R.I.P., G.O.D.

[late '66 or early '67]

In later years, he would amuse himself by signing his emails "G.O.D." -- that's "Good Old Dad", of course...

No Party Line to Cross, or to Toe

Over the past weekend, friend Spartacus found time to turn his keen attention from our political woes long enough to catch a posting of mine from last week, and wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: "Spark" le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@YabbaDoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 1:10 AM
To: Aging Child
Subject: Response to blog

Hey dude!

Kudos to you for having the courage and independence of mind to go against the Catholic party line on this upcoming election. The Church's kind of single issue thinking, given what is at stake now, is absolutely unconscionable--good for you guy, you haven't abdicated your critical thinking abilities completely (but advocating the banning of books, and the oppression of women?! Keep sliding down that slippery slope, my friend, and you're going to have to turn in your Liberal ID card!).

Uh... Sparks, there's no such thing as "Catholic party-line on this upcoming election"; there can't be – and must not be. Just as Nancy Pelosi cannot instruct credibly on Catholic doctrine, so also does Benedict XVI not endorse one (wo)man over another in politics. In fact, the Church has stringently ruled that clergy must in fact not venture into active politicking, and has exercised discipline toward that end. Good.

So perhaps I wasn't clear enough in how I put it in that earlier entry here: in following my faith, and my faith-formed conscience, I find simply that I myself cannot agree with certain specific recommendations made by fellow Catholics – even particular members of the clergy – whose own faith leads them to conclusions different from mine.

In no way does this make me wiser spiritually, especially given the depth of spirituality clearly seen in these men and women. I am simply finding that I cannot agree with these very few, narrow, non-Church reads of theirs... and I am more flawed and weak and imperfect than they are. This doesn't make me right, just... differing in faith-in-action.

So I wrote back to Spartacus – and hope this clarified for him (and will for you) more fully where I am and why. It's not Church vs. politics... it's Church and politics:

Not going against the Catholic Church in my politics / voting-preference. It's not the Church's place to tell members (and non-) for which person to vote (is also codified in our Constitution and by various followup rulings). However, the Church (and all faiths) is entitled and usually so structured as to direct/encourage members into utilizing their faith in all things done during the course of the day, big and little. (E.g., easier to tolerate a possible moron in traffic if I back off and say a prayer for him (and nearby potential victims!), rather than yield to my first impulse of anger and outrage.) And of course to use the faith and its teachings in utilizing greater privileges and responsibilities, such as voting, support for social issues/causes, and so on… in whatever country, culture, and faith-tradition.

Re Church/church (not the same thing) I am free disagree in two areas:

a)   little, non-critical things – customs (that's the word I've been looking for), such as… (oh, I don't know; these I largely follow, so they don't really stand out to me at the moment) how to receive the Eucharist, outward devotional practices (e.g., prayers at certain times and with certain clear areas of focus/aim/aspect/intercession, such as the Rosary, Divine Mercy, Sacred Heart, and the like) and sacramentals (statuary, relics, etc.). But a priest I deeply admired (RIP), and still do, refused to wear a mauve/pink robe on the third Sunday of Advent – despite tradition – because he really didn't want to look like some maiden-aunt's drapery (his words!); he also fumed to me in private about some silly direction from Rome (and he used a non- G-rated word to sum it up) regarding changes to the layout of the altar. All these things, in terms of practice and custom (though not the spirituality behind them) are not matters of core doctrine / spiritual teaching, moral direction, and that level of religious expression, practice, and tradition. And,

b)   what some members of the clergy, from Deacon to His Holiness, suggest or even urge in regards to putting into worldly practice out of the teachings and traditions of the Church. These individuals – some of whom I regard most highly – engage certain things of the world in ways I will not and cannot. In particular, of course, I mean single-issue voting. And as I've said, I do support the elimination of abortion... but I do look further than some of Christianity's pulpit-pounders, and worry greatly over also addressing, at the same time, the horrid, unacceptable social/cultural excreta that lead and drive people into what should not be a panicky situation in the first place (and I've been there, three times).

