Faith and Public Policy | blog.theologika.net

Home » Faith and Public Policy

Posted by Dcn. Randy Pozos on Dec 17, 2014

Pope Francis Helps US Cuba Relations

Pope Francis received a special birthday present today with separate announcements by President Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro to re-establish diplomatic relations and soften aspects of United States and Cuban policy toward each other. President Obama thanked the Pope in his remarks announcing the change in US policy. Pope Francis first raised the issue in March when President Obama visited the Pope. The Vatican facilitated subsequent meetings in Canada and brokered the final agreement.

Improved relations with Cuba have been high on the agenda of previous popes including St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Vatican policy has opposed the United States trade embargo due to the hardships it causes for everyday people in Cuba. During their visits to Cuba both St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict called for an end to the Cuban embargo. Pope Francis knows the Cuban situation well and is close friends with the Archbishop of Havana. The Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Parolin has served as the Papal ambassador or nuncio to Cuba and Venezuela which is Cuba’s closest ally.

University of Notre Dame professor of political science, Michael Desch, called this a “long overdue step.” Professor Desch said that normalizing relations with Cuba will not strengthen the Castro regime. He called that logic flawed saying, “The more they are exposed to American culture, politics, and our economy, the weaker the hold of the Castroites on power.”

Posted by Dcn. Randy Pozos on Sep 5, 2014

A Church for the Poor – The Vision of Pope Francis

What of kind of church does Pope Francis envision? Jorge Bergoglio, in his initial public statements and even in the choice of his Papal name, Francis, has made it clear that the church needs to be a servant of the poor and the herald of the gospel. These terms come from Cardinal Avery Dulles’ Models of the Church and are based on the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1961-1965). While most of us tend to see the church as an institution and perhaps as a sacrament, Pope Francis is highlighting the notion of the church as a community, a school of disciples, which is the servant of the poor in its role as herald of the gospel.

This emphasis began before Vatican II but it became especially pronounced after the council in a movement called liberation theology. For St. John Paul II, this approach was more reminiscent of Marxism than the gospel, so he took certain steps to curtail it. Pope Benedict XVI, his successor, took a more measured view and focused on aspects of this theology that started from a pastoral and community viewpoint as opposed to a political one. At an important conference to promote this view in Aparecida, Brazil in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI chose Jorge Bergoglio, Archbishop of Buenos Aires to formulate this renewed expression of a church for the poor.

In a recent opinion column in the New York Times, Paul Vallely, Director of The Tablet, an international Catholic weekly publication based in London, outlines the history of Liberation theology and the Pope’s restoration and enhancement of it. The pope welcomed Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez to the Vatican earlier this year. Fr. Gutierrez began the movement with his 1971 book A Theology of Liberation. Pope Francis has also removed the block placed by St. John Paul II to the canonization process of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador who because of his opposition to political repression was shot while saying Mass. An even more telling sign is the Pope’s treatment of Nicaragua’s former foreign minister, Fr. Miguel D’Escoto Brockman. Fr. D’Escoto had been suspended from the priesthood by St. John Paul II and Pope Francis has lifted the suspension.

A pope who lives in a guest house and stands in the cafeteria line with his own tray has taken hold of the attention and imagination of the Catholic and non-Catholic world alike by being a voice for the voiceless. Pope Francis is leading us to be a different kind of church, one that is closer to the gospel, less secure, less majestic, ready to serve the suffering Christ in the destitute of the world.

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Nov 30, 2012

Dorothy Day, Servant of God and Follower of Christ the King

Dorothy Day, 1934

Dorothy Day, cofounder with Peter Maurin of the Catholic Worker Movement, died 32 years ago, on November 29, 1980. Like many other activists who have struggled for social justice and worked among the poorest, most forgotten members of society, she is more respected by mainstream Americans, religious leaders, and commentators now than she was during all but the last decade of her life. In life she had the annoying habit of pointing out the discrepancies between our Gospel calling to serve the Lord in those around us, especially in the poor and most vulnerable, and our national focus on the value of making money and enjoying a middle class or higher lifestyle. She opposed war and participated in demonstrations against all wars, including World War II. She supported Cesar Chavez and the labor union movement. She was not unwilling to go to jail and did so on multiple occasions. She lived and died in a Catholic Worker house of hospitality in New York, providing services including food, clothing, shelter, and a cup of good coffee to the poor and homeless. With other activists, she also participated in non-violent direct actions aimed at changing the social structures that lead to poverty and homelessness.

Movies have been made and books written about this woman whose work led to the establishment of the Catholic Worker. Church leaders today speak of her with respect and support her cause for sainthood. Men and women around the world join together in soup kitchens, hospitality houses, and communal farms to carry on the work she began.

This year, Dorothy Day’s feast falls outside of Advent. Last Sunday we celebrated the Solemnity of Christ the King. The convergence of our celebration of a King who was crucified, died, and rose from the dead with our celebration of the life of a woman whose life was focused on serving that King in the poorest of the poor is one that does not happen often. Yet it seems fitting that this connection should be noticed. Serving the poor and disenfranchised is hard, dirty, smelly, frustrating work. Most people who live on the street are not there by choice, yet some prefer to remain on the streets rather than deal with the requirements of the various shelters or programs in their communities. Some have mental illnesses that are untreated. Some battle post-traumatic stress. Some have lost their homes as a result of loss of employment or long-term illnesses. Families and single people live on the streets. Children and old men and women live on the streets. It’s cold, lonely and dangerous there and all too often, the rest of us pass by without noticing them or if we do see them, we somehow assume it’s their own fault and feel no compulsion to try to help.

Those who enter pastoral ministry, social workers, and others who regularly deal with the homeless and disabled quickly learn that it is not glamorous or easy to provide support and care for this population, particularly with scant resources and personnel. Yet as Dorothy noted, “The mystery of the poor is that they are Jesus, and what you do for them you do to Him.” This doesn’t mean she was never frustrated or angry with God. Anyone who regularly deals with impossibly difficult individuals, bureaucracies, social structures, and disdainful or fundamentally unaware fellow church members or citizens will experience times of total anger and frustration. Faithfulness to the call to serve Jesus in this way requires continuing anyway — telling God what a mess it all is, maybe telling God how angry one is feeling, complaining about how hard it is to keep going or to deal with the physical realities of life on the street or in poor neighborhoods, and then going out and continuing the work. This is the connection with Christ the King: faithful following of the call to service of the poor and vulnerable and to change those social institutions that keep so many people trapped in poverty.

Dorothy Day is on her way to officially recognized sainthood. Nevertheless, we would all do well to remember her thoughts about what might result in such an eventuality, “Don’t call me a saint. I don’t want to be dismissed so easily.”

Photograph from New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Nov 5, 2012

Conscience-Based Voting: A Challenge for Catholic Voters

As American Catholics go to the polls to vote for President in 2012, many are experiencing confusion regarding whether they can in good conscience vote for a candidate or party with a platform that allows Americans of whatever religion or no religion to choose abortion, contraception, sterilization and gay marriage. Don’t they as faithful Catholics have to vote for the candidate and party whose policies agree with the moral teaching of the Church and deny these choices to all Americans? By the same token, the Church has take a strong position in support of health care for all, cradle to grave social services, and the right to organize unions. Does this mean that Catholics cannot vote for either party? Does it mean that Catholics cannot hold public office?

A Clarification from the Holy Office

In 2004, Pope Benedict XVI, while still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the Church’s guardian of moral teaching as head of the Holy Office, offered guidance on this dilemma, underlining the principles involved for the Catholic voter. This guidance was issued in the context of whether and when Communion might be denied to Catholic politicians due to their actions in the arena of policy formulation and governing in a secular society.

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia,” Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons,” he said. (emphasis added)

John Thavis, of Catholic News Service, in his report on Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement went on to explain:

“In other words, if a Catholic thinks a candidate’s positions on other issues outweigh the difference on abortion, a vote for that candidate would not be considered sinful.”

