Sermon on the Mount -- Live! In a Diner! In the Bronx!

Great story from NPR that a friend shared on Facebook.

Julio Diaz has managed to live out the values inherent in the Sermon on the Mount in a simple but profound way.  May God bless him.  For that matter, may God bless his mugger as well.  No telling how Julio's response may affect that kid for the rest of his life.

Observe the Quiet, Observe the Birds

This morning, in the last few minutes before we were to leave for school, I found my nine-year-old son stationed in front of the glass door that overlooks the bird feeders on our back porch.  He was sitting there, cross-legged, and he whispered, "Quiet" as I entered the room.

We sat there for ten minutes, watching the birds.  Mostly finches, brown finches.  The dogs entered the room, and my son again whispered, "Quiet."  The dogs were uncharacteristically cooperative.  My wife came in.  "Quiet," my son said again.  My wife, too, cooperated.  We left the house with quiet good wishes to each other, a quiet closing of the door.

How frequently I forget that there's a sacrament to be had in watching birds eat their breakfast.

How to Engage in Muslim-Bashing -- An Example From a Bishop

I've heard some wonderful Christmas homilies over the years.  Homilies that drew me again, in a fresh way, to the mystery and the beauty of the incarnation.  Homilies that have shown me how to look for Christ, how to find Christ, in all sorts of people and situations where I might otherwise (left to my own devices) miss God's presence.  Homilies that made me want to work harder at carrying Christ's love within me, as Mary carried her child, God-as-babe, in her womb.

Unfortunately, however, it appears that a homily at midnight mass can also be used to bash those of God's children who happen to be Muslim.

Here's a link to the homily that Bishop Thomas John Paprocki--who was installed as shepherd of the Springfield Diocese in Illinois (my diocese) last summer--delivered on December 24, 2010, in the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Springfield.

The bishop opened his homily by mentioning the execution of a Muslim general three centuries ago, an execution that occurred on Christmas day, and then the bishop proclaimed, "Merry Christmas!"  Here's an excerpt from a later section of the homily:

It doesn't help when our country plays politically correct games such as the security operations at our nation's airports.  You can't fight a war if you can't identify the enemy, and if 83-year-old great-grandmothers have to be treated the same way as Muslim Arabs from the Middle East with body scans and "enhanced pat-downs," then we're wasting a lot of time and money for nothing.  True, not every Muslim is a terrorist, but most terrorists these days are Muslims, and we ignore that fact at our peril.  

Yes, I know, the TSA's newest routine in airports is problematic at best.  And yes, Bishop Paprocki has stated in his homily that "not every Muslim is a terrorist."  Nonetheless, the bishop's primary  goal in this homily seems to be to instill in his listeners a fear of Muslims, a resentment of Muslims, a view of Muslims as an unpalatable "other."  As if there is not already enough of that in the air.  I'm reminded of my aged relative who used to tell me, frequently, "Now, I'm not saying that all black people are bad . . ." immediately before he charged full-speed ahead with his prejudice.

As much as I would hope for a higher standard from a bishop, I guess I'm hoping for too much.  Oh well, I know I'm a sinner, in need of God's mercy and love; I should not be too surprised to see this evidence of the bishop's sinfulness, too.

Spread the love that Christ came to earth to share, Bishop.  Please do not play to the worst prejudices out there.  Don't turn Lincoln's admonition to listen to "the better angels of our nature" on its ear by giving the Catholic faithful permission to view Muslims as a monolithic, less-than-human group.

Will Illinois Abolish the Death Penalty? Will The Bishops Fight Hard to Do So?

Both the state senate and house in Illinois are debating an official end to the death penalty.  (No executions have taken place since then Gov. George Ryan put a moratorium in place in 2000; two years later, just before leaving office, Ryan commuted the sentence of every prisoner who was then on death row in Illinois.  Nonetheless, the death penalty statutes remain on the book, and numerous individuals have been sentenced to death in Illinois during the last decade.)

The Catholic Conference of Illinois--the bishops' group--advocated last fall for an end to the death penalty, much to their credit.  That position is in keeping with the consistent ethic of life (sometimes also called "the seamless garment" approach to life issues).  Let's hope the bishops put at least as much energy into the fight to abolish the death penalty as they did when they were trying (just last month) to prevent Illinois citizens from enjoying marriage-equality rights.