Rome does not want robots, and does not set forth to govern all the little piddly-things. No one will dictate the little things of my daily life – nor even the bigger things, where a dictate contradicts a spiritual truth/doctrine that is demonstrably of even greater worth in living our lives (and preparing for the next) toward greater sanctity and spiritual maturity.

I will not even be God's own sandal-licker (pardon me); I know of a prayer (can't remember the first half) that mentions the pray-er's desire to make it to Heaven "where I will praise Thee forever and ever". That just grates on me: I don't want to spend eternity in mindless adoration, like some supine serf proffering back to rest m' Lud's mud-soaked ermine socks on. I want to stay busy.

In the next world, I want to be an intercessor (like Thérèse), a tiny laborer toward divine universal objectives. I'll pass on the harp, though I'm okay with a round of hearty hosannas. Father Groeschel says, with some seriousness, that once he's passed on he'd like to help St. Anthony in answering people's little prayers for help finding, say, lost pets. I want my soul/spirit to live in ever-greater humility, but I strongly believe this is not achieved through total suspension of all personal (yet spiritually-educated) judgment.

And out of knowledge and acceptance of my weaknesses and flaws, I am the first to point out that I may be wrong in this, that in fact the thousand(?)-to-one ration of aborted babies to slaughtered soldiers is a higher imperative. At this point, however, I strongly feel that the Church that sustains me does not call me to superficiality. No.

I do stand (and at times even cower) in awe of God, from the whorl of galaxy to the whirl of electrons, and the little water-funnel in the bathtub that goes opposite ways in opposite Northern/Southern Hemispheres. The awe translates to deep respect, regard, and devotion, and what weak love the flawed me can offer. It motivates me to seek to grasp and accept His objectives for me and for the world around me, and assist into setting things a little more right in this musty little corner.

I am not a "cafeteria Catholic", not in issues of faith, doctrine, and morals: there I am the Church's loyal, obedient (and very imperfect) son. I am a "yes, but" Catholic in the piddly stuff. Obedience does not require I be a windup toy – see Matthew 21:28-31: Jesus himself does not elevate obedience to a virtue, but rather following God's will/command/request/wish.

He gave us free will, remember.

 

The Politics of Fear and Hatred

Longtime friend and regular contributor Spartacus tore off his own gloves this weekend, copying me on a very powerful email he was firing back to a low-brow, knee-jerk, possibly-bigoted conservative associate who'd forwarded him yet another tiring screed against Barack Obama. I get them too, usually delete (but sometimes make like Sparks did here… though not in the keen, incisive manner he's used)

Sparks has given me permission to publish his email verbatim here, and I do so. Let me tell you, folks, it had me almost literally jumping up and down in adrenalin-driven agreement.

First, the original email that stuck in his craw; I retain the lousy spelling, boldface, and flaming all-caps:

 

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

It doesn't matter to me if you are democrat or republican. As Americans this should scare the hell out of you. It sure does me.

[sender's name]

Obama quotes on Sunday 8/7/08 From Sunday's televised Meet the Press:

"I WILL HAVE TO PUT ASIDE MY HATRED"

What??? - OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

From Sunday's televised "Meet the Press" Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag... Obama Explains National Anthem Stance

"It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren...."

"We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice."

"My wife disrespects the flag for many personal reasons. Together, she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago."

"Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT AMERICANS WILL BE SO DECEIVED AND DUPED BY THIS TREACHEROUS OBAMA WHO SEEKS THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES - THAT THEY WILL ELECT HIM!

GOD HELP US ALL IF HE SHOULD GAIN THE PRESIDENCY OF OUR COUNTRY!

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And also this one… I've cleaned up the autoformatting, but none of the idiocy:

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [name withheld]

To: [twenty-two unfortunate recipients]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:46 PM

Subject: WHAAAAAAAT the Hell !!!

 

Here you have it folks. Now you know where we are headed. Even the Washington Post has seen the light.

"I WILL HAVE TO PUT ASIDE MY HATRED"

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

From Sunday's televised "Meet the Press" Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag... Obama Explains National Anthem Stance

Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST

General Bill Ginn USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At the very least, "Stand and Face It."

Senator Obama, live on Sunday, states, "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides," Obama said. "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.