This position assumes that the individual Catholic’s conscience is in agreement with these Church sanctioned policies. A Catholic may decide that abortion is evil and wrong, that it is murder, but he or she may be reluctant to re-criminalize it for all Americans since it would lead to illegal and dangerous back street abortions. A Catholic might see such an anti-abortion law, refusal to pay for birth control, or rejection of gay civil marriage as a violation of the conscience of others that undermines basic freedoms in a secular republic. According to Catholic teaching, individual Catholics have the final responsibility for forming their conscience and making decisions. While Catholics are supposed to pay heed to the teaching and tradition of the Church, conscience is also the product of a prayerful reflection on all relevant domains of knowledge. To violate one’s conscience is a very serious sin.

And what of the Catholic politician who personally rejects abortion but refuses to vote to re-criminalize the practice? Does voting in a manner contrary to Church positions on these contentious issues automatically result in excommunication or other Church sanction? Are politicians required to vote in opposition to the positions of their constituents when those positions are not supported by Church teaching?

In Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, DC, he recommended a series of steps that might be followed by bishops in dealing with Catholic politicians. These include a process of pastoral guidance and correction. Denial of Communion, while certainly an option, was not presented as an essential step in the process, though it is included as an option in the case of “obstinate persistence” on the part of the politician. Comparison was made to Church rules allowing denial of Communion to divorced persons who remarry without receiving an annulment of their prior marriage and obstinately persist in receiving Communion. Nevertheless, some canon law experts have suggested that the situation of the politician may be much more complex than that of the divorced and remarried Catholic, so an automatic judgment that a case of “objective situation of sin” exists cannot be as easily made. The final decision of the American bishops on this question noted that a “prudential judgment” would be required in dealing with each case due to the complexity of the question.

Why a “prudential judgment” rather than an absolute, automatic condemnation? Because politicians are also required to form their own conscience and act in accordance with its dictates. The politician who personally opposes abortion, yet finds the risks to social order entailed by the re-opening of an entire field of criminal activity that exploits frightened girls and women too great to endorse re-criminalization of abortion, may in good conscience find that he or she must vote against such measures. Such an individual might be granted the same exemption as that received by the above-mentioned voter due to the “proportionate reasons” behind his or her decision.

Election 2012

The campaign of 2012 has seen a number of ordained clerics, including bishops, stepping dangerously near, if not across the border between their role as teachers of the faith and their personal role as voting members of American society. This is unfortunate. It can confuse, frighten, and anger the faithful in a manner contrary to the teachings of our faith and the documents of the Second Vatican Council, including Dignitatis Humanae, which notes that coercion is never to be used as a means of bringing people to faith or influencing their decisions. Comments suggesting that the faithful who having struggled with the issues and come to a decision in good conscience that does not agree with that of their local bishop should abstain from receiving Communion are a form of coercion.

Canon Law experts take the position that the burden of deciding whether one can receive the sacraments is fundamentally a personal decision. If one is guilty of serious sin, then clearly one should not receive the sacrament. Yet who decides the state of my soul?

Both major parties have offered tickets in which the Vice Presidential candidate is a practicing Catholic. Yet the positions of the two candidates are not in agreement on significant issues of public policy, including reproductive rights, civil marriage rules, protection of the most vulnerable among us, the rights of workers, our place as a nation among others in the world, and protection of our common world’s environment. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has criticized the policies of the Democratic party on reproductive and homosexual issues. The Bishops have also criticized the economic and social justice policies of the Republican Party, as embodied in the proposed national budget developed by Vice Presidential candidate, Representative Paul Ryan, and endorsed by his Presidential running mate, Governor Mitt Romney.

Some argue that a hierarchy of “goods” exists that demands selection of leaders based on the relative position of the “good” in that hierarchy. Others argue that “single issue” choices fail to take into account a multitude of other considerations that play a much larger role in achieving the “common good” towards which we are to work.

Perhaps a case should also be made for pastoral guidance and correction for those politicians who fail to support the other pro-life issues we face – those, for instance, who would cut funding for programs such as WIC that provide nutrition support for pregnant and nursing mothers and their children. The right to life does not begin with conception and end with birth. As Cardinal Bernardin noted, life is a seamless garment: from womb to tomb. How we best support life through all of its stages is not always clear. That’s why we need to have Catholic politicians who are not afraid to face the complexity of these issues, struggle with the messiness of life, and, taking into account the teachings of their faith and their own experience of God’s love, make decisions to support or oppose measures that support life for their constituents and their fellow citizens – both those who share their faith and those who do not. Threats to refuse them the Bread of Life because their efforts to support life are not narrow enough threaten the freedom of all Catholics to enter the conversation, work to bring justice for all, and influence the development of the laws by which we govern ourselves. That would truly be a great tragedy – to close our ears to the whispers of the Holy Spirit in the signs of our times.

The Role of Ordained Clerics — To Teach and Clarify Church Teachings

The 1983 Code of Canon Law (Catholic Church Law) prohibits ordained clerics (deacons, priests, bishops, including cardinals) from publicly indicating in any way their personal preference in candidates. They are also forbidden to tell members of the faithful how to vote. They are, however, allowed to provide guidance regarding Church teachings and moral issues at stake.

In the light of this responsibility, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a statement first published in 2007, has laid out a series of guidelines for American Catholics: The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. A summary of the document has been made available for distribution in parishes across the country. The document speaks of our duty to form our consciences carefully, to search for what is truly good in each situation and choose the best means to achieve it. Seven areas of Catholic teaching are included for consideration in the choice of elected officials.

The Right to Life and the Dignity of the Human Person
The Call to Family, Community and Participation
The Rights and Responsibilities of Humans
The Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
Solidarity with Other Humans
Caring for God’s Creation

The bishops call us to focus on moral principles, including the defense of life, the needs of the weak, and the pursuit of the common good. These are all issues which must be considered in the formation of conscience. They are all issues we must consider as we go to the polls to choose the men and women who will represent us in dealing with the challenges we face as a nation and as members of a world-wide community of human beings.

As we cast our ballots, let us remember to pray for the men and women who have stepped forward to accept the challenge of leadership. May they be guided by the Holy Spirit speaking in the depths of their heart to be compassionate and wise in their decisions and efforts to support life: from conception, through all its stages, to natural death.

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Oct 9, 2012

Human Dignity: The Basis for the Right to Religious Freedom

“The right to religious freedom has its foundation, not in the church or society or the state, but in the very dignity of the human person.” John Courtney Murray, SJ

Recently some Catholic leaders have been objecting to certain American civil laws and regulations which they see as conflicting with Catholic teaching as a violation of religious freedom rather than as issues of conscience. Conflicts between religious teaching and civil law in the United States have historically been called issues of conscience. For example, Americans who were opposed to war in principle could opt for alternative service as conscientious objectors. Religious freedom was defined as the protection of individuals to worship as they chose. Confusing conscientious objection to state policies with the notion of religious freedom undermines the Church’s obligation to be a sign of contradiction as a witness to the Gospel. It also undermines the value of religious freedom by implying that civil law must incorporate religious teaching and impose it on all. A review of Dignitatis Humanae shows that the Church’s formal teaching authority does not support this misconception of religious freedom.

The dignity of the human person is upheld to the extent that individual conscience, development of new understandings of what it is to be a human being, protection of fundamental rights, and freedom to explore new possibilities are recognized and encouraged for all members of the society. Churches have an important role to play in influencing the conversation, but theirs is not the final word and coercion is not an option. As the Council Fathers noted in Dignitatis Humanae:

In the end, when He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion. For He bore witness to the truth, but He refused to impose the truth by force on those who spoke against it. Not by force of blows does His rule assert its claims. (DH #11)

Freedom of religion comes from the dignity of the human person, not from the church or the state. It is not an issue of how many religious tenants of any given faith get written into civil law. It is a question of the right of people of faith to worship freely and participate in social discourse and in this way move towards a more just society. Freedom of Religion is a right that belongs to every human being, springs from human dignity, and provides the space in which each person is freed to develop his or her conscience and then live justly in accord with its dictates.

