Election Fever

Polls taken just prior to Mitt Romney’s naming of Paul Ryan as his running mate, showed Obama with a substantial lead in the presidential race. Despite the fact that I work in an area with strong Democratic tendencies, I hear little support for Obama in my daily interactions. So, who are these people who favor him over Romney in the polls?

As George Bernard Shaw said, “The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.“ One way to get votes is to freely hand out entitlements to the point of irresponsibility and then spread fear when the opposition is forced to take them away. The Democratic Party seeks to maintain control by keeping many of their constituents dependent upon the government for food, housing, healthcare and other benefits.

This is really an enslavement ideology. Rather than providing opportunity for self-sufficiency, Democrats see themselves as the caring master, fostering social dependency in exchange for votes. The contemporary plantation has moved to the inner city taking with it the hopelessness that manifests itself in violence and misery. Holding fast to the traditional family unit has become politically incorrect while the village takes over rearing the child.

Ironically, it was Democrat Joe Biden who accused the Republicans of enslavement. After Mitt Romney named Paul Ryan as his running mate, Biden addressed a Danville, Virginia audience, about half African-American, saying, “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.” He was apparently referring to a Romney-Ryan administration freeing businesses to create job opportunities.

In Biden’s view, big business is the enemy, not the main source of income for millions of families. He sees corporations interested in making huge profits at the expense of the middle class. At the same time, Democrats will advocate raising the minimum wage, which sounds admirable, but in reality, eliminates job opportunities for low-income families who desperately need them. While appearing noble, their policies actually propagate dependence on the government for sustenance.

Is it fair to say the Republicans are dependent on an educated and informed constituency to get elected, while Democrats are more likely to get votes from the uninformed and ignorant? Perhaps not, but if knowledge results in prosperity, and Democrats attach a stigma to those who achieve financial success, what does it say about their voter base? How often does one hear Republican supporters cite economic reasons or moral objections for opposing Obama while his supporters simply say they think he’s doing a good job and they like Michelle? Others want to protect their special interests.

Democrats would like everyone to believe Republicans do not care about the impoverished. They think the Ryan’s budget plan is designed to pad rich Republican pockets. Even the United States Council of Catholic Bishops criticized Ryan, himself a Catholic, fearing his budget plan would adversely affect the poor. Jeopardizing future care by racking up enormous debt to the point of financial collapse is acting irresponsibly. Sometimes providing for the future requires sacrifice in the present. Making tough choices to insure the future does not violate Catholic teaching. Spending the country into financial ruin only hurts the poor. A healthy free market economy not only provides opportunities for the poor to help themselves, it also provides resources to help those who cannot help themselves. Prosperity enables charity.

The latest flap revolves around an asinine statement made by Missouri Republican Representative Todd Akin. When answering a question about his stance against abortion in the case of rape or incest, he said that women’s bodies may somehow block pregnancies in cases of “legitimate rape.” As expected, Democrats went on the attack and even his fellow Republicans distanced themselves, many calling on him to withdraw from the Senate race. The sad thing is that a potentially strong pro-life candidate may have ruined his chance for election by taking a convoluted approach to a difficult question rather than answering directly and honestly. The pro-abortion crowd loves to hear pro-life folks say they would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest under the assumption it is an unpopular stance. Perhaps the best response is to turn the tables on the questioner by asking, “If your daughter were raped and became pregnant, as horrible as that would be, would you think it okay to kill your own grandchild?”

Pregnancy resulting from rape is a tragedy for any woman to undergo. Yet, the baby is always innocent. The moral character of our society can be measured in terms of how we protect those unable to protect themselves. If one were able to discuss an impending abortion with the unborn baby, what would one say? “Sorry little one, but your daddy is a bad man and your mommy doesn’t want you, so I am going to kill you?” Put into words, it sounds morbid, mollified only by the fact the baby is not developed to the point of understanding or knowing fear.

Our secular society seems to think of sexual reproduction as strictly a biological occurrence – something that simply develops under certain conditions. To them, an unplanned pregnancy can be simply wiped away like a runny nose. The idea that a developing embryo is human life deserving protection, regardless of how it came to be, is completely eclipsed by concern for the mother. The fact is, at least two human lives are at stake here.