"We should consider to reinvent our National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My wife disrespects the flag for many personal reasons. Together, she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views and I have mine".

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly be our next President.

I, for one, am speechless.

Dale Lindsborg

Washington Post

And our man Spartacus charges right out of the gate:

 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Spark" le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 1:10 AM
To: Aging Child
Subject: Response to a forwarded e-mail

 

This is in response to the e-mail I received which is repeated below under the "forwarded message" heading. It's FALSE, folks. Here's the true story on Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

We are nearing the end of 8 years of misrule by likely the worst presidential administration the USA has ever had. The latest polls show only about 10% of the public are satisfied with the job Bush/Cheney have been doing for the past 8 years. The president is such an embarrassment he wasn't even present or even MENTIONED at the Republican National Convention, so anxious are the Republicans to publicly distance themselves from the utter disaster of the past 8 years. But if you look at the Republican campaign platform, it is unchanged from that of the Bush years.

The US Constitution has been trampled, our freedoms have been stripped from us, our regulatory agencies have been gutted, we are bogged down in 2 wars, one of which we were lied to about the reasons for getting into, the economy is in the worst shape since the Great Depression, hundreds of thousands out of work, hundreds of thousands of jobs shipped overseas, etc, etc, etc. In other words--we are facing HUGE, REAL problems, yet still the politics of fear and hatred continue to exert their poisonous influence, diverting us from the REAL issues and problems we are faced with, both as a nation and as individuals.

Of course, Bush didn't do it all on his own. Spineless and corrupt Democratic and Republican congressmen and senators, lobbyists, ideologues, corporate fatcats and financiers aided and abetted the criminal Bush regime, allowing him to amass almost dictatorial powers. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Is Obama the ideal candidate for POTUS? No. Is McCain a better candidate? No. His record and policies are almost exactly the same as Bush's. His mindset is the same as Bush's. Voting for McCain is like voting for 4 more years of Bush--does anyone in their right mind really want that?

The lies, hysteria and HATRED being whipped up against Obama are really quite amazing--even McCain at his recent campaign rallies has asked his supporters to tone it down--the rhetoric is getting that scary and out of control. I suspect McCain cautioned his followers because he doesn't want to be perceived as being responsible for Obama's possible assassination--yeah, it's that bad!

What could possibly cause such a crazed reaction to Obama? If you look at his record with an objective eye, he is pretty much in line with many of his colleagues in Congress, contrary to the wild "commie-leftist terrorist" accusations being flung at him. So what could it be, what could possibly be the strong objection to Obama, an objection so strong many people seem willing to have a repeat of the last 8 years in the form of McCain replacing Bush? When I ask my friends who are against Obama what their objections are, I often hear vague responses like, "There's something about him", "I don't know, I just don't trust the guy.", "He seems sneaky.". Very often it seems like there is something else they want to say, but either don't know how to say it, or don't want to say it.

I think I have an idea about what they are not saying. Sometimes, depending on the individual, I know damn well what they are aren't saying. We're all adults here, so I'm going to say it--a lot of Americans will not vote for Obama because he is black. Period. End of discussion. They would rather see 4 more years of the disastrous Bush regime than vote for a black man.

"Oh no!", you say, "I'm not prejudiced, I have plenty of African-American friends!"

Good for you! I admire your enlightened attitude. But while we're speaking bluntly here, let me ask you, my white brothers and sisters, how many of you have friends, co-workers, even family members who ARE prejudiced? I'd be willing to bet any amount of $$ you know bigots, people who would never vote for Obama even if he were running against the Devil himself.

No? Really? You say all your white friends, co-workers and family members love their black brothers and sisters even as they love themselves. Wow, that's wonderful. You must be living in that promised land Martin Luther King was talking about. I wish you would tell me where it is, because in my half century on this vale of tears I haven't seen it.