Controversies Among Catholics

The relationship between church and state in regard to religious freedom has been the subject of much discussion in the United States in recent months, including what the appropriate role of the Church can be in the process of selection of the next Congress and presidential administration. We have seen bishops speaking out on such diverse issues as federal regulations regarding health care services that must be offered by employer-sponsored health plans, who is eligible to marry whom, how much of the social safety net in a just society can be dismantled to reduce the deficit, and whether wealthier individuals should pay more to maintain the safety net. We have seen “Nuns on the Bus” speaking against budgetary proposals, Cardinals and Bishops threatening excommunication of politicians who vote on issues based on their own conscience and/or on communications received from their constituents. There have been countless interviews and discussions on news media, social media, and comedy shows. Slogans are tossed around and reference made to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution – “Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion,” for just one example. Recently, some bishops have even suggested that Catholics who do not agree with them should abstain from receiving Communion, despite Church teachings regarding the primacy of individual conscience.

The Pre-eminence of Conciliar Documents

All of these voices bring aspects of the challenges faced by a modern, multi-cultural, industrialized society to a level of visibility that was not always seen in the past. Nevertheless, these many voices do not speak for The Church in its most formal, authoritative, teaching role. Only the bishops of the world, from both the Eastern and Western Catholic churches, gathered in Council and representing the people of their dioceses, speak for The Church. Documents of the Councils are the most authoritative teachings of The Church, second only to the books of the Bible. Other teachings are important, including encyclicals, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and pastoral teachings of national Bishops Councils, but they do not supersede works of the Councils. Pastoral letters of individual bishops, writings of theologians, and works from other members of the Church, are the teachings of individuals. At their best, they are rooted in Church teaching and tradition. At their worst, they are simply the opinions of their authors and may be in error, however well-intentioned.

John Courtney Murray, SJ and the First Amendment

John Courtney Murray, SJ, (1904-1967) an American Catholic theologian of the twentieth century, wrote a series of essays regarding the way in which pluralism and religious liberty could be compatible with Catholicism, not just in the United States but throughout the world. The ideas he was proposing were contrary to hundreds of years of tradition – a tradition in which the Church played the role of both civil government and religious institution. This dual role of the Church – governing in both civil and religious realms – began during the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and continued well into the 18^th century. Murray, reflecting on the changes seen since the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States separated Church and State, suggested that this separation actually freed the Church to follow its religious mission and teachings regarding human dignity and freedom. For his ground-breaking efforts as a theologian, he was silenced by the Vatican for many years. However, by the time of Vatican II, as adviser to Cardinal Spellman, he drafted the Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae. This declaration, finalized and approved by the bishops of the Church in Council, was promulgated on December 7, 1965, the last great work of Vatican II. The Council that began its work with the reform of the liturgy ended its work with a new understanding of the source of religious freedom: human dignity itself.

Murray’s insights shed light on the role of religion in addressing questions of public policy today. If freedom of religion indeed comes not from the Church, or society, or the state and is in fact based in human dignity, then certain principles become evident.

The decisions of the state regarding how its members will live with and treat each other are just that — decisions of the state. They are civil issues. When a state decides that members may not kill each other, it is a civil issue. Another state might decide that certain activities (such as infidelity or murder) might justify murder as punishment, including state sponsored murder (capital punishment). That is also a civil issue.
Decisions of religious communities and organizations regarding how their members will live and treat each other are also just that — decisions of religious communities. They are the domain of religious authorities.
Religious leaders and members of religious communities may offer their insights and make decisions in their lives as members of a civil society based on their religious beliefs and values, but those religious beliefs do not govern that society to the extent that they are in conflict with the agreed upon values, standards, and laws of the larger community.
When civil laws provide protections for citizens that are not provided by religious laws, the civil ones generally prevail in a society such as the United States, where separation of church and state are the law. An example of this is seen in the current case in which a group of Amish men and women have been charged and found guilty in civil courts for forcibly cutting the hair and beards of other members of their faith whom they judged to be less faithful to the beliefs and practices of their faith. Their actions have been seen as assault and they were tried for “hate crimes,” in part because the assault was committed in the name of their religion against members of a religion.
Situations in which civil laws prevail are generally limited to issues of protection of life and health, safety of children, and protection of all members of the society from abuse or assault at the hands of others. On most other issues, the separation of church and state allows religious communities to establish their own rules and to follow them.
Some protections of individuals by civil society take precedence over religious practices; others do not. However, the morality of civil law or religious practice must be evaluated according to Church teaching by its effect on the freedom, dignity, and well-being of the human person. The following are some examples of these situations:
- Communion under both species (bread and wine) is allowed for children, though children may not be served alcohol under most other circumstances.
- Sexual or other abuse of children is never permitted and must be reported to civil authorities when there is reason to suspect that it may have occurred.
- Churches may refuse to bless a proposed marital relationship that civil authorities allow. For example, previously validly married individuals whose prior marriage has not been annulled may not re-marry in the Catholic Church. Civil societies do not care whether the Church has annulled a prior marriage or not as long as a civil divorce has been granted to end the prior marriage. A marriage license will be granted if and only if the couple meets the requirements for marriage in that legal jurisdiction. The question of homosexual marriage would fit under this same principle — issuance of a marriage license would allow civil marriage. Churches would not be required to grant their blessing to the union.
- Civil society, in the United States, allows only one spouse at a time. This is sometimes called “serial monogamy.” Polygamy is not allowed, whether polygyny (more than one wife) or polyandry (more than one husband). Some religions allow polygamy, but the practice is forbidden by civil law. The practice of polygyny was one of the things that got Mormons in trouble in the early years of their church in the 19th century, for example.
- So called “honor” killings are not allowed in Western societies, even though this type of murder is required by religious and cultural beliefs in many countries of the world. In some societies, murder of the victim is the norm in situations such as infidelity of a wife or the rape of a wife, daughter, or other female relative. Generally the woman is punished by death at the hands of her husband, father, brother, or other male relative.
- The refusal of vaccinations or blood transfusions may be allowed, unless such refusal endangers the life of a child.

Reflections from Anthropology

Perhaps the most important insight to be drawn is the one from social cultural anthropology. There are many ways of handling things such as interpersonal relationships, relationships between and among families, the structure of the family, child-rearing, inheritance, property rights, sexual activity, dietary rules, purity codes, and one’s relationship with the transnatural (which we refer to as God or, more broadly, the supernatural). Human beings have been very creative through the centuries in their development of ways to get along with each other and the ways they deal with differences within their communities.

Does this mean that any legally allowable behavior is morally good? Clearly, that is not the case. The “honor” killings noted above, for example, are not behaviors that are morally acceptable even if they are legal in many countries because violence is inflicted on another human being when they are practiced. However, above and beyond such obvious examples, we need to note that exploitation of workers, denial of access to basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education, destruction of the environment in pursuit of private profits, and other such activities that have been and/or are still legal are not morally acceptable either. In such cases, religious leaders of all faiths have a role in identifying the immorality of legal activities and working, through their teaching ministry, advocacy, and service to those harmed by such activities, to bring the members of the society to the point of recognizing the injustice and moving to correct it. Within the Church, “womb to tomb” is the phrase used to describe the commitment to support human life in all of its stages as a gift from God.

In a secular society such as the United States, in which church and state are separated by the Constitution, the church may speak and lobby and explain its reasoning on issues. In fact, the Catholic Church should do so. However, the churches do not make the final decisions or the laws that will govern all members of the society. Civil authorities, in turn, do not interfere lightly in the internal affairs of churches. Nevertheless, where the civil rights or the health and well-being of members of the society are threatened or unduly restricted by religious teachings or rules, civil rules take precedence for the protection of “the common good.” This is also in accord with Dignitatis Humane, which states, “…the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare” and later continues, “Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may … join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.” (DH #3,#4)

Working Together for the Common Good – Grounded in Human Dignity

As a matter of tradition and law in the United States, religious and civil governments are strictly separated. As a matter of Canon Law (Catholic Church law), ordained clerics — deacons, priests, bishops — are prohibited from taking an active role in politics and/or telling people how to vote. The same human dignity that is the basis of religious liberty also challenges individuals to wrestle with issues of public policy and, taking into account the teachings of the Church, form their own consciences, make decisions based on the conclusions they reach, and vote according to their convictions.

