they are fellow members of the human race, with the same good and bad qualities as the rest of us. If any one of us was in their shoes, would we have done anything different?

So I wondered what does my church have to say about this immigration issue? I did a bit of searching and found that the US and Mexican bishops got together a few years ago to produce a document titled Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. They also established an advocacy web site called Justice for Immigrants, which has a couple nice FAQ's and backgrounders on Catholic social teaching for immigration. Generally, their position, which came out in 2005, sounds in line with the recently proposed legislation from President Bush:

Does the Catholic Church support illegal immigration?

The Catholic Bishops do not condone unlawful entry or circumventions of our nation’s immigration laws.  The bishops believe that reforms are necessary in order for our nation’s immigration system to respond to the realities of separated families and labor demands that compel people to immigrate to the United States, whether in an authorized or unauthorized fashion.

Our nation’s economy demands foreign labor, yet there are insufficient visas to meet this demand.  Close family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents face interminable separations, sometimes of twenty years or longer, due to backlogs of available visas.  U.S. immigration laws and policies need to be updated to reflect these realties.

Does the Catholic Church support “amnesty”?

The Catholic bishops are proposing an earned legalization for those in this country in an unauthorized status and who have built up equities and are otherwise admissible. “Amnesty,” as commonly understood, implies a pardon and a reward for those who did not obey immigration laws, creating inequities for those who wait for legal entry.  The bishops’ proposal is not an “amnesty.”

The Bishops’ earned legalization proposal provides a window of opportunity for undocumented immigrants who are already living in our communities and contributing to our nation to come forward, pay a fine and application fee, go through rigorous criminal background checks and security screenings, demonstrate that they have paid taxes and are learning English, and obtain a visa that could lead to permanent residency, over time. 

August 22, 2005

Their proposal and the legislation President Bush proposed makes sense to me, though I realize there's something in it for every side to dislike. Maybe we're at the point where enough people recognize the current way of handling immigration - legal and illegal - no longer fits the reality of the world we live in? The process of getting useful legislation passed will likely be messy, disjointed and acrimonious but at least, hopefully, we'll fix more than we break.

Nonpolitical action

The politics of abortion are a very curious thing for me. Support for abortion is a litmus test for some people when they evaluate a candidate; for others, it’s a litmus test for which party they support. The Republicans are supposedly against abortion, while the Democrats are supposed to support it. But if you look at individual candidates, that sharp line quickly blurs. Both parties use abortion as a way to define themselves and each other, as well as to raise money.

I don’t put nearly as much stock into a candidate’s or a party’s stance on abortion as I used to. And I won’t even get started on the general hypocrisy of politicians who label themselves pro-life yet support capital punishment, war, and reductions in health care for folks who need it. While their anti-abortion intentions may be good, the problem is not something they can really solve. Abortion isn’t a political problem to be solved; it’s a symptom of social and family problems, which we all need to work on.

When we decry and condemn a woman’s abortion, I wonder where we were when she and her male partner decided to have sex while knowing they didn’t want to have children. Where were we when she and her male partner were learning about sex? Were we teaching them both about the value of chastity? Did their parents talk to them about sex and the value of chastity? Or, did their idea of appropriate behavior come from peers, TV shows, magazines and movies?

What have we done to teach them about the value of a human life compared to getting a start on a career or going to the right college at the right time? Did we teach them that the value of life is higher than the embarrassment of making mistakes? Or have we loaded them up with so much guilt, shame, ambition and fear that they feel compelled to have and hide an abortion?

For those who are seeking abortions, what are we doing to offer them alternatives? Where can they go to get some counseling and support? Do we accept them with open love and care, regardless of who they are or what they choose?

It doesn’t seem wise to me to treat the symptom while ignoring the problems. The government, in my opinion, can’t address many of the problems that lead people to abortion. It’s up to me as a parent and a member of my community to address these problems. So I’m going to continue investing my money, time and talent not in politics but in my own family and in community efforts that address the problems that lead to abortion. That's more difficult than simply casting a vote for an anti-abortion politician, but it's much more effective, and it might even have a direct impact on peoples' lives.

The election is over!

Yeah! The election is over. No more nasty political commericals, and more real news in the papers & magazines. Oh, and since the Republicans got spanked, we now have a real balance of power in the Federal government. As a moderate Republican, that feels good - now maybe Congress and the president will keep each other in check, we'll get some good old fashioned gridlock to slow down the growth of government & spending, forcing us to have a better discussion and debate on the issues, and so on.