In this Sunday’s Gospel (August 26, 2012), we hear the end of Our Lord’s Bread of Life discourse. His disciples have just heard him say they must eat his flesh and drink his blood or they have no life in them. Their response is probably similar to what many today say when they hear all life must be protected from conception until natural death. “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” (John 6:61) The gospel goes on to say that many of them returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Our country may have been founded on Christian principles, but many of us no longer accompany Our Lord, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the leaders we elect.

Chick-fil-Aid

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy created a firestorm recently by simply confirming his support for traditional marriage. Cathy is known for espousing Christian values even to the point of closing his fast-food restaurants on Sundays. How can anyone not respect a man who sacrifices substantial profit in the practice of his Christian faith? Yet, we live in strange times these days. Believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman now implies bigotry to secular society, and therefore, even his right to free speech should suffer repercussions.

The Jim Henson Company (yes, the Henson Company of Muppet fame) said they would no longer partner with Chick-fil-A because the Henson Company embraces “diversity” and “inclusiveness”. Why is it that those who embrace diversity and inclusiveness often refuse to include anyone whose belief is diverse from theirs? I wonder if Dan Cathy, learning of the Henson Company’s support for same-sex marriage, would have initiated the separation. I don’t know, but I doubt it. If not, who is really the more tolerant?

The mayor of Boston and an alderman in Chicago are both trying to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening restaurants in their territory. The mayor of Chicago announced that Chick-fil-A’s values are not consistent with Chicago values. Keep in mind that all Dan Cathy said was that he supports the biblical definition of marriage. Seems like their outrage should be directed at God rather than Dan Cathy.

Having a dialogue with same-sex marriage proponents is a challenge. The biblical basis for traditional marriage has no relevance to them. They have no concept of the difference between a covenant and a contract. They do not seem to see any relationship between the deterioration of the traditional family and culture of violence that plagues so many young people especially in the inner cities. The chasm between God and the Godless in our society seems to be widening daily.

If the owners and officers of every company and business in Chicago were polled on their position on marriage, one could hope to find many that support traditional marriage between a man and woman. Would the alderman like to eliminate all of them from his ward? How long before he tries to remove all Catholic churches? Why is it okay to trample on one’s freedom of speech and practice of religion?

I saw an amusing cartoon on the Internet today. It demonstrated why Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage in the following manner:
Rooster + Rooster = Goose egg (0)
Hen + Hen = Goose egg (0)
Rooster + Hen = Chick-fil-A

Dan Cathy could have easily avoided this controversy by keeping silent on his religious beliefs. It takes courage to jeopardize your own business by speaking out in support of values that have become frighteningly unpopular. I hope that many other God-fearing business owners will come forward in support of Cathy and traditional marriage. If they cannot muster up the courage to do so, perhaps they can at least take the family out to dinner at Chick-fil-A.

It’s My Party and I’ll Lie if I want to

Our annual small town festival took place last weekend. The three-day event culminates with a parade on Sunday afternoon. Being an election year, plenty of politicians walked the parade route to shake hands and pass out campaign literature. Both parties had floats upon which local officials rode with their flags and signage.

In a year when the Democrat party in power has been particularly tough on the Catholic Church, I find it disturbing to see at least two prominent members of my parish marching with a float displaying Obama/Biden campaign posters. The HHS mandate attempting to force Catholics to pay for services contrary to Catholic teaching has been in the forefront of the news lately. Having locally well-known Catholics in support of the party issuing such mandates is ripe for scandal by bringing into question Catholic resolve in such matters. Parade-watchers may justify their own support based on the apparent support of prominent Catholics.

For a Catholic to willingly support or appear to support a platform in direct conflict with Church teaching is grave matter. With the Democratic administration current attack on the Catholic Church so widely publicized, it would be difficult to deny the potential for scandal, the potential of leading others to an occasion of sin. The only thing preventing deliberate cooperation with grave matter from becoming a mortal sin is invincible ignorance. I am not suggesting that all Catholics who support the Democratic platform and living in mortal sin. Only God can make that call.