In multi-cultural societies, where many divergent sets of religious beliefs are held by their members, all are protected by the legal separation of civil and religious realms. No single set of beliefs and religious laws is imposed on anyone. Together they must work to develop a set of rules and regulations for the common good that protect all. Religious leaders have a role in the process: teaching and helping identify principles that need to be considered. However, no religious group may force its beliefs and practices on the rest of society. Freedom of religion comes from the dignity of the human person. The separation of church and state – the structural form put in place to support freedom of religion – provides for the right of people of faith to worship freely and participate in social discourse and so to move towards a more just society. This freedom springs from human dignity, belongs to all, and opens the possibility for each person to develop his or her conscience in freedom. From that freedom, each one is called to live in a manner that builds up a more just society, promoting the well-being and full potential of each of its members – the common good.

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Mar 24, 2012

Archbishop Oscar Romero: A Martyr in Our Own Time – One of Too Many

March 24 is the anniversary of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador in 1980. Archbishop Romero for most of his life was a pious, retiring, conservative priest and bishop. Nevertheless, he proved to be a man who could grow in response to the injustice of the social structure of his country, a structure that treated peasants and other poor people as less than human. When his friend, Fr. Rutilio Grande, S.J. was assassinated shortly after Romero had become archbishop, he came to see more clearly the systemic nature of the oppression and to speak on behalf of the voiceless poor. As he said, “A Church that does not unite itself to the poor … is not truly the Church of Jesus Christ.”

Romero’s words and actions on behalf of the poor were not welcomed by many of his friends and colleagues, let alone by the rich and powerful of his nation. In the face of threats against his life, he declared, “If God accepts the sacrifice of my life, then may my blood be the seed of liberty. … A bishop will die, but the church of God — the people — will never die.” Ultimately, a day after his plea to the military, “I beseech you, I beg you, I command you, stop the repression,” he was shot as he celebrated Mass.

A young Salvadoran agronomist was living with us at the time. She had been working in the countryside and had had the audacity to believe that peasants were human too. After one of her co-workers had been taken away by the death squads, her parents sent her to the United States, ostensibly to study English, but actually to save her life. When she heard the news of Archbishop Romero’s death, she was astounded and appalled. “If they would do that to the Archbishop, then none of us is safe!”

Blessedly, the civil war in El Salvador came to an end, and the death squads stopped spreading terror. Our friend was able to return home safely and resume her life. However, the oppression of the poor in countries around the world has not ended. The assassinations of Christians who work on behalf of the poor continue. Persecution of believers, not just in Islamic countries, but also in Latin America, Africa, and Asia continues. Real persecution. Not a difference of opinion about social policy and how to implement it. Persecution in which churches are bombed and people are killed. Those doing the “dirty work” are not only religious fanatics, they are representatives of business interests who would prefer not to have to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. Some are drug traffickers who will brook no opposition to their trade. Others are members of religious groups, including Christians, who are convinced theirs is the only true faith — others have no right to their own beliefs or lives.

As Christians, we are called to stand in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed. Witnesses such as Archbishop Romero speak to us from the past. Yet the violence continues today. Will we open our eyes and ears to notice it? What will we do to support those against whom it is directed?

For more information on persecution of religious believers in our times, please see this workshop by John Allen, Jr. at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress (2012).

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Mar 8, 2012

Who Can I Blame for the Mess We’re In?

"Grrrr!"

Conflict on individual, interpersonal, and larger societal levels seems to be a common experience of humans around the world. As the world has gotten smaller and contact made between members of industrialized societies and hunter-gatherers in ever more isolated jungle settings, it has become increasingly clear that any sort of Eden in which everyone lives in harmony with each other, with nature, and with God simply is not to be found on planet Earth.

In the industrialized world, the airwaves are filled with voices of broadcasters and their guests “cussing and discussing” the issues of the day. How big should government be? What is the proper role of (women, men, government, church – insert noun here)? Who is responsible for the economic (crash, success, recovery – again, insert noun here)? How much wealth should one person have? Should wealth be redistributed? How should that be done? Who has a right to private property, health care, life, liberty, …? Why do some children not do well in school? Why are some neighborhoods more dangerous than others? Who should raise our children? If people can’t work, should we make sure they get to eat and have a roof over their heads?

On social media sites, coffee shops, school parking lots, family dinner tables, etc., the conversation rages on. “Did you hear about the person who did …..? Isn’t it awful? … There ought to be a law!” “I’ve always said that if we allow … we’ll all end up in the gutter.”

Half-truths, statements taken out of context, down-right lies repeated until they take on an aura of truth, and even honest misconceptions get tossed into a pot with legitimate differences of opinion, cultural interpretations, and contrasting visions of an ideal society to create a smelly stew of controversy that poisons civil conversation. Everyone begins to speak loudly and with great conviction about what is RIGHT, without really stopping to listen deeply to what their opponent is trying to convey – the deeper concerns and fears that underlie seemingly simplistic notions of what might be needed to create a livable society for all of us.

During these middle of Lent days, let’s just stop for a moment and look at our interactions with others. Are we behaving like children on a playground? “He got more turns with the ball than I did.” “She got to start jumping first last time.” “I don’t like the way he looked at me.” “Mary told Kate that I don’t like Jane and Kate told Jane. But that’s not true. Now Jane is mad at me and I just don’t think it’s fair!”

One fundamental key to creating and sustaining conflict is to divide individuals into groups of Us and Them. Classic examples are seen in wartime propaganda. Names used for the enemy are shortened to pejorative forms. Ethnic stereotypes are invoked to arouse fears of atrocities that will befall Us if They are victorious. Classic war movies from the World War II era provide abundant examples of this phenomenon. Unfortunately, this tactic is not limited to wartime. It is all too commonly used in politics and our social conversation, generating lots of heat and not much light in the process.

Perhaps we could fast for a few days from this diet of conflict and controversy that poisons our interaction with each other around the world. Let’s take some time to listen deeply to the concerns, fears, hopes, and dreams of people whose approach we find contrary to our own. Listen to their stories respectfully. Don’t make fun of them or call them names. Give them credit for being God’s children too and genuinely concerned about what is right and what is wrong. We may not end up agreeing with each other on national policy or religious interpretations, but at least let us respect each other as sisters and brothers — fellow humans who have also struggled with the difficult issues of our times. Then maybe, just maybe, we will become bearers of Christ’s Peace to our world, leading by example in the unveiling of God’s Kingdom in the here and now.

Image by Petr Kratochvil – Public domain

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Feb 15, 2012

Light or Heat in the Controversy over Guidelines for Implementation of Health Care Reform

Much ink has been spilled in the past few weeks about the “war on religion” and the purported White House campaign to force people of faith (and specifically Catholics?) to have abortions, use contraceptives, and/or pay for others to do so. Far too much of this conversation is taking place in both figurative and literal shouting matches. Much heat … very little light!

Opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) see the most recent guidelines regarding preventive services for women as a specific attack against the religious liberty of institutions such as Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations. Proponents of this law, also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), point out that no one is in fact forced to use any of the preventive services covered. They note that exemptions are in place for churches, but they insist that to the extent that religious groups are employers, do not exist primarily to teach religion, serve non-members of that religion, and hire non-members of the religion, those groups are subject to employment laws just as other employers are.

The administration has moved to defuse this issue by ruling that the new preventive care services recommended by the independent Institute of Medicine and now mandated as benefits for women will be provided by insurers with no collection of premium from employers or employees. While many of those employers who will be impacted expressed initial support for this solution, some did not, so the controversy continues to rage.