Oh, and if you think I'm some Democrat shill for Obama, guess again. I'm actually disappointed with him and pessimistic that he can really make much effective change in this disaster of a nation if he did become POTUS. The shit is now so deep, no one man, no matter what his qualifications, will be able to make much headway in a system which is rotten to its very core. If we ever needed a revolution, the time is now. Playing the same ol', same ol' Dimmocrap vs Rethugnican game just ain't gonna cut it. It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting different results. We've pretty much been doing that same thing for at least the last 30 some years, if not longer, and look where it has gotten us--we are well and truly screwed. My most fervent and best wish is that Americans will wake up, and rise up to take back our country "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

Having said all that, I still think Obama is a better choice than McCain. Why? The biggest thing Obama has going for him is intelligence. There's no denying his intelligence--look at his record at Harvard for one example. Where there is intelligence, there is hope. With the complicated issues facing us at home and abroad today, we need someone capable of understanding what is going on and the intelligence to search for the right answers.

Contrast that with McCain, a man who, if not for his "good fortune" at being shot down and made POW-hero, had what must objectively be seen as a dismal Navy career--graduated near the very bottom of his class at the Navy Academy, crashed several airplanes, acted in a questionable manner during the infamous "Zuni rocket" incident. He has a reputation for being a "maverick", an aviator who once said checklists are a waste of time, a guy who "shoots from the hip". Those qualities may be great for a Hollywood action hero, but they aren't so good for the POTUS. Those impulsive, reckless acts are indicative of someone who doesn't have much intelligence, someone who doesn't value intelligence. Those are the kinds of actions which are going to get us even further into trouble if he gets into the White House.

To summarize: With Obama in the White House, we have at least some hope of starting to get on the right track. With McCain, we get a repeat of the past 8 years--8 years which put us in the worst situation we have been in since the Great Depression.

One last thing. Before you pass on crap like that reprinted below, do yourself and everyone else a favor and run it by Snopes before hitting the "forward" button. Snopes is totally non-partisan and is committed to the truth, no matter what side of the party line it falls on.

Thank you!

Followup: Two comments came in; first:

RB in KC Oct 15, 2008

This smear about the flag pin has been going around the internet for months, and every word of it is dishonest and manipulative; part of a broad, shadowy strategy to scare people by spreading anonymous, false information. In fact, it was taken word-for-word from an expressly satirical article published in October, 2007. The author didn't claim it was true, and it is indeed absolutely false.

But even though it's fiction, this satire still misses the mark by a wide margin. The truth is, Barack Obama loves America and he knows that this is the only country in the world where he could have worked his way up from such humble roots to become the nominee for President. There's even video of Barack leading the Pledge of Allegiance on the floor of the United States Senate that you can see here http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/patriot

Snopes.com has thoroughly debunked this entire smear and even provides a link to the satirical article from which it was drawn, word-for-word: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

Urban Legends has also debunked the smear here: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_anthem.htm

I responded:

AgingChild Oct 15, 2008

Thanks, RB — appreciate your stopping by and weighing in!

Please feel free to pass along a link to this posting if you'd like; I'm sending your comment back over to Spartacus. I can't take credit for his mad-as-hell response, but was quite pleased — thrilled — to put it out there for more eyes to see. Also forwarded it to some conservative friends… none of whom responded. Hmm…

I keep falling back on that classic bumper-sticker I first saw in 1996: "Vote Republican — It's Easier Than Thinking!"

Take care, RB!

And here's the second comment.

Janet Oct 28, 2008

I frequently get annoying e-mails along these lines, as my family is uber conservative. (I've jokingly suggested they change their Republican symbol from an elephant to an ostrich… they didn't find it as funny as I did.) I'm amazed that they continue to forward this shit without a) verifying it's authenticity via snopes or any other reliable publication b) considering whether or not this is hateful, prejudice, or divisive and c) fixing the grammatical errors. Because seriously, the people formulating this spam probably dropped out of high school to work in pa's garage.

Intelligence. Please. Obama 08.

"Toward a More Profound Understanding"

Lest I be painted – especially by me – as kid-gloves-only with Democrats / liberals, and boxing-gloves-only with Republicans / conservatives, let me put up here in full and verbatim (and without permission… but attribution and link included) an article posted by Dan Morris-Young last month via Catholic News Service.

