"A Complicated Life"

I like my Sharing Widget in the sidebar, my ability to share posts and articles that I find, in some way, meaningful with people who are kind enough to visit my own site. So I want to point your attention to an article I read this morning written by Fr Tobias, an Orthodox priest, at "Second Terrace." He says things well. And this post, while very political is also apolitical, i.e. nonpartisan. It's about being Christian and being a Christian in America. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

God Love 'Em

Palin did well last night. I thought Biden did better, but at least Palin was coherent. Speaking of incoherence, after reading the text of Katie Couric's interview with Gov Palin, I've concluded that the McCain campaign is justified in accusing Couric of "Gotcha" journalism. There are clever little traps here that Katie sets - yes, that's journalism for you; yes, Palin ought to be able to navigate tough journalists. But the journalist's purpose is to inform the public about what the candidate believes, where she stands, rather than try to make her look like an idiot (at which they were quite successful, with no little help from Gov Palin). Also, journalists should hold her accountable for her own history and her own words rather than expecting her to know the minutiae of McCain's 132-year-long voting and speaking records. That would strain the brainpans of all but the most erudite of us.

One other thing, lay off on the pro-life issue, media. And since you won't: Palin, stand up. "Darnit, youbetcha I'm pro-life and here's why." It is our argument that is supported by science, reason and faith. Yes, the right to kill our babies in the womb is the law of the land. But guess what, Washington Herd, it's an immoral law. Life is not about women's rights. If it were, the government wouldn't be able to draw the line anywhere in a woman's womb, as it most certainly does. Indeed, if it were simply a matter of women's rights, the government wouldn't even be able to draw the line outside the womb.

Oh, and, just curious, did anyone besides my wife and I, hear Palin, after she corrected him, call the senator, Obiden? We laughed for half an hour about it, doing our best at Tina Fey.

The Disqualification of a Candidate

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this short article.

Palin 2: Equal Time

To say that I don't get Sarah Palin does not mean that I don't like her - just that I don't get all tingly when I think about her. I'm cautious about her because she's a wild card - I don't feel like I know who she is or how competent she is. She may do swimmingly. She may even be wicked good. I'm waiting.

In the meantime, it unnerves me, as it unnerves many of you, that some in the press and some Democrats disparage her so. And all of it stems out of, or seems to from my listening to their coverage, the fact that she is staunchly pro-life. They despise that this woman (that any woman) could be against women's rights, against advancing women's health. They continue to ignore or reject or spin the fact that we who are for life are not against women's rights or against advancing women's health, but that we do not believe that any person - male or female - has the right to end human life, especially not the innocent among us. They refuse to acknowledge that we believe, from both theology and science, that life begins at conception. This is a life issue; it's a human rights issue for us rather than a civil rights issue. That it even needs to be said 30+ years into the disagreement is a sad commentary. The constant spinning from the Left, since Palin's selection, aggravates even me.

At least be gracious enough to understand that we approach the issue from two distinct places rather than label all who disagree with you as sexist or ignorant or just dumb. There is no danger of Roe v. Wade being overturned in the admission that we are in disagreement about when life begins, when human rights are given by God. The "new culture war" that the Left so lately chatters on about is not the doing of the Right, but rather the result of the silencing efforts of the Left. Yes, we still disagree. We haven't gone anywhere or become "enlightened." But, at the same time, our disagreement doesn't need to be a cause for apoplexy; it ought to drive us forward into conversation. Until we acknowledge what each of us believes, we will be doomed to "culture war." We need some domestic diplomacy.

That also means that those of us who are pro-life need to calm down. We must stop the name-calling and the diatribes and the condemnation. Those on the Left are people. Image-of-God people. People God loves and on whom he pours out his mercy - no more or less than you. It is not us-them (it never is with people), it is only us. And it is incumbent upon me to love them and to honor them. That is my obligation as a Catholic.

Nevertheless, I need to go clean up the kitchen. That, too, is my obligation.