Some of the comments I have heard on this subject indicate a broad lack of knowledge of basic facts about the PPACA and its provisions. Two specific issues seem to be causing the majority of complaints/upset among the general public: 1) coverage/support for pregnancy and 2) misidentification of contraceptives with abortifacient drugs.

Since so much heat is being generated on the topic, I did some research on them myself. This is what I found.

Maternity care and newborn care are classified as “essential health benefits” under PPACA. They MUST be covered by all insurance plans by January 1, 2014.

Currently, at least in California, most policies do not offer this coverage at any price and women who have non-maternity policies and become pregnant, are considered to have a pre-existing condition that prevents them from moving into a policy that offers maternity care. This will change in California effective July 1, 2012. However, at least one major insurer will require that women be covered for at least 12 months before maternity care will be covered with no exclusion period. Women who have not been covered for at least 12 months prior to becoming pregnant will have a six month exclusion period for their maternity care, thus increasing the risk of birth defects and complications of pregnancy for those who get no care or minimal care during the critical early months of pregnancy.

Nationally, coverage for maternity care will be required in all policies effective January 1, 2014. Requiring coverage for maternity care can be expected to reduce the number of birth defects, complications of pregnancy, and even abortions, because low and middle income women will not have to bear the entire cost of their prenatal and delivery care.

Abortifacients are not covered drugs under the new preventive care guidelines regarding provision of women’s health care services at no cost to the woman.

One other serious misconception I’m hearing is that the Catholic Bishops are opposed to the Obama administration and its policies in general. This is also false.

Here are the articles I found and the links for your own research and other questions regarding:

1) the relationship of the Catholic Bishops and the Obama administration

2) PPACA’s guidelines and implementation.

Information about the position of the Bishops and the administration – quoted from an interview by John Allen, Jr. with Archbishop Dolan of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops.

From: National Catholic Reporter

“Bishops are not ‘Obama haters,’ Dolan insists”

By John L. Allen, Jr. on Feb. 14, 2012

“Do you believe that Obama is waging a war on religion?

I don’t want to believe that. I find myself agreeing with many of President Obama’s policies. I find myself believing him when he assures me that he has the highest regard for the work of the church, especially in health care, education, and works of peace, charity and justice. I want to believe him when he says he wants this administration to do nothing to impede that good work, and that he considers the protection of conscience and freedom of religion to be one of the highest calls that he has as president, to protect the constitution. I want to believe him. I have to say that sometimes he makes it hard to believe him, but I will not place myself or my brother bishops in the camp of Obama-haters, because we’re not.

Anybody familiar with the history of the Catholic church knows that with every single President of the United States, we’ve applauded some things that he’s done and we’ve sat on our hands for others. It’s no different now. This may be one of the more well-oiled and effective protests that we’ve waged to something a president has done, which is why it’s getting attention, and I’m glad it is. But that doesn’t make us bullies who are now trying to impose our beliefs on the rest of the country, and trying to utilize the offices of the federal bureaucracy to do that. I would say that we’re not the ones imposing anything here. We didn’t start this battle, and I’m kind of uncomfortable with it. I don’t like battles. I know it has to be part of our ministry. I’m going to be reminded on Saturday that sometimes we have to do battle at the cost of blood in defense of the faith, but we’d much rather be conciliatory. We’d much rather be cooperative.

When I went into the Oval Office in November, the first thing the president did is to say, ‘Archbishop Dolan, let’s rehearse the areas in which my administration and the Catholic community in the United States is cooperating.’ He went into a litany of about ten minutes, and all I could do was nod my head in agreement. I also added a few more he had forgotten. It’s not like there’s total conflict, and I want to get that out. Strategically, we do not need to be painted into a corner where we’re some bully, obstinate bishops who do not want to dialogue or have any posture of openness to this administration. More importantly, it’s factually not true.”

To read more, see:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/bishops-are-not-obama-haters-dolan-insists

Regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) – These three excerpts provide specific information on requirements of the act.

From: Health Reform Whitepaper: Employer Impact of PPACA

6/28/2010 Health Law Monitor – Jackson Kelly PLLC

“What precisely constitutes ‘essential health benefits’ is to be more fully defined by future guidance. But PPACA lists the following broad categories of essential health benefits: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care [emphasis added], mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, laboratory services, preventive and wellness and chronic disease management, and pediatric services (including oral and vision care). Note that oral and vision care for adults are likely not essential health benefits.

Group health plans may place lifetime and annual dollar limits on benefits that are not “essential health benefits” (i.e., PPACA does not affect non-essential benefits).

Effective Dates. This provision is effective for plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010, except restricted annual limits on essential health benefits will be allowed until January 1, 2014. For plan years starting after 2014, annual dollar limits on essential benefits are prohibited entirely. Also applies to grandfathered plans.”

For the entire article, see:

http://healthlawmonitor.jacksonkelly.com/2010/06/health-reform-whitepaper-employer-impact-of-ppaca.html

A chart is included showing changes required for all employer paid health plans and those for non-grandfathered plans only.

Note: many plans are grandfathered; their benefits remain unchanged for the most part. Only if an employer or covered individual changes plans do the non-grandfathered provisions take effect. However, some changes are required for all policies and most of the beneficial reforms of the new law are in favor of the insured!

From: Affordable Care Act Rules on Expanding Access to Preventive Services for Women – Healthcare.gov

“Additional women’s preventive services that will be covered without cost sharing requirements include:

Well-woman visits: …
Gestational Diabetes screening: …
HPV DNA testing: …
STI counseling & HIV screening & counseling: …
Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling. These recommendations do not include abortifacient drugs. [emphasis added] Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives. Family planning services are an essential preventive service for women and critical to appropriately spacing and ensuring intended pregnancies, which results in improved maternal health and better birth outcomes.
Breastfeeding support, supplies & counseling: …
Domestic violence screening: …”

For more information, see:

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention08012011a.html

From: Song Mondress PLLC

October 2011 – Bulletin: Recent Developments in Employee Benefits Law

New Guidance Related To Health Plans & Health Care Reform (PPACA)

“New Women’s Preventive Care Guidelines Issued

HHS recently issued guidelines setting forth additional types of women’s preventive care under PPACA’s preventive care requirements for non-grandfathered health plans. These additional types of preventive care must be provided with no cost-sharing, effective as of the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after August 1, 2012. The guidelines are available at http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/. New types of required preventive care include, for example:

FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity. (Abortifacient drugs – e.g., RU-486 – do not qualify as contraception.) [emphasis added ] Group health plans sponsored by religious employers, and insurance coverage offered with respect to such plans, are not required to provide this care.
Breastfeeding supplies, support and counseling.
HPV testing every 3 years, beginning at age 30.
Annual HIV counseling and screening for sexually active women.
An annual “well-woman visit” to obtain all appropriate preventive services, and additional well-woman visits if the patient and her provider determine the visits are necessary.

As with other types of preventive care, plans may use reasonable medical management techniques in providing the care described in the new guidelines. For example, plans can continue to impose cost-sharing for brand-name drugs if an equally safe and effective generic version is available.”

For the entire report see:

http://www.songmondress.com/Articles/Bulletin-Recent-Developments-in-Employee-Benefits-Law.shtml

Reprinted with permission from Advanced Knowledge Resources.com

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Nov 19, 2011

“The Poor You Always Have With You …” – So We Don’t Have to Do Anything About Poverty?

As the fallout from the Great Recession drags on, with high unemployment, a depressed housing market, high numbers of foreclosures, greater demand for food stamps and Medicaid, and the other woes we’ve seen in the United States over the past few years, the debate over what, if anything, we as a society can or should do to alleviate poverty has moved from theoretical discussions in ethics or political science classes to the front lines of policy-making in our governmental institutions, as well as to our streets and family gatherings. In a recent Doonesbury cartoon (October 30, 2011), reporter Roland Hedley begins his report on poverty in America saying: “Jesus said, ‘The poor you will have always.” He goes on to speak of the American poor as “pampered” because they are not as poor as people in Third World countries such as Bangladesh. He specifically mentions that many of our poor have dishwashers and cable TV. They are overweight, so he assumes they have plenty to eat, and he notes that medical care is available through the emergency room, so no one starves or bleeds to death here – both statements patently untrue.