I strongly favor women in politics, and when in doubt will vote for a woman's name where I'm not adequately familiar with the issues/candidates on that portion of the ballot. Exception, of course, being women of the Republican party – sorry, ma'am; ma'am. An exception to that exception was the mother of a close friend and associate some years back, for whom I voted (over a Democrat – whom I didn't know – because she'd raised a good (and adopted) son) back in the early nineties. (Also voted for a Green woman, who still lost, more recently.)

I state without a quibble that I am a feminist almost entirely across the board of causes, concerns, and issues. (I do not, and cannot, support abortion – to which a woman has no more "right" than I would to shooting dead a man who might have cut me off in traffic. It's not her body alone – what's gestating there within is someone else, no more that woman than I am my mother.) The more women running things, the better. Obvious overwhelming argument: look at the utter mess we men have made of it around the world. QED.

Oh, and speaking of abortion: Watch this music video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCmLmZDpB4I (YouTube)

http://catholic777.blogspot.com/2008/08/this-is-my-body.html (blog-posting)

It's had me in tears more than once (including just a couple minutes ago), and says far more beautifully, and simply, everything and anything I could say about this terrible issue.

Back to women in politics:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi I have a particularly deep respect and high regard for. However, several weeks ago she inexcusably crossed a line in pulling the Church down a peg to (rather weakly) support her own abortion-stance. Here follows Dan Morris-Young's article on Pelosi's statement, and the first immediate fallout (Cardinal Rigali I'm familiar with; he has a very good – and quite orthodox – intellect; Cardinal George I know of; and Bishop Lori also serves as Supreme Chaplain of the Knights of Columbus, of which I'm a member… but am not here representing):

Archbishop Niederauer to Pelosi: Can We Talk?

Dan Morris-Young | Catholic News Service | Posted: 09.08.08

SAN FRANCISCO (CNS) | Calling recent nationally broadcast comments by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "in serious conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church," Archbishop George H. Niederauer of San Francisco invited the Catholic lawmaker "into a conversation with me" about church teaching on abortion, the beginning of human life and the formation of conscience.

Archbishop Niederauer said in a Sept. 5 statement that he regretted addressing the issue so publicly, because Pelosi — a Democrat who represents San Francisco area — has been a dedicated public servant who has promoted some legislation that is in line with the social teachings of the Catholic Church.

"But the widespread consternation among Catholics made it unavoidable," he added.

The statement, which was carried in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco, [the city's] archdiocesan newspaper, was Archbishop Niederauer's first public comment on the matter since Pelosi's Aug. 24 remarks drew national criticism.

The House Speaker said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that day that church leaders for centuries had not been able to agree on when life begins.

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairmen of the U.S. bishops' pro-life and doctrine committees, respectively, criticized Pelosi the next day, saying she "misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion."

Since the First Century, the church "has affirmed the moral evil of every abortion," the two chairmen said.

Archbishop Niederauer said many Catholics "have written me letters and sent me e-mails in which they expressed their dismay and concern about the speaker's remarks.

"Very often they moved on to a question that caused much discussion during the 2004 campaign: Is it necessary to deny holy Communion to some Catholics in public life because of their public support for abortion on demand?" he added.

Church leaders should be cautious when making judgments about who is worthy of receiving holy Communion, he said.

"The practice of the church is to accept the conscientious self-appraisal of each person" when he or she approaches [the altar] for Communion, Archbishop Niederauer said.

Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., took a stronger position in a statement issued Aug. 26.

"Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to this most fundamental moral teaching of the church place themselves outside full communion with the church," he wrote in his statement, "and they should not present themselves for the reception of holy Communion."

In the "Meet the Press" interview, Pelosi said specific considerations must be undertaken during each trimester of a child's development before an abortion can be performed.

"This isn't about abortion on demand. It's about careful, careful consideration of all factors… that a woman has to make with her doctor and her God," she said, adding that her goal is to make abortion safe and rare while reducing the number of abortions nationwide.

Though critical of Pelosi's statements and stands on abortion and other life issues, the archbishop described the member of St. Vincent de Paul Parish in San Francisco as "a gifted, dedicated, and accomplished public servant" who "has stated often her love for her faith and for the Catholic Church."