A church that calls itself pro-life needs to fight--fight hard--when an opportunity arises to legislate the death penalty into oblivion.  The death penalty is part of the culture of death that John Paul II condemned; there's no way around that.

I wonder, though, how many supposedly "pro-life" politicians (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) will come out in support of the death penalty.  Too many, alas.  They need not worry about communion, however.  Even bishops who play politics with the Eucharist (unwisely and recklessly, I'd say) rarely if ever use it  when a legislator votes to support state-sponsored executions.  That's fine, I guess; I wish we could see an end to communion politics altogether.  But it's an interesting inconsistency, isn't it?

In Praise of Emmanuel, God With Us

May the peace and tender love of God--who chose to be born in a humble manger in Bethlehem, in a vulnerable human body, with tears to shed and laughter to share with friends as well--be with every person who seeks peace and welcomes true joy.

May God, who loved and still loves without condition, bless those most in need of love.

May the spirit of Christ get carried forward by each of us in quiet, small ways. May each of us, in small, simple ways, be a source of love and peace for those around us.  Yes, us--the ones who are frail and full of flaws.

May the beauty of the incarnation--the birth of Emmanuel, God with us--stay with us long after the trappings of the season are put away.

Edwardsville, Illinois, Christmas Day 2010

Merry Christmas to anyone ("Anyone out there??") who stumbles across this blog!

An Open Letter to Bishop Thomas Olmsted -- On a Mother's Life Saved

Many in the Catholic blogosphere have followed, for more than a year, the case of the young woman in Phoenix, a mother of four, whose life was saved in 2009--in St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, a Catholic institution--through surgery that resulted in the death of her unborn child.  The woman's doctors decided, after careful study, that her chance of dying within days or weeks was almost one hundred percent if she did not have the surgery.  Catholic teaching over the years has made room for such a contingency.  That is, if an unborn child dies as an incidental and unavoidable consequence of a procedure that must be performed in order to save the mother's life, the child's death is a tragedy, but not a morally culpable outcome.  Theologically, this situation comes under the concept of the "double effect."

Last May, however, Bishop Thomas Olmsted, head of the Phoenix diocese, decided to excommunicate Sr. Margaret McBride, who served as one of the hospital's administrators and was also in charge of its medical ethics board.

On Tuesday of this week, Bishop Olmsted issued a proclamation that officially stripped the hospital of its Catholic identity.  (I say "officially" because any institution's or individual's genuine, core-deep Catholic-Christian identity is something that no prelate, not even the Pope, can remove.)

I ended up writing a letter to Bishop Olmsted, which I will drop in the mail later today.  (No, it's not much in keeping with the Christmas spirit--but then, neither were the bishop's actions.)  Of course, I realize that my letter will likely have zero influence on the bishop, if he even ends up seeing it.  Yet Catholics in the pews owe it to the church, and to their vocation as the concerned laity, to speak up when they see something seriously wrong happen in the church.  Bishop Olmsted's actions in this case--the logic he uses, even--strike me as profoundly wrong.  The letter, for whatever it's worth:

Dear Bishop Olmsted:

Here's a moral quandary for you, a hypothetical situation:  A small plane is about to crash.  Two people are aboard the plane.  There is only one parachute in the plane.  There is no way that both individuals can be saved.  That outcome, desirable though it certainly would be, is simply impossible.

Should the parachute be thrown overboard?  That is, should both lives be sacrificed because both lives cannot be saved?  Or would you allow that it is better that at least one of the passengers have a chance at life? 

Count yourself fortunate, Your Excellency.  In reading this letter, you have encountered only a hypothetical scenario.  The doctors at St. Joseph's Hospital had to deal with a real, honest-to-goodness woman who was about to die, along with her unborn child.  (As I'm certain you already know, the unborn child was at eleven weeks gestation.  There was no way, based on medical facts that the woman's doctors faced, that the mother would have survived several more months in order to give birth anywhere close to the point of viability.  Plainly put, the woman and her child both would have died if your preferred course of action had occurred in that hospital.)

 I remain Catholic because of Christ's love and compassion, and in spite of (not out of respect for) the example that you have given the Church in your recent actions. 

The bishop's diocesan address, in case anyone else wants to write:  The Most Rev. Thomas Olmsted, Bishop of Phoenix, 400 East Monroe Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2336.  