The Nominees at Saddleback

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

First things first: While I did not write about his passing, Solzhenitsyn has whispered quietly, in the background of my mind, for many years now. I respect his voice, as one respects the prophetic voice that one finds in the exile, and I also greatly respect his artistry. May he rest in peace and may his memory be eternal.

Now for the potstirring.

Obama and McCain both answered questions from Pastor Rick Warren yesterday at Pastor Warren's church, Saddleback, in California. I found the informal forum last night interesting. It surprised me how well McCain fared with Evangelicals and conservatives - his storytelling worked. Amidst the ensuing hubbub, however, are a couple of points and or questions I'd like to throw out there into the inane ether of the blogosphere.

I liked hearing, and the audience certainly liked hearing, McCain say that he was pro-life and that his presidency would be pro-life. I liked hearing him say that life begins at conception. But what bugs me about McCain, and what I find disingenuous - at best - is that he also supports embryonic stem cell research. I would like to hear him explain himself on that point.

That doesn't mean Senator Obama comes out bright and shiny like a new penny. Some people, including some professional analysts, think Obama was vague in his answers to some of the questions. Now I didn't think he was. I always find Obama thoughtful and intelligent, and he seemed so to me last night. He is also responding to questions the answers of which (his answers) will float with that audience about as well as a lead balloon. It's like talking evolution at Ken Ham's dinner table. It takes some guts. Then again, as I've said before, I like Obama - he comes across easy and reasonable to me. But he didn't say anything new or shocking last night. That doesn't mean I liked his answers concerning those questions. That doesn't mean on those questions I thought his answers better than McCain's.

What disturbed me last night, because it was new, was the question about evil. Pastor Warren asked something along the following lines: Do you believe evil exists? And, if so, what should be done about it? I liked Obama's answer okay in that it covered a variety of evils - with the potential of evil even in our country. McCain, on the other hand, answered from the stump, which I found particularly disturbing. When asked about evil, do you go into a tirade about destroying al Qaeda and bin Laden? Chasing bin Laden to the gates of hell? Which brought to mind the Solzhenitsyn quote. Here it is again:

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."

I understand these men are running for the presidency. They're not theologians or philosophers. I understand that they equivocate as they deem necessary. They're more concerned with their talking points than with real questions. I don't want it justified or need it explained to me. But evil is far more cunning than Senator McCain gives it credit. And such a simplistic and vehement answer to such a terrible question unnerves me.

Just a Fool Disagreeing with an Archbishop

Over at First Things last Tuesday, the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, wrote an article titled, "Thoughts on 'Roman Catholics for Obama '08.' " It was written in response to a group of Catholics that use parts of another one of his articles to justify voting for Senator Obama in spite of his being pro-choice. His Excellency makes it clear that Roman Catholics for Obama (RCO) has not quoted him fully and makes the case for extreme caution before voting for a pro-choice politician. His Excellency is not willing to do so. (I would encourage you to read the article.)

And so, fuel to the fire, there has been much sound and fury in the blogs among fundamentalist and conservative Catholics.

But before I go on, let me provide some brief background information about Catholics and Catholicism. First, there are what I would consider fundamentalists in Catholicism. These are the same kind of fundamentalists that you know in whatever religion or Christian denomination you may move in. I'm not speaking here of Christians who adhere to the fundamentals of their faith - the denotative understanding of the term, as has been formerly understood in Protestant Christianity. These Catholics and Christians are conservative, but that isn't their distinguishing feature. What distinguishes them is that they bandy fear about as a bludgeon. And while it is effective, it is not Christian (that is not to say that they are not Christians). It lacks mercy.

So these fundamentalists pick up Archbishop Chaput's essay and they roll it tightly into a club. They call Obama supporters soft-brained, and some even relegate his supporters to hell. They compare the senator with Moloch. Who, if you remember, was offered babies in sacrifice by throwing them into a fire - thousands of babies.