The archbishop told Catholic San Francisco he had written to Pelosi personally about his statement and had a copy of it delivered to her office Sept. 4.

Bishops from Denver to St. Paul and Minneapolis, Chicago, and Fargo, N.D., asserted that Catholics have a responsibility to study church teachings on human life and when life begins, which is at the moment of conception.

"The teaching of the Church was clear in a Roman Empire that permitted abortion," said Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "This same teaching has been constantly reiterated in every place and time up to Vatican II, which condemned abortion as a 'heinous crime.'

"This is true today and will be so tomorrow," Cardinal George continued in a statement issued Sept. 2. "Any other comments, by politicians, professors, pundits, or the occasional priest, are erroneous and cannot be proposed in good faith."

In his statement, Archbishop Niederauer said Pelosi has consistently mischaracterized church doctrine on abortion.

"For 20 centuries, not for 50 years (as stated by Pelosi), the Catholic Church has taught that abortion is grievously sinful," he said. "Individual theologians may from time to time have speculated about the beginning of human life, but the church has consistently taught that abortion is wrong. The answer to the question, "When does life begin?' should not have an impact, we are told, on the woman's right to choose. Nevertheless, the woman's right to choose certainly has an impact on nascent human life."

The archbishop said he had an obligation as her pastor "to teach forthrightly and to shepherd caringly, and that is my intent. Let us pray together that the Holy Spirit will guide us all toward a more profound understanding and appreciation for human life, and toward a resolution of these differences in truth and charity and peace."

Pelosi has defended her position, saying, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, "This isn't really an abortion issue", but rather consideration of "a procedure that any parent would want her daughter to have access to if she needed it."

Copyright © 2008 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

I'll follow up on this tomorrow, hopefully: I have a later article (9/18/08) that states Pelosi did agree to meet with Niederauer.

You Betcha!

Well, just because I haven't bashed Sarah Palin lately, and especially because it's so true-to-life / behind-the-glasses humorous, people, here's the latest visual hee-yuk. It comes courtesy of former coworker Priscilla, who's delightfully irreverently funny.

The creator/artist is leftsman and fellow WordPresser Aden Nak. I scoped his blog just now, and (overlooking quibbles over his punctuation and spelling) it's worth the read. NB, however: I do not support or endorse many of his positions, nor his tossing about of Carlinesque vocabulary (although RIP, George C). I do toast his politics overall, and much of his really-rubbed-the-wrong-way way about relating it. He was whoppingly underimpressed by last week's Obama/McPain debate, though I think that may be his sleep deprivation talking. Whereas yours truly sat through it, on the edge of the sofa, shaking head ruefully at insistent bag of hot air trying to blow down young, strong, unrelenting oak.

The Moment of Tooth

Having just finished watching the Obama-McCain debate (Barack was rock-steady and solidly on message; John… well, still seemed even at best nearly desperate, and clearly obstinately petty, and arguably overdue for retirement), I'm actually going to veer away from both politics and faith issues, and report a cautionary tale. 

This past Friday evening, conveniently just hours after my dentist's office had closed, I felt half of one of my molars break away. No pain, incredibly, but yike! I really value my teeth. 

So I pushed the piece back in place and there it somehow stayed until lunch on Saturday. Meanwhile I called the dentist's office, and his after-hours number, requesting an ASAP appointment to repair or do whatever might be necessary (despite my current uninsured status). And over lunch Saturday, the piece dropped out… and turned out to be a crown — not the kind under which the head rests uneasy, or are fated to roll in the dust, but a cap Dr. Lyme had put there himself a few years ago (when I did have insurance). 

The office called me back yesterday (Monday), and we set up an appointment for first-thing this morning (8:00 AM). I still dreaded news that the underlying, formerly-capped tooth had been rotting away, causing the crown to loosen. Nope; adhesive had merely worn out owing to a minor adjustment needed to allow for lateral stresses — the tooth was fine, and sound. 