If this were just a comic strip character speaking, I might not bother to address the issues raised. However, this character’s statements parallel those of other real-world individuals, including Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation who noted that, based on federal surveys, most poor Americans have air conditioning, microwaves, TVs, adequate housing, nutritious food and about half even have personal computers. His point is that based on new ways of measuring poverty, “The overwhelming majority of poor people, not all, live in conditions that the average American wouldn’t recognize as poverty.” (The San Jose Mercury News, Oct 4, 2011, pA6). Both statements left me wondering if the speaker were advocating some sort of means test by which landlords would have to remove air conditioning and dishwashers from apartments rented to low income persons?!!!

But then I get serious again. All too often, that quotation from Jesus is used as a means to defuse efforts to draw attention to the reality of poverty and its impact on people all over the world. Poverty does not have to be life threatening to do great harm both to individuals and to nations. There are very real economic reasons why we should not join a race to the bottom in terms of how many people are left to live in dire poverty. However, since the door to consideration of religious implications of poverty gets opened through this commonly misquoted, misapplied and misunderstood quotation from St. John’s Gospel (Jn 12:8), the religious implications have become fair game and I will address them here.

As I am not a theologian and do not speak or read the Koine Greek in which the gospels are written, I asked a theologian friend, Dr. Megan McKenna, to explain the quotation and how it has been understood by the Christian community from its earliest years. Her response was longer than I want to quote here, but I’ll summarize it.

Jesus’ actual statement was, “The poor you always have with you, but me you will not always have.” It was made in response to a complaint by Judas Iscariot that an expensive ointment used by Jesus’ friend Mary to anoint his feet should have been sold rather than wasted on his feet because the proceeds could have been given to the poor. John notes in an aside that Judas was not particularly concerned about the poor, but rather used to help himself to the common purse.

According to Megan, Jesus’ statement was taken by the early church to mean “that whatever you want to do for me, you can do for the poor – and I will take it as done to me… a version of Matt 25: Whatever you do to the least of your brothers and sisters I take it that you did to me, and whatever you ignored or refused to do to the least of my brothers and sisters I take it you ignored me and refused to do it for me.”

She notes: “In the early church there was a saying: ‘See how those Christians love one another [the part they like to quote, the second part of the sentence being] there are no poor among them.’” Christians lived in common and shared what they had because they recognized Christ’s body as being no longer in the tomb but rather having become the Christian community. “What makes one a decent human being and the basis of Christianity is justice – and people deserve justice in all the basic necessities of life – food, water, clothing, shelter, education, health care, dignity, a job, freedom from harm and violence, etc. The rights of justice are listed in the first part of Pacem in Terris – and poverty is an insult to the God of Life who proclaimed that he had come that all might have life, ever more abundantly (here and now).”

Megan’s final point is that “love your neighbor as yourself” is not just a Christian concept. It comes from Jewish theology. “In the Old Testament if you were wealthy and didn’t share, you were considered violent and not a practicing or good Jew. Their understanding is that you are only worth what you give away and share with the poor, no matter what you actually have.”

I find it intriguing that those who are seemingly so concerned about the United States being a Christian nation, who would happily re-criminalize abortion and possibly outlaw birth control, who will spend hours debating and passing legislation re-affirming that the motto of the United States, printed on our money, is “In God We Trust,” would so cavalierly, almost in their next breath, speak of cutting unemployment, food stamps, and health care benefits for the millions of children, their unemployed or underemployed parents, senior citizens, and disabled Americans in order to balance the budget, rather than considering ways to increase revenues.

We as a nation have to decide which way we’ll go. We’ve got to come to an agreement on our social compact and how to fund the infrastructure and human capital development that will be necessary to keep this country and its ideals of freedom and justice for all in a position to lead by example as other peoples in the world reach for the prosperity and freedoms we enjoy. We’re all in this together. We’ve got to make hard choices and sacrifices. But the folks with the fewest resources, even if they have more than those in Third World countries, cannot bear the brunt of the sacrifice or we will all ultimately pay the price. And while that may have nothing to do with religious beliefs or imperatives, for people of faith, Followers of the Way, Christians, those imperatives speak loudly and clearly and are ignored at our peril!

Posted by Dcn. Randy Pozos on Aug 15, 2011

The Assumption of Our Lady, the Human, and Creation

This reflection is based in part on a presentation by Fr. Thomas Berry (1914 – 2009) – Philosopher, Cosmologist.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;
all things have been created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead,
so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
and through him to reconcile to himself all things,
whether things on earth or things in heaven,
by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. – Colossians 1:15-20

There is a dimension to all feasts of Our Lady that highlights God’s involvement with the physical – the material dimension. Mary’s assumption into heaven is a very tangible sign of the new creation in Christ. In his letter to the Colossians, St. Paul is addressing those who do not believe that Jesus was truly human. In this type of Platonist thinking, the feminine is seen as being prototypically associated with the earth and the physical is far inferior to the spiritual, celestial, male principle. The celebration of Mary, Mother of God, in the apostolic churches, acclaims the feminine as the means by which God makes all things new. Mary is the model, the example of what we are supposed to become.

God’s redemption of all creation is the setting for our own restoration of our fallen nature. Caring for creation is today a key obligation for us because of our recently acquired ability to reshape ecological systems on a global basis.

For more on Thomas Berry please go to http://earth-community.org.

Posted by Dcn. Randy Pozos on Jan 1, 2011

World Peace and Freedom of Religion

(Credit: Hiking Artist Cartoons – Used with permission)

This New Year’s post and my resolution comes from Fr. Cyprian Consiglio’s homily today at Holy Cross Church in Santa Cruz, California. Fr. Cyprian is a Camaldolese monk, musician, and student of world religions.

A liturgy with Fr. Cyprian is always a wonderful experience. His homily was based on the theme for today’s observance of World Peace Day.

Pope Benedict XVI focused on Freedom of Religion as the theme for this New Year’s Day of Peace 2011.

Religious freedom is not the exclusive patrimony of believers, but of the whole family of the earth’s peoples. It is an essential element of a constitutional state; it cannot be denied without at the same time encroaching on all fundamental rights and freedoms, since it is their synthesis and keystone. It is “the litmus test for the respect of all the other human rights”.[8] While it favours the exercise of our most specifically human faculties, it creates the necessary premises for the attainment of an integral development which concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension.

In his homily, Fr. Cyprian reflected on the number of groups which observed peace vigils New Year’s Eve and that the growing number showed, perhaps, an increase in consciousness and enlightenment. He went to some pains to point out that many of the groups from diverse traditions did not agree on everything and probably never would. However, it is only through the free exercise of religion and the building of bridges of good will that these tensions can be recognized, managed, and appreciated.

In fact Fr. Cyprian’s life as a troubadour of peace has bridged many of these divides through the dialog of contemplation and world music. (For wonderful and challenging reflections, subscribe to Fr. Cyprian’s blog.)

The unspoken lesson: Become the Peace You Want.

YouTube – CyprianConsiglio’s Channel.

For a brief but deep meditation on peace, tune into the chants Benedictus, Namo Janitre, and Awakening performed by Fr. Cyprian and Dr. John Pennington for a truly happy entry into this New Year.

Fr. Cyprian Consiglio and Dr. John Pennington

I highly recommend Fr. Cyprian’s blog and Dr. John Pennington’s website.