Also marching was our congressman, Joe Donnelly, a Catholic Democrat who claims to be pro-life, but aligns himself with a party professing a much different message. When the Obama health care bill was coming up for a vote, I wrote to him expressing my concern that the plan would pay for abortions and other non-negotiable evils that we as Catholics must oppose. Obama needed his vote to assure passage. Despite his professed pro-life stand, Donnelly voted in favor of Obamacare reportedly after receiving assurance from the President that abortion coverage would not be paid with taxpayer money by executive order. So-called executive orders carry little weight, at least those issued by our current executive. Obama obviously had no intention of keeping his word. I wonder how a congressman who has been duped by his own party, and supposedly holds values in direct conflict with his own party, remains faithful to that party. Isn’t he living a lie?

The Nuts and Bolts of Marriage

President Obama recently announced his support for same-sex marriage during an interview with ABC reporter Robin Roberts. He joins fellow Democrats Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and others favoring the legal union of two men or two women. He says his belief evolved after meeting many same-sex couples and seeing the love they shared between themselves and their adopted children. For us Catholics, this is one of the non-negotiables, putting us in complete opposition without compromise.

Many well-meaning people, including some Catholics, wonder what the big deal is. If two homosexuals love each other, why not allow them to marry? We may not be comfortable with the thought, but why should we care what they do? Is it not their own business? What right to do we have to deny them happiness?

It helps to understand that Catholic teaching is based on natural law, the laws of nature as created by God. Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion, simply stated, all humans, animals, objects, and all creation possess nature.

I do not pretend to have a firm grasp of philosophy beyond a one semester course I took in college some forty years ago, but an Internet search has led me to a lecture from International Catholic University that sheds some light. One commonly used example of nature is that of the chair. The casual model used to explain nature identifies four causes, they being matter, form, agent and end. In the case of a chair, the matter is the material from which it is made, such as oak. The form is the shape or design. Matter and form and called internal causes. The agent is the craftsman who made it, and the end is the objective or purpose the craftsman had in mind when he made it. These are the external causes. Once made, the chair retains a relationship to its maker. These four factors make up its natural chairness, so to speak.

It is possible to violate the nature of the chair. One might be able to cut off the back and make it into a table. Doing so would alter the form and the end as determined by the agent. Only the matter retains its originality, and it is no longer a chair as intended by the agent. This might not be a problem as long as the agent has relinquished any custody of his product.

Let us look at another example. Think of a nut and bolt. They have matter, form, agent and end. The agent designed the nut and bolt to be complementary. When coupled together, they form a bond holding two objects together. Taking away the nut and replacing it with another bolt violates the end or purpose. It is no longer effective for its intended purpose. Similarly, removing the bolt and adding another nut is also fruitless. When either the nut or bolt is absent, the possibility of a bond no longer exists.

God, the agent of all humanity, in His infinite wisdom, designed human beings as male and female sexes. They are meant to be complementary. Absent either one, the possibility of a sexual bond no longer exists. Substituting another male for the female, or vice versa, does not restore the end. Attempting to do so violates the natural design. Adding children to the arrangement by artificial means or adoption is a further violation of the nature.

Governmental officials occasionally think they can legislate the laws of nature. In 1897, the Indiana General Assembly considered passing a law that would have effectively changed the mathematical value of pi. The bill nearly passed until the senate came to realize they lacked the power to define mathematical truth.

Marriage derives from a biological truth, and more precisely, an anatomical truth by God’s design, not civil law. Genesis 2:24 says, a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Two men or two women cannot become one flesh. It is not anatomically possible.

God retains custody over all creation and especially our human nature and the Church acts as God’s custodian on earth. We must acknowledge that Jesus is God, and He established His Church with the authority to bind and loose. (Matt 16:18-19, 18:18) He also promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to all truth. (John 16:13, 1 Tim 3:15) The Church has the responsibility to uphold the natural law, including the external causes. She will not capitulate. She can’t.

