The Obama-Catholic debate

I have been asked what I think about the Obama/Catholic debt. Here are my thoughts.
I used to work for Catholic Charities who were in the same health care plan which covered all employees of the Diocese of Phoenix.
I have mixed feelings on this debate because like me most of CC staff were not Catholics. Same is true in most Catholic hospitals and colleges in the US. I guess if Catholic institutions want to turn down all government contracts and funds (inc. Medicaid, student loans, etc) and to hire only Catholic employees then they would be free to argue to uphold their view on contraception.
One of the ironies of this discussion is that I am hearing that about 96% of all Catholic women have used birth control pills.
The Amish would be a good example of a group who has been able to make their case that they are free of government interference because they don't accept any direct government aid. They do pay taxes which cover the services they receive like roads. These are my thoughts today.

What does Lent mean?

Today is the first Sunday of Lent. If you go to a church service, someone may ask you, "What are you giving up for Lent?
It is not uncommon for people to say something like this, "I am giving up Chocolate." Or, "I am giving up Starbucks."
I don't think this is what Lent means. Lent is a time when we reflect on the true cost of following Jesus of Nazareth. The true cost is being shown us by the pastor is Iran who is facing execution this week because he refuses to deny his faith in Jesus.
Lent is about thinking about going all the way to the death for the One who went all the way of death for me.
(c) 2012 Ronald Friesen

How are Conservatives and Liberals alike yet different

Conservative versus Liberal Morality
by Richard Rohr, OFM
Jonathan Haidt says that the question "What is moral?" is guided by one's attitudes in six categories: 1) care for others, 2) a sense of fairness, 3) the value of freedom versus oppression, 4) loyalty to values and people, 5) respect for basic authority and tradition, 6) and a sense of the sacred versus "nothing is really sacred unless I decide it is".
He says that those who call themselves liberal or progressive tend to be nominally strong on the first (care for others), and also a bit on the second and third (fairness and freedom), but rather dismissive of the last three categories.
Those who call themselves conservatives at least pay lip service to all six categories, although all at a much lower level than the high of the liberal value of "caring for others". HIs conclusion is that, for all of their biases, conservatives do present a more honest valuation of full human nature, and that is why they can more easily create strong "groups". I think he is largely right. But Haidt also sees that conservatives can not usually recognize their over-identification with that very group and their own denied self interest in maintaining the status quo. Comfortable people tend to be conservatives ("conservare" in Latin).
How can we find the best of both groups? Human caring and a love of true freedom--that is also loyal and with a sense of the Sacred. Liberals deny the traditional values of the "first half of life" and falsely dive into the values of the "second half of life" in an often half hearted way (Ungrounded Enlightenment). Conservatives tend to do many "first half of life" values very well, but then sacralize them as if they are the whole journey and remain stuck right there (Naive Purity). There has to be a way to bring these two worldviews together. I see it most commonly in very humble people, especially if they have suffered hardships. They have their feet on the ground, but are searching for better ways to do almost everything.

Footsteps....

"Wanderer, your footsteps are
the road, and nothing more;
wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking.
By walking one makes the road,
and upon glancing behind
one sees the path
that never will be trod again.
Wanderer, there is no road--
Only wakes upon the sea."
--Antonio Machado

Newt has a problem with Saul Alinsky - I think Mother Teresa would have a problem with Newt

In 1969, Saul Alinsky received the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award, given annually by a coalition of Catholic groups in the Midwest to commemorate an encyclical about human rights and alternatives to war written by Pope John XXIII. Most honorees have been ardent reformers of one faith or another: Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, Cesar Chavez, Daniel Berrigan, and Jim Wallis are on the list—as is Lech Walesa.

Newt Gingrich would, no doubt, point to some of those names as proof of how the Left can seduce innocent devotees of his new-found faith. But he might find it difficult to criticize the woman who received the award seven years after Saul Alinsky: a community organizer from Calcutta named Mother Teresa.

What for politics?

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I must say that among educated people, politics occupies far too great a proportion of their time. . .Questions of higher spirit cannot even be compared to the sort of blinking frivolity of politics. The ultimate problems of life and death show the colossal nature of this difference even more...People are prepared to stuff their heads with anything, and to talk on any subject, while actually blocking off any true contemplation of the [whole] issue. This is the reason for the increased pettiness of our society, and our concentration on the small and the irrelevant." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Merton on love....

"Love is not a matter of getting what you want. Quite the contrary. The insistence on always having what you want, on always being satisfied, on always being fulfilled, makes love impossible. To love you have to climb out of the cradle, where everything is "getting," and grow up to the maturity of giving, without concern for getting anything special in return.

Merton, Thomas. Love and Living. Naomi Burton Stone and Brother Patrick Hart, editors. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1979: 30-31