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Nov 11, 2010

A Time for Gratitude and Caution

November 11 is the day Americans know as Veterans Day. It was originally called Armistice Day, the day the War to End all Wars simply stopped – brought to a close by the signing of the Armistice between the Allies of World War I and their German enemies. It was neither a treaty nor an unconditional surrender, but it did mark the total defeat of Germany and her allies in the war. The war stopped at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. The peace treaty that officially ended the war was not signed until January 1920, but the fighting ended November 11, 1918.

Negotiations to end the war began in late September and continued through October and into November 1918. Even after agreement on the armistice had been reached, the armies continued to fight – each hoping to be in the best possible position should the hostilities resume. A total of 2,728 men died on the last day of the war, including one German soldier killed minutes after 11 a.m. by American soldiers who did not know the war was over. He was an officer approaching them to tell them his troops would be vacating the houses in which they had been billeted. The last American who died was killed as he was charging the German line 60 seconds before the fighting was to stop.

We look at these kinds of historical facts today and shake our heads. How arbitrary it all seems. What a waste of lives.

Yet human history is replete with tales of wars, conquests, roaming warriers, warlords, robber barons, etc. Why do they do it? Why do we do it? Do we do it ourselves, at home in our own little worlds?

I’m afraid I’d have to say that Yes, we do commit similar acts ourselves within our small circles of family and friends. We may not do it physically, but our words and actions can be ruthless and cut deeply.

When I was in high school, I was part of an experimental program in which we had a “block class” that included instruction in English and Economics/US Government. One of the portions of the class included the class becoming a city. We were all citizens of this city and had to deal with issues that cities and their citizens face. That included having elections to select our leaders. We were divided into differing socio-economic groups. Certain areas of our city were prosperous and others were not. Some of the challenges involved how to provide the services needed for the health and well-being of city residents without breaking the budget.

I ran for Mayor and won. It was the last office I expect ever to try to attain. I had no idea how difficult it could be to meet the needs of so many different people fairly. My hat is off to those folks who are willing to struggle with these issues on local, state and national levels. It’s a thankless job, despite the prestige one gets.

A few of us from the Block were selected to participate in another “game” at a local college. In this game, we were divided into two nations sharing a common border. As fate would have it, a skirmish broke out on the border. Each team/nation was given a set of information about the skirmish – what had happened, who had fired first, how many had been injured, where the troops were currently located, etc. Some were designated as the military who were engaged in defending our borders. Others were part of the political and diplomatic teams who were supposed to find common ground and get the war ended.

I was one of the persons sent to the United Nations to try to settle the issue. We had been told that the other nation had started the war. They had moved onto our territory first and we were simply defending ourselves. So I argued that they were the agressors. We were the innocent victims. They should withdraw and pay compensation for the cost of the war, etc. To my surprise, my counterpart from the other side had exactly the same argument! As the “game” drew to a close, we were informed that both sides had been given exactly the same information. The actual facts of the case would never be known by any of us. We had all been making speeches and arguing our cases based on information that had a 50-50 chance of being untrue.

I learned something from those two games played as the Vietnam War raged outside our classroom. Nothing is as clear-cut as it seems. There is always the possibility, indeed the probability, that at least part of the information on which a course of action is to be based is incorrect. Whether those providing the incorrect information are doing so knowingly or not does not change the fact that it is incorrect. The culpability for causing harm to others, of course, depends on the degree to which one is aware that the information is not true and spreads it anyway. However, it doesn’t hurt to assume as a general rule that at least some of what I “know” is not really true! If nothing else it lends a bit of humility to the equation.

That doesn’t mean that individuals should not take stands supporting basic human rights or not call a spade a spade when governments or others in positions of power are abusing their power or harming the innocent. That’s part of the call to prophetic witness within our Judeo-Christian tradition. However, we are called to do so recognizing our own complicity in the system and knowing that there is always more to any story than at first meets the eye.

On this Veterans Day, may we be filled with a sense of gratitude for the efforts and sacrifices of those who have given their lives to ensure that life would be better for those who came after them. May we thank those who went to war and returned alive for the gift of freedoms they have protected. May we be grateful to those who serve in other ways than militarily to foster human rights and protect human dignity. May we reach out to those whom we consider to be enemies and to those who consider us to be enemies, hoping to find common ground on which we can move forward in peace. And may we respect those who dissent when those around them call for aggressive action or war, recognizing that there may be realities about which we are unaware that would lead to totally different conclusions if they were known.

Most importantly, may we be peacemakers – ever willing to listen, to seek common ground, to build a sturdy foundation for the future. As sisters and brothers sharing one earth, as human beings, we can do no less and be true to our calling as children of the Most High.

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Oct 31, 2010

Who is Zacchaeus in Our Lives Today?

The Gospel reading for today, the 31st Sunday of Ordinary time, Cycle C, is the story of the tax collector, Zacchaeus.

Zacchaeus lived in Jericho. He was despised by the people of the community because he was a tax collector. Being a tax collector in those days meant that he was free to extort as much as he could get from the people and had only to send a portion of it to the authorities at higher levels of government (ie, Jerusalem and Rome). He was the chief tax collector, taking money from all the tax collectors under his supervision and from his own work as well. The gospel notes that he was a wealthy man.

Now Zacchaeus was curious about Jesus and when he heard that Jesus would be passing through town, he went out with the crowd to see him. We do the same today when celebrities come through our own towns. However, Zacchaeus had a problem. He was a short man and there were lots of people in front of him. So he climbed a tree to get a better view.

Jesus saw him in the tree, stopped and called him by name to come down, saying that he (Jesus) would dine at the home of Zacchaeus that night. The people were horrified and scandalized. They asked if Jesus really could know who Zacchaeus was, that he was a terrible sinner? But Zacchaeus was touched by the healing love of Jesus in that moment and volunteered that he would return fourfold all that he had stolen and give half of his possessions to the poor. Jesus told all “Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.” (Lk 19:1-10)

This story got me to thinking. Who is Zacchaeus in our lives today?

It’s easy to point the finger of blame at celebrities who are promiscuous or who drink too much or who use illicit drugs. It’s easy to look at politicians who misuse their power. It’s easy to say that those who provide or seek abortions are great sinners. It’s easy to scapegoat people whose sexual orientation does not match our own. It’s easy to gloat when a minister is caught in some sin he or she has denounced from the pulpit.

But I don’t think that’s the lesson we need to draw from this account. We need to look at ourselves and see the areas in which we fail. We need to ask ourselves who we cheat, from whom do we steal, whose hearts do we break? To some extent each of us is Zacchaeus.

Then I suggest we go a step further. Who are the people in our lives whom we blame for what is wrong in society? Who are the people we would choose to block from access to the goods of life? To whom would we deny education, health care, food, clothing, shelter?

Do we blame undocumented immigrants and seek to exclude them and their children from the goods and services they need to live full, healthy lives? Do we suggest that the children of the undocumented who are born here should not be citizens by birth, thereby denying them the protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution? Do we look down on the laid off teacher, the unwed mother, or the disabled worker who receive unemployment, food stamps and Medicaid? Do we insist that people who can’t afford health insurance should just not get sick and/or need preventive care services? Do we say that only the well-to-do should be able to stay home with their young children and that mothers in poorer families should have to put their children in day care for long periods of time and work at minimum wage or less trying to earn enough to cover rent, food and childcare? Do we assume that all children of minority groups are probably gang members? Do we expect that the poor are somehow less intelligent and deserve to live in poverty?

I suggest that perhaps Zacchaeus takes many forms in the United States today. Some people we treat as if they were public sinners (Zacchaeus) because they are less fortunate or have made poor decisions in their lives. Somehow we are inclined to believe that those for whom all is going well are holy and specially rewarded by God for their good lives and that the opposite is true for those in difficult circumstances. Some of us are Zacchaeus in our world because of choices we have made that hurt others.

The good news is that Jesus came to bring salvation to us all, in whatever way we may personally be Zacchaeus and to whomever we treat with scorn or exclude as if he or she were Zacchaeus. And why does Jesus come to bring this salvation? Because “the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost” and because the Lord will “overlook people’s sins that they may repent.” (Wis 11:23)

Good news indeed. May we be open to receive that salvation ourselves and to support others whom we might otherwise push aside as unworthy of the grace and blessings of the Lord.