Meanwhile, before he got down to business, I asked Dr. Lyme to do me a favor: to get rid of several books out there in his brand-new lobby, books I found personally offensive (one being Da(m)n Brown's The Dumb-Vinci Code; the other two or three I will not name, but were of the same disturbing ilk, and which I know and am in fact quite familiar with). And I explained why that is (which I've gone to at length here before), and suggested that if he wanted to carry offensive books, I could bring in my copy of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, Hitler's Mein Kampf (actually neither own nor want a copy), and the collected works of Lester Maddox (also don't own and don't want). 

In the momentary, surprisingly-not-very-tense silence, I realized something particularly foolish about my timing… and immediately (and rather vulnerably!) pointed it out to him and his lovely Caribbean assistant: 

There I was, flat on my back, feet actually higher than my head, and in a position I could not possibly get out of easily without prohibitively expensive damage to his equipment and my limbs… and here he sat, next to me, about to stick sharp metal objects in my mouth. And I chose that moment to criticize his office's reading material? Oh, boy. 

Still, being the gentleman he is, and not as vocal as yours-truly when he might take offense, he proceeded to re-secure my crown, and promise to remove the books. (You know, I really hate sounding like a conservative.) 

Then he had me bite down on a big wad of cotton to hold the crown in place. This also shut me up quite nicely… though I'll charitably assume that wasn't his intention.

Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread

As I begin writing here, I'm streaming and listening to EWTN's "Sunday Night Live With Father Benedict Groeschel". This man is a living saint: loving, compassionate, deeply intelligent, intensely spiritual, beautifully humble, and supremely hard-working on the side of the weakest, neediest, and most neglected. On this particular episode, he and his guest are discussing abortion.

Most folks who've read a posting or three here know that I am a solid Catholic who is rather left of center both politically and socially (feminist, Zionist, etc.), even while lockstep-obedient with the Church itself. This is not contradictory; I follow (adhere to, in fact) the Church's teaching and Catechism in morals and values, in religion and tradition.

In minor issues I do not always agree, of course – though I stress again that it's little things that are non-faith, non-religion items; and I do find myself at odds, at times, with some individuals in the Church… but again in just fiddlin' little things. When in doubt, I assume I'm clueless and full of crap, and turn to what the Church has to say, though I do dig further and try to understand what lies behind the answer I find. The knowledge and understanding gleaned can help me to help out other confused folks, including the non-Catholic.

Other demands permitting, I plan to set aside several blogs in January to look at abortion itself, and the genuine horrors involved (including to the women, not just the infants), and the idiotic positions/stances held by too many of my fellow left-wingers. Tonight, though, my focus is even more narrow.

I mentioned last Thursday that I do differ with Father Groeschel (and many others) quite distinctly in his focus on the current presidential election as a single-issue choice: thumb-up/-down, based on whether the candidate favors or disfavors abortion. Let me state again that I do not feel that my disagreement there is from a position of any kind of superiority in faith, politics, intellect, or experience. I cannot concede or even assume any differently; if I am wrong come Judgment Day, I may plea ignorance and seek mercy for my stupidity… but here, and for now, I remain adamant.

Even this may change as I continue in my own spiritual growth, but at present I simply cannot vote into office a candidate whose cronies thrive on corruption, greed, violence, and intractability… simply because s/he is opposed to abortion. This I want to get back to – or will at least reiterate in various contexts, over the next thirty days.

Right now, though, I want to quote in full and verbatim (once more without permission) an article from the Baltimore Sun this past June (6/9/2008), clipped out and saved for me by my mother – who continues to improve wonderfully.

The issue here is the determination of some of the Church's clergy (there is no narrow, close-defined position – that I know of – in the Church) to withhold the Eucharist – Communion – from "Catholic" politicians known to stand in favor of abortion.

I cannot countenance that. (And to my relief, Father Groeschel seems to agree… I think.) The Eucharist is utter source and summit of the Catholic (indeed, all Christian) life, in that what once was bread and wine is now the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus himself, creator and Messiah, Who created, loves, and sustains me, and each of us.

It is both judgmental cruelty and spiritually erroneous for our shepherds to withhold this from the believers. Besides slamming the door on physically receiving our Lord, it scandalizes the intended recipient as boldly and blatantly and cruelly as putting him/her into the stocks in the public square.