Deacon Greg Kandra, over at the Deacon's Bench, has posted excerpts from several articles on this subject as well as primary source documents that verify that the woman's condition was extremely grave--so much so that she stood virtually no chance of surviving the pregnancy, nor of even carrying the unborn child to the point at which he or she might have been viable outside of the womb.  (The pregnancy was eleven weeks along when the woman's condition turned critical.)

May God help all of us as we stand up for all human life--including the life of this young woman, whose four children, thankfully, are not motherless this Christmas.  It is a good thing indeed that she is alive, notwithstanding the death--the unavoidable death--of the child she carried in her womb in 2009.

Roy Orbison's Voice -- Hard Not to Believe in God When You Hear That Man Sing

George Solti once said that he was able to believe in God because Mozart once lived and composed.  How could one not believe in God, after all, after hearing Mozart?

I feel the same way about Roy Orbison.  He died of a heart attack twenty-two years ago tonight, but every time I hear him sing, I inevitably think, Yes, there must be a God, a very benevolent God.  The richness of his voice, the emotion that is constantly simmering an inch below the surface -- passion, or lonesomeness, or glorious admiration, or melancholy -- how can I listen to all that, coupled with what I've read about the tragedies the man endured as a husband and father, and not believe there was something sacred in his voice?

Here's a link to two songs from the album he recorded a month before his death in 1988:  "She's a Mystery to Me" and ""You Got It."  Say a prayer, if you will, for Roy's eternal peace, then go tell someone you love that you love them while you still can.

[I cribbed part of this post from the review I wrote last week on Amazon for Orbison's last album, Mystery Girl.  What a great listening experience that entire album is.]

Modern Day Martyrs

Greg Kundra, over at the Deacon's Bench, remembers the rapes and murders of four women in El Salvador thirty years ago today.  All four were providing aid to, and advocating on behalf of, the poor.  They were killed by death squads associated with the El Salvadoran government.  (Those are the same government death squads that the Reagan administration would help fund, directly or indirectly, starting in 1981, along with the contras in Nicaragua.)  Their deaths occurred less than a year after the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, another advocate for the poor, who was shot while saying Mass.

The martyrs were:

• Sr. Maura Clark (Maryknoll)
• Sr. Ita Ford (Maryknoll)
• Sr. Dorothy Kazel (Ursuline)
• Ms. Jean Donovan (laywoman, age 27)

May those four women, and all those who died in El Salvador's civil war, rest in peace.

Progress for Human Rights in Illinois

The Illinois General Assembly (state house of reps) passed legislation yesterday that would legalize civil unions for same-sex (as well as opposite-sex) couples.  The state senate is debating the bill today; it is expected to pass.  Governor Quinn has promised to sign the bill.  Actually, Quinn went to the house floor yesterday to advocate on behalf of it.  (One of the reasons I like the guy.  He has the guts to stand up when he needs to.)

This is much needed legislation.  Gay and lesbian couples have as much right as any other adults to see their legal rights as partners protected.  The civil union bills affects areas such as health care and inheritance of property, among other things.

Opponents claim that couples should just go to an attorney to have legal arrangements made to cover those concerns.  But why should they have to?  Why should gay and lesbian people who have chosen their life partners have to jump through hoops that straight couples are not required to?  This bill is about fairness.  It's about equal treatment for all adults in this state.

Some folks--including the Catholic Conference of Illinois (the Illinois bishops, in other words)--have argued that this legislation will eventually lead to religious institutions being forced to perform weddings and blessing ceremonies for gay couples.  Although I personally would not have a problem with any church (including the Catholic church) choosing to bless gay couples, this bill--and similar laws in other states--deals with only civil law.  No one has ever been able to legally force a Catholic priest (or any other minister) to marry a couple with one or more divorces in their background.  In fact, no one in the United States has ever been able to force any religious institution to marry anyone. (The couple where one or both partners has a divorce in their past is still allowed to go to the courthouse and get married without the help of a priest.  We don't discriminate against them under civil law simply because not every religious denomination is happy about their situation.)  The "danger to America's churches" argument is a non-starter, at least in the United States, where the First Amendment gives religious institutions a wide berth regarding how they implement their faith.

Reasonable people can disagree about many things (including whether this legislation goes far enough in terming the new unions "civil unions" rather than marriages), but in the end this is a civil rights issue.  My belief in Jesus and his teachings leads me to believe that God wants people to have equal rights under the law--yes, that's right, I believe God wants people to be treated fairly.  Radical or moderate or whatever I am, I've finally gone and said it!  I think God wants people to be treated fairly.