Matt 18:15-17 says, if your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

President Obama is not likely to listen to the church, but supposed Catholics like Biden and Pelosi certainly should. Even many of our Protestant brothers and sisters at least understand and uphold the natural law. The complementary nature of male and female, not only anatomically speaking, but also in their respective child-rearing roles, cannot be discarded as irrelevant, even to those who have little concern for God or Church. The moral underpinning of the traditional family cannot be trifled.

There are those who will say all of this is just a convoluted argument to justify our bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must all have deep compassion for those who experience same-sex attraction for whatever reason. We must pray for them as we would pray for the grace to overcome any other temptation. Yet, we must stand firm in our support of true marriage by God’s design.

Who’s Missing?


It is no secret that our parish is losing parishioners, not necessarily to other denominations, but to other parishes. Attendance is down substantially in the past couple of years with many families driving to neighboring towns where they apparently find Mass more to their liking. Reasons vary I am sure, but generally most have been upset to the point where they experience periodic anger instead of the peace of Christ in their liturgical celebration. Whether their anger is justified is a matter for discussion.

This past week, I came across an article by Father Robert Barron titled Why Catholics Leave the Church and What Can be done about it. Father Barron is writing about a survey by William Byron and Charles Zech which will appear in the April 30 edition of America magazine. While the article is primarily about people leaving the Church, the reasons cited may also apply to those vacating a parish. Many mention the Church’s teachings on divorce, same-sex marriage, contraception, and ordination of women. So why would this cause people to change parishes? After all, these Church teachings are universal. The fact is that these sins, sin as a whole actually, are not often mentioned from the pulpit. They are in our parish, however. One parishioner recently told me she was tired of being scolded at every Sunday homily.

Our priest rarely misses an opportunity to chastise the congregation for the lack of confessions or low attendance at Eucharistic Adoration. People complain that they want to be uplifted instead of being criticized when they come to Mass. Unfortunately, the truth is that few people are going to confession theses days and attendance at Eucharistic Adoration is sparse. The Sunday homily is the only opportunity to voice the pastor’s displeasure, but this weekly-reprimand approach is not working.

Father Barron wrote, “One respondent to the survey observed that whenever he asked a priest about a controversial issue, he “got rules and not an invitation to sit down and talk.” Unfair? Perhaps. But every priest, even when ultimately he has to say, “No,” can do so in the context of a relationship predicated upon love and respect.” Survey respondents also said many pastors were “arrogant, distant, aloof and insensitive.” Ideally, the splendor of the Mass would significantly overshadow any shortcomings in the personality of the priest, but in reality, the manner in which the priest interacts with his congregation greatly affects the spiritual temperature of the parish.

People can sense when a man counsels them out of Christian love and concern for their spiritual well-being. They are more likely to accept guidance when treated with soft-spoken kindness and respect rather than cold condescending criticism. One who lives in the light of Christ will radiate warmth in the way he interacts with others. He will be patient and peaceful even in times of conflict. People will be drawn to the light even when some gentle discipline is necessary.

At the same time, parishioners need to realize the priest has many duties. He cannot devote full attention to the well-being of his parishioners. The administrative requirements of the parish priests are many. Running a parish can be as daunting as running a business. There are personnel matters, budgets, reports, meetings, repairs, bills, in addition to all his liturgical duties, sick calls, funerals, weddings and catechesis for adults and children. The corporal responsibilities can limit the time available for spiritual care.

Father Barron also mentions the problem of bad preaching. The survey said many left because homilies were boring, irrelevant and poorly-prepared. While not every priest is going to be a skilled public speaker, Father Barron says, “Sermons become boring in the measure that they don’t propose something like answers to real questions.” People are always questioning, wondering, and harboring doubts. A perceptive homilist needs to provide answers. As Father Barron puts it, “When the homily both reminds people how thirsty they are and provides water to quench the thirst, people will listen.”

So what does one do when the parish priest is a bad homilist with poor interpersonal relationship skills? First, recognize that he is a Catholic priest acting in the person of Jesus Christ. He is also a human being with limitations like all the rest of us. He cannot be everything we would like him to be. Keeping it in perspective, the words spoken during the homily pale in importance in comparison to the words spoken during the Eucharistic prayer. As parishioners, we need to recognize the gift of Holy Orders that enables our priest to confect the Holy Eucharist for us each day. We should all be grateful that he said yes to his vocation.