Nor does it take at all into account the fruit of compassion, grace, and mercy that is the penitence, the turning away, of such a (formerly) misdirected person from his/her previous support for wholesale (and retail) baby-slaughter. I.e., what if the communicant went to Confession the previous day, say, and has abandoned those tenets the Church justifiably opposes (and refutes), and been absolved? The priest/deacon/minister giving Communion ordinarily will not know that.

God is mercy, compassion, and forgiveness; we have to allow for the very real (remote as in some instances it may seem to some of us in our inflexibilities) possibility that said communicant is no longer separated from the Church giving him/her the Bread of Life. Let it be between the communicant and God; the rest of us are woefully underqualified.

(PS: The following text reproduces the full Sun article, which I still have in hardcopy. But the hyperlink takes you to its copy at a very awesome site, Catholics for Obama-Biden, that I've just now discovered. Awesome, and amen!)

Don't Play Politics With Communion

by David O'Brien and Lisa Sowle Cahill

Baltimore Sun: Monday, June 9, 2008

What do a former legal counsel for Ronald Reagan and a Democratic governor have in common? As you might expect, it's not the same politics. Douglas W. Kmiec, an esteemed constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, is a pro-life Republican. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is a moderate known for consensus-building. But these prominent Catholics are both the most recent targets of clergy who use Communion as a political weapon and effectively blacklist respected Catholic leaders. It's time for Catholics and all Americans to speak out against this spiritual McCarthyism.

When Mr. Kmiec endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, conservative Catholic blogs buzzed with outrage. How could a conservative known for his public opposition to abortion rights support a pro-choice liberal? In a recent Catholic Online column, Mr. Kmiec describes how he was declared "self-excommunicated" by many fellow Catholics. He writes that at a recent Mass, an angry college chaplain denounced his "Obama heresy" from the pulpit and denied him Communion.

In Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has ordered Ms. Sebelius, also an Obama supporter, not to receive Communion after she vetoed abortion legislation riddled with constitutional red flags. The bill in question made it easier for prosecutors to search private medical records, allowed family members to seek court orders to stop abortions, and failed to include exceptions to save the life of the mother. Along with many public officials, Ms. Sebelius recognizes the profound moral gravity of abortion. She has supported prudent public policies that have reduced abortions in Kansas by investing in adoption services, prenatal health care, and social safety nets for families. But in his diocesan newspaper, the archbishop blasted the governor over her "spiritually lethal" message and her obligation to recognize the "legitimate authority within the Church."

The archbishop has a right and indeed an obligation to speak out against abortion. But he is on dangerous ground telling a democratically elected official – accountable to federal laws and a diverse citizenry – how to govern when it comes to the particulars of specific legislation. The proper application of moral principles in a pluralistic society rarely allows for absolutes.

Using a holy sacrament to punish Catholics has troubling political implications during an election year. St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke warned Sen. John Kerry – a Catholic whose record reflects his faith's commitment to economic justice, universal health care, and concern for the poor – not to receive Communion during the 2004 presidential race because of his support for abortion rights. In a New York Times interview just a month before the election, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver gave signals that Catholics who voted for a pro-choice candidate were cooperating in evil. Mr. Kerry narrowly lost the Catholic vote to President Bush.

Catholics make up a quarter of the American electorate, and are swing voters in key battleground states that will play a decisive role in electing our next president. It's essential that these voters recognize Catholicism defies easy partisan labels and is not a single-issue faith.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops warns in an election-year guide that particular issues must not be misused as a way of ignoring "other serious threats to human life and dignity". These threats identified by the bishops include racism, the death penalty, war, torture, lack of health care, and an unjust immigration policy. These broad Catholic values challenge Democrats and Republicans alike to put the common good before narrow partisan agendas.

If we remain silent when respected Catholic leaders are publicly attacked and denied Communion, the proper role of faith in our public square is grossly distorted. This election year, let's have a better debate about faith and political responsibility that reclaims the vital role religion has often played in renewing our most cherished democratic values.

David O'Brien, the Loyola professor of Catholic studies at the College of the Holy Cross, has written books about the history of American Catholicism. Lisa Sowle Cahill is a professor of theology at Boston College and a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America.