Now, quickly, I want to say that I am not questioning whether any of these people are Christian or Catholic. I'm not equipped to make that judgment; I don't have the authority to make that determination; it's not my job. And I believe they're good-hearted and well-intentioned. And their vitriol rises up out of their love for children. These are people just like you and me, they too need to be examining their lives to see if they are in the faith, working out their salvation in fear and trembling, uniting themselves to Christ, converting evermore to him each day.

Let me also be clear in saying that Archbishop Chaput, from what I have read of and about him is no fundamentalist. He gives his reasons for voting pro-life. And having a strong opinion on a matter is not the same as judging everyone who disagrees with that opinion. His Excellency believes that there is no moral issue (where there is disagreement in our parties, I imagine worldwide poverty is not under consideration) that outweighs the issue of abortion. And I agree with him. He makes an excellent argument. But I disagree with him here, in that I don't believe it's simply a weighing match. The archbishop says that the Democratic party has not gotten better on the issue of life and therefore he can't vote for such a candidate in good faith. That is all well and good. However, while the Republican party talks a good talk concerning the abortion issue, they have had nearly 30 years of mostly Republican power, and one begins to wonder whether talk is all the Republican party has.

I am sure about one thing as it concerns abortion and politics: My vote for a pro-life Republican president will not diminish the number of abortions in our country in the next four years or the next 40. I believe this to be true based on the past 35 years. I don't believe it anymore than I believe Obama's election would diminish racism or that Hillary's would diminish sexism - perhaps all three nominee's elections could be wonderful symbols, but only in the modern sense of symbols, lacking any substance. These are the kinds of symbols that effect nothing other than making us feel good about ourselves.

Let me say that I am resolutely pro-life. I do not believe abortion is an issue of women's rights but an issue that concerns the dignity and sanctity of life itself. I find the whole mess abominable. And I reject it as firmly as I can along with the Catholic Church and most of Christianity. But that does not mean that I cannot vote for a pro-choice politician because of other moral considerations. Not because they are pro-choice, that would be grave error, but in spite of their being pro-choice. And I can do so in good conscience because, frankly, the Republican party has dropped the ball - if it ever was in play.

I have not, by the way, decided to vote for Senator Obama in November. It may seem so, but that would be a mistaken impression. There is a lot of time between now and then and there needs to be a lot of prayer and consideration. I struggle with this issue constantly. And if you are wondering whether to choose between my wisdom and the archbishop's, I would strongly urge you to follow his Excellency. He is older and has more experience with this issue. And he knows Christ better than I.

We must pray for our parties' nominees - for wisdom, which begins with the fear of God, and for love of all people.

(Let me make a distinction, after all is said and done. It is one thing to vote for a politician in spite of his or her being pro-choice. It is another thing to be a politician and to cast votes against life. These are two very different things, and if you'd like to have that conversation, I would be glad to take it up in the combox.)

Arinze on Catholic Politicians and Abortion

HT: Red Neck Woman

The Product of an Occasional Sleeplessness

It's been a while. I wanted to jot down a few things I've been meaning to jot down, but haven't had the time or disposition to do so. Tonight, after a nap on the couch and an inability to go back to sleep after 2:00 a.m. thinking about writing, I decided to come up here and get back into it.

---

Here's an update on our parish priest, Fr Al. I had mentioned a few months back that he had been removed from our parish by our diocese because of some charges brought against him about something that happened 50 years ago. I am pleased to report that he has been with us since the first of the year, having had his name cleared. It's something that doesn't make much of a splash in the news: "Priest's good name restored," but it means a great deal to us at OLR at the very least.

---

I've been following the political scene with some interest. And let me be honest with you: I like Obama. Now, because of his stand on abortion, I won't vote for the man unless he runs against Guiliani. A very pro-abortion voting record, from what I understand. But this man does fill one with a sense of vision and hope - a quite moving rhetorician from what I've experienced. That is, of course, to say very little perhaps, as I've heard Hitler was persuasive as well. Not to compare the two men, but only to show you that I realize that a moving speaker does not necessarily a good leader make.