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Oct 29, 2010

Hearing the Cry of the Poor

“The Lord hears the cry of the poor, Blessed be the Lord.” (Psalm 34)

We hear and sing these words from Psalm 34 at various times throughout the year, but I wonder how often we really heed them. We are too easily tempted to focus on eternal rewards and happiness after death for those who suffer poverty here in this life – the rich man and Lazarus, for example. Such a focus may give some comfort to the suffering. It allows the one who may not be able to change the social realities to rest easier, assuming all will balance out in the end. But I don’t think that’s what it’s all about!

The psalm doesn’t say, “The Lord will hear…” It says, “The Lord hears…” That means here and now. Somehow I can’t believe that the Lord is very happy with folks who allow children to go to bed hungry or to die of illnesses that could be prevented with basic health care.

Structural factors in societies create barriers that effectively deny people the opportunity to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” Those without boots don’t have bootstraps on which to pull.

One simple exercise (called “The Scramble”) that makes the reality of structural inequalities tangible goes this way. Take 100 pennies and scatter them on the floor. Three groups of people then have the chance to pick up as many pennies as they can. The catch is that only a few of them can use their bare hands. A larger group wear mittens on their hands. The third group, the largest group by far, must pick up their pennies with a spoon.

You can imagine which group will collect the most pennies and which the least.

Something of this nature is going on in countries all over the world. Emmanuel Saez, winner of one of this year’s MacArthur Foundation “Genius Grants,” has studied the relationship between tax policy and income in the United States. He notes that the top 1% of Americans earn 24% of all income. The earned income of the top one-tenth of 1% of Americans (approximately 310,000 people) equals that of the bottom 120 million people. Yet those high earners only pay as much in taxes on their income as ordinary workers pay.

Folks caught on the middle and lower economic rungs are unhappy about today’s economic realities. Those paying the larger proportion of taxes wonder if they’re getting their money’s worth. Tea Party slogans ring true to many of these folks.

Economists tell us that economic gains, including reduction of the unemployment rate and recovery of the housing market, following the Great Recession will remain slow through 2011. There’s not going to be a quick fix for the situation in which we find ourselves.

As we Americans go to the polls to vote in this mid-term election, I hope and pray that we’ll remember that as hard as economic times are for people at all levels of income, they’re more desperate for those on the lower rungs of income and the unemployed. No matter what we do, it will take time to move back to prosperity. We must not forget or refuse to care for the poor, the children, the less fortunate among us.

“The Lord hears the cry of the poor…”

Posted by Kathleen Brewer de Pozos, PhD on Sep 27, 2010

A Chasm Was Fixed Between Them

In the Gospel for the 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Cycle C, Jesus tells the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31).

A rich man lived sumptuously, with everything money could by at his disposal. We don’t know how he came to have his money. Probably he was not a bad man. He was, however, a man who was not overly concerned with the plight of the poor of his community. We can assume this because a poor man called Lazarus lay on the doorstep of the rich man day after day, covered with sores, and the rich man did not take care of him. Even the dogs paid more attention to Lazarus than the rich man did. They came and licked his sores.

Now, in defense of the rich man, there were lots and lots of poor people around. Lots and lots of sick people. Maybe even some people who didn’t work when they could have worked to support themselves. Jesus doesn’t tell us what the rich man was thinking or why he didn’t stop to help Lazarus. He just notes that Lazarus was hungry, sick, and licked by dogs.

As Americans, the idea of having a dog lick one’s sores is not appealing, but it was even worse in those days. Dogs were not the much loved pets that they are for us. Dogs worked for a living or they were strays that fended for themselves. In many countries, dogs that were not working (tending flocks or guarding something/someone) were considered fair game as food by the poor. So here is Lazarus, lying sick and hungry at the door, having stray dogs licking his sores and unable to chase them away. Not a pretty picture.

As happens in life, Lazarus died. The angels of God swooped down, picked him up and took him to Abraham. Abraham, father of the Jewish nation, welcomer of all who came to him, welcomed Lazarus as well. He cared for Lazarus as one of his own.

As also happens in life, the rich man’s turn came to die. He died and was buried. But he did not find himself with Abraham. He was alone and in torment. He could see Abraham. He could see Lazarus with Abraham. He longed for a single drop of water to ease his pain, so he asked Abraham to send Lazarus with a drop of water for him. Note well — he didn’t ask Lazarus for forgiveness or for the gift of a drop of water. He asked Abraham to send/order Lazarus to bring the water.

Abraham reminds the rich man of the relationship that had existed in life between the two men. He also tells the rich man that there is a great chasm fixed between them, one that neither side may cross freely.

I had always wondered about that chasm. Why would a loving God set up a barrier that would keep those in His presence and company (Heaven) from reaching out and helping those who were not (Hell)? Wouldn’t those who were united with Love and in Love be so overflowing with love themselves that they’d want to help those who were separated from Love?

Our homilist this Sunday, Fr. Ken Lavarone, OFM, addressed this question. Fr. Ken pointed out that the chasm between the two men was one of lack of relationship. Lazarus could not come to the aid of the rich man because there was not a relationship between them. The rich man had always stepped over Lazarus or ignored him. Even after death, the chasm remained. The rich man spoke to Abraham, not to Lazarus.

Jesus’ story continued. The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers of the fate that awaited them – sort of like in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. Abraham responded that the brothers had Moses and the prophets to warn him, as the rich man himself had had. When the rich man noted that the brothers wouldn’t listen to Moses and the prophets, Abraham retorted that those brothers would also not listen to one who returned from the dead.

These final lines of the story are of huge import for us as well. They were directed to the religious, church-going folks of Jesus time and of the early Church. Jesus returned from the dead. Affirming the message of Moses and the Prophets, Jesus said we are to care for the poor and helpless among us. How we do it will vary. Some will have monetary resources that will be shared. Others will have talents that can help make life more bearable for their less fortunate sisters and brothers. Some will only be able to offer a smile and a kind word — a recognition that the other person is also human and worthy of respect. Each of these responses is a way of entering into relationship with the other person. Each of these bridges chasms that would otherwise keep them apart.

In Jesus’ story, both men were children of Abraham due to their identity as Jews. Today, we know that we are all children/descendents of one woman who was a member of a group of people who lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago — a woman known as “Mitochondrial Eve.” We all have a responsibility to each other. We all can give the gift of a smile that raises another’s hopes and heart. We all sometimes turn away from the circle of community of God’s children. The good news is that someone did return from beyond the grave with a reminder that we can turn back at any time. We just need to remember that care of God’s little ones (the poor and the powerless) comes first when we choose our elected officials, design our social safety nets, vote for funding of community services, and allocate our personal resources of time, talents and treasure.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Pope Francis Helps US Cuba Relations

A Church for the Poor – The Vision of Pope Francis

Light or Heat in the Controversy over Guidelines for Implementation of Health Care Reform

Information about the position of the Bishops and the administration – quoted from an interview by John Allen, Jr. with Archbishop Dolan of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops.

“Bishops are not ‘Obama haters,’ Dolan insists”

Regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) – These three excerpts provide specific information on requirements of the act.

From: Health Reform Whitepaper: Employer Impact of PPACA

6/28/2010 Health Law Monitor – Jackson Kelly PLLC

From: Affordable Care Act Rules on Expanding Access to Preventive Services for Women – Healthcare.gov

From: Song Mondress PLLC

October 2011 – Bulletin: Recent Developments in Employee Benefits Law

“New Women’s Preventive Care Guidelines Issued

The Assumption of Our Lady, the Human, and Creation

World Peace and Freedom of Religion

A Time for Gratitude and Caution

Who is Zacchaeus in Our Lives Today?

Welcome to our blog

Our Vision

Our Supporters and Friends

Help Support Theologika

Topics of Interest

Past Issues

Our Visitors Around the World