Father Barron stresses the importance of reaching out to people who have left the Church and this may apply to parishes also. Survey respondents often said no one ever contacted them to see why they had left. In a small parish like ours, compiling a list of families or individuals no long attending would be a simple task. A personal contact or kind invitation might be all that is needed to get someone back onboard.

A caller to the Catholic Answers Live radio program last week said she wanted to join the Catholic Church and had called a parish three times to get information about their RCIA program, but her calls were never returned. Father Barron quotes his first pastor telling the parish secretary, “For many people, you are the first contact they have with the Catholic Church; you exercise, therefore, an indispensable ministry.” Consider also that we could be the last contact someone has with the Church or their parish. Let us make sure that never happens.

Jesus 24/7

Recently, I watched a video called the 24/7 Experience produced by the Evangelical Covenant Church. As stated on the DVD jacket, “In an episodic, reality-TV style, 24/7 brings your students on a journey to learn what it means to follow Christ in the 21st century.” In the video, a small group of teenagers makes a whirlwind tour of the United States, visiting a different city each day, learning what it means to follow Christ every day. They are introduced to people in various walks of life whose Christian faith strongly influences how they conduct themselves in their careers and charitable works.

The video was given to me by our pastor to screen for possible viewing by our CCD class made up of sixth through eighth graders. What struck me is the difference between how we Catholics view our relationship with the Lord, as compared to Evangelical Protestants. Now I have no doubt that many good Catholic teenagers are very Christ-centered and live their lives accordingly, but I sometimes get the feeling that our particular group is not really tuned in to what it means to follow Christ. That got me to thinking about how we raise our children in the Catholic faith verses the way Evangelicals are raised.

We Catholics tend to be very regimented in the way we practice our faith. The universality of the Church and the way we worship communally has resulted in the development of many standard prayers and practices in the two thousand years of our history. While our Protestant brothers and sisters may have few prayers memorized beyond the Lord’s Prayer or perhaps the sinner’s prayer, we have dozens. As good Catholics, we need to know the Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be. We should also know the Act of Contrition, Guardian Angel prayer, Morning Offering, Angelus, and a few others. We should also know how to pray the Rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet, and Stations of the Cross. We need to understand the Mass and the Sacraments, especially the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. All of these things are very important to our Faith, but also difficult for our children to grasp in weekly sessions. With instruction time very limited, is there a point where all the sacramentals, prayer memorization, the rites, and other unique Catholic practices actually become an impediment to reaching young people?

Our Evangelical brothers and sisters do not have any of this to learn. Lacking the sacraments and formal prayer, as well as an authoritative Church to guide them, they are left to teach the Bible, subject to their own interpretation of Scripture. Their primary focus can be to cultivate a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, albeit one minus the sacramental gifts He left for us. The Evangelical experience can be more social in nature, making it attractive to young people. Prayers can be spoken from the heart, requiring thought and meditation. Yes, we can do that as Catholics too, but how often do we? Is it any wonder that many non-Catholic teenagers may be more contemplative, knowledgeable, and active in their ecclesial communities?

While interacting with non-Catholic friends, young Catholics may get the feeling they know less about Jesus than their friends do. They hear stories of Protestant churches with youth ministers, rock bands and lively worship. Secular media bombards them with stories that paint the Catholic Church in a bad light. This idea that the grass is greener on the other side can carry over into adulthood. Often parents set a poor example by being lukewarm or questioning the authority of the Church. We should not be surprised that many of our young people end up leaving at some point.

I have been critical in the past of Catholics who stress the horizontal aspects of worship at the expense of the vertical. Yet I think our young people need more exposure to the social relationship, getting to know Jesus as a friend and confidant. At the same time, they need a good dose of good ol’ Catholic apologetics, understanding that Jesus loves them so much that He gave them a Church, the Catholic Church, and they are all very fortunate to be a part of it. I showed the video in class. I hope it helps them to understand the grace we as Catholics receive through the sacraments is the fuel we need to persevere in Him 24/7.