Furthermore, I do not like, as he said so eloquently after winning handedly in SC, his description of some who use religion as a wedge, by which, I understood him speaking about abortion. Excuse me, Senator Obama, but did MLK use religion as a wedge? Different issue entirely, I understand. MLK was seeking unity. But abortion is an issue, though apparently tiresome for some, that is a non-negotiable. It is, if you'll forgive my metaphor, like the Catholic Church's view on ecumenism with Protestant communities - the only road to full communion with one another involves their crossing the Tiber. Abortion is the same way: The only way toward agreement on this issue is to begin to work toward the dissolution of its support. To look toward its end.

Other than that, and contrary to many in conservative circles, I do like Sen Obama. Perhaps much of my interest in Obama is that I find no one notable in the Republican race. Forgive my harshness.

---

Last weekend we visited Laura's parents in Virginia Beach. While there we attended a Byzantine Catholic parish, which I've been wanting to do for some time. It was a fascinating and wonderful time. I'd like to write more about it later, but the liturgy, though very different than the Latin rite, was quite beautiful, though completely foreign - chanting, iconostasis, incense (which I've only had the pleasure of experiencing at only one Mass - Midnight Mass in Eaton Rapids, MI - since returning to the Catholic Church). The hospitality we discovered there, however, was nonpareil. Not in the vigorous hand-shaking and plastic smiles ubiquitous in some communities, but in something genuine that simply was - it emanated from them - something difficult to put a finger on, but certainly easily loved. We will be sure to return to this parish whenever we visit Virginia Beach.

Furthermore, the icons - I love the iconography. I wish more Latin-rite churches included them in their parishes, they are our heritage as well. Case in point, in the foyer of the parish was a large icon of Christ crucified. My oldest daughter, Sophie, said to the reader who welcomed us so warmly, that it appeared that Christ had a cut upon his side - something she had never noticed before apparently. The reader, full attention given to my daughter, explained the icon - told the story. And this is one of the many things I so appreciate about iconography. (The same is true, of course, with elements of Latin rite parishes.) Iconography allows pre- and emerging readers to discover and hear the Word proclaimed. It allows them to read the Word without reading. Icons, as it is said, do with color what the Scriptures do with words.

Today, Two Prayers

Yesterday, many Christians remembered with contrition the decision reached in the case of Roe v. Wade. Our country has perpetrated a great evil in the last 34 years. And we, like Daniel, are in some sense complicit in the sin of our country. We pray for the mercy of God.

It is imperative that we continue to work for a right respect for life - from conception to natural death. It is imperative that we continue to pray about this issue and the lives being wounded and destroyed by it. It is imperative that we love and pray for those who commit or encourage this evil. Many act in ignorance. But regardless of their understanding of what they do, we must love and pray for them.

Our consciences can be poor guides if they are not formed rightly. For those of us who are Catholic, that means conforming our lives to the teaching of the Church on these moral issues. We do not have the authority to make contrary decisions, any more than, after receiving the Decalogue, the Israelites had the choice whether to commit adultery or covet their neighbors' possessions or murder. That is not to say we are not free to choose otherwise. But it remains sin and breaks our relationship with Christ and His body, the Church.

And, remember, for all of us who sin - the Church longs for us to turn to Christ in repentance. We are all in need of the mercy of God. And, thanks be to God, God cleanses us from all our sin and provides for us pardon and peace.

---

Build us together in Christ,
Make us your dwelling place.

This week is a time set aside by the Catholic Church to specifically pray for Christian unity.

Unity is an issue that weighs heavily on my heart. Not that I am discouraged by the prospect of Christian unity, but rather that it is painful to live in the division between brothers and sisters. (And I offer up that pain as an oblation to God.) We are one body. Indeed, we are Christ's body. We are Christ.

Is Christ divided?

+ God, through your coming to us in Jesus and through using fallible people, you have shown yourself to be a vulnerable God; we thank you that you still trust us to offer service and work for the building of your kingdom. Keep us alert to your will and purpose and open our eyes that we may see the true needs of people around us. Enable us in humility to learn from one another, that we may be united in our mutual accountability and devoted in service for your kingdom; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, 2005