OK, that's as political as I will get here. Moving on...

Should Religion Influence Politics?

Religion and politics – the intersection of the two is a hot topic these days. I’ve read that the IRS is looking into whether or not certain churches have violated their tax-exempt status by endorsing particular candidates. A recent issue of The Economist had a couple articles ( 'In the world of good and evil' and 'The God slot') on the influence of religion on United States’ politics and foreign policy.

In the Economist, a French advisor on international relations says that “the combination of religion and nationalism in America is frightening. We feel betrayed by God and by nationalism, which is why we are building the European Union as a barrier to religious warfare.” Though many in the US are of European descent, the US is not Europe. We don't have the same history of religion-states and religiously-inspired wars. Does that European feeling of betrayal have to be institutionalized? I wonder...

Meanwhile, the Episcopal All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA is fighting an IRS investigation that resulted from an anti-war sermon in 2004. And here in my own region, a couple megachurches are getting attention for, in some peoples’ opinion, crossing the line on endorsing the Republican candidate for governor. Religious influence in US government is not at all hard to recognize – from President Bush’s choice of words to the fact that, according to The Economist, 60% of those who voted for him are evangelicals, Mormons and ‘traditional Catholics’ (We could talk a lot about the definition of Traditional Catholic, another time...).

Last election we had Catholic Answers distributing millions of copies of its Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics; meanwhile the US Conference of Catholic Bishops published their Faithful Citizenship, a call to political responsibility. This year we have the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good distributing Voting for the Common Good: A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics. About once a week I get an email from my evangelical and/or ‘hardline Catholic’ friends urging me to do this or that regarding some political issue. It's funny - are we Catholics letting the politicans and their political consultants slice and dice us into serious, traditional, conscientious and hardline types? And then we have the TV preacher club pronouncing their opinions on how religion ought to influence politics, and our votes.

Religion and politics seem to be drawn to each other in the US, even though we try to keep them apart. The fact that they are drawn together is a good thing, in my opinion. When a person’s religious convictions affect their vote, it tells me that they are taking their religion seriously. And I’d rather see someone take their religion seriously, than not take an interest in it at all. It’s good that people integrate their religious morals with their responsibility as a voting citizen in a democracy.

What about those people who choose to cast a different vote than ours, and they even have the nerve to justify it with their religious morals? Well, I say: Welcome to democracy and freedom of religion.

But what about the question? Should religion affect or influence politics? In my opinion, it’s a false question. Do the media influence politics? Does money influence politics? Do unions and political action groups affect politics? Yes, they do – that’s how democracy works. Our culture influences politics. But, none of that is an excuse to be a voting citizen who is ignorant of the issues, or of one’s responsibility to be part of the democratic process. Rather, it means that you won’t always get what you want, or what you think is right, but you’ll always have a voice in the matter.

Dialog on the past

Wow, what a week for the pope. I read his lecture at Regensburg, where he quoted Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus who wrote that Islam brought "things only evil and inhuman, such as [Mohammed's] command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The way I read it, the pope was saying 'you know, the other day I was reading this book about 13th century history and a quote by emperor Manuel II reminded me how violence has no place in religion.' Or something like that.

Well, that started quite a firestorm of criticism. Muslims considered it quite an insult, and some compared the pope to Hitler and Mussolini. They angrily called for an apology. Today I read that the pope issued a statement saying he ws "very sorry that some passages of his speech sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers." Not good enough for some, who called for a more personal apology; which will probably come on Sunday.

And then, I read today that two Christian churches - not Catholic, though - were firebombed in the West Bank.

Christianity has had quite a violent past. We've beat up on the Jews and the Muslims, and since the Reformation we've beat up on each other. And while various Christian groups still proselytize each other, we've pretty much given up physical aggression against each other. We're not perfect, but religously-inspired violence against others is by far the exception than the rule. Still, any reader of Christian history has to be aware of this violent past, and I think we're accepting those past sins and trying to reconcile and move forward. It's not easy, but it's good for the soul.

I'm bothered with the fact that we can't talk about Islam's violent past or present in a religious context, without this hubris of accusations that Christianity/the West is insulting Islam or starting another Crusade. I don't mean to say that others should or should not be bothered; I can't dictate another's feelings. But how do we have a reasonable dialog when the mention of a 13th century quote incites such a vehement and violent response?