Swords and Plowshares

#FF - Links for your Lunchbreak

Fri, 10 May 2013 12:15:48 -0400

Over 1,000 people died in the collapse of a Bangladeshi garment factory, leading for a renewed call to scrutinize labor conditions in developing countries. By contrast, Fair Trade coffee products are selling at an all-time high, leading to a question explored by Foreign Policy… why do we care more about the ethics of coffee than clothes? [FP]

A psychiatry fellow at UCLA pens a #mustread about how our contemporary psychiatry has all too often become reduced to psychopharmacology, wherein insurance companies expect inpatients to be medicated and discharged, not talked to and treated comprehensively. [Atlantic]

BBC reports on a team of researchers in the United States and Sweden who are shedding some light on how babies begin to learn language while still in the womb. [BBC]

Paul Farmer, the well-known doctor and activist, has some thoughts on what the American medical system could learn from community health efforts in developing nations. [DailyBeast]

Pope Francis, repeating what is quickly becoming a central theme of his papacy, has exhorted Christians to embrace the joy that accompanies a life of faith, admonishing that sourpusses hurt the Church’s witness and mission. [CNS]

Amid the seemingly ceaseless torrent of all-things-Gatsby accompanying the release of Baz Luhrmann’s new big-screen adaptation of the classic American novel, New Yorker contributor Kathryn Schultz dares to offer a minority report, telling, “Why I despise the Great Gatsby.” [Vulture]

The California Assembly has approved a bill that will allow transgender students to compete in sports according to their self-described gender identity, rather than their physiological sex. The measure will undoubtedly incite vigorous public debate. [LATimes]

Sports Illustrated offers 10 position battles in the NFL to keep an eye on over the summer. [SI]

The SEC Football Blog breaks down the easiest non-conference schedules in the SEC for the coming season. The SEC might be the toughest league in the country, but their non-conference fodder is pretty embarrassing. [SECBlog]

Unsurprisingly, Congressional Republicans are becoming more explicit in stating what has been obvious to impartial observers from day one: they want to use Benghazi to impeach the President (or at the very least scuttle his entire second term agenda), and prevent Hillary Clinton or the Dems from reaching the White House in 2016. [The Hill]

Finally, we turn to Mental Floss for 50 things that turn 50 this year. [Mental Floss]

As always, to get these stories in realtime, follow me on Twitter.

#MustRead Monday

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:37:59 -0400

It’s been a while, but there’ve just been too many links to post today without overwhelming my social media streams, so I figured I’d consolidate them here.

Leading the day’s news is the Sports Illustrated cover story in which 34 year-old NBA veteran Jason Collins comes out as gay, becoming the first major male professional athlete to do so.

Meanwhile, in Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, and at 170 million, the 7th most populous country on Earth, a member of the Associated Press reports that the gap between the super-rich and the poor is growing at an alarming pace. Largely resulting from Nigeria’s oil wealth, the aristocratic class drives BMWs and orders champagne while the majority of the population lives on less than a dollar a day.

Across the continent, in drought-ravaged East Africa, officials are telling reporters that the 2011 famine killed over 260,000 Somali people, half of them under the age of 5. The figure doubles previous estimates and appears to have been inflated by extremist militants who prevented food aid deliveries to key regions.

A pair of powerful #longread pieces on mental health appeared today. The first, from The New York Times on “The Problem with How We Treat Bipolar Disorder,” includes the assessment that:

For many psychiatrists, mental disorders are medical problems to be treated with medications, and a patient’s crisis of self is not very likely to come up in a 15-minute session with a psychopharmacologist.

Mother Jones offers another potent #longread on mental illness, this one delving deeper into the history of how we have arrived at our current state of affairs in terms of treatment and exploring the way that, in the years following deinstitutionalization, legislators have eviscerated almost all spending on resources for the mentally ill, leading to prison systems that end up as de facto asylums. Included in the article is a damning set of statistics highlighting that funding for mental illness has been slashed by $4.35 billion nationally over the past decade, and by as much as 60% in some states.

The Newark Star-Ledger reveals that a Catholic priest who has previously admitted to groping a teen boy and who underwent rehabilitation for sex offenders as part of a comprehensive pre-trial intervention agreement with prosecutors, has been violating the terms of his agreement, assisting with a local parish youth group and maintaining regular contact with teenagers. More troubling, the priest has been violating the terms of the arrangement with the full knowledge of Newark Archbishop John Myers. The Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office has launched an investigation; it is unclear whether the Archbishop or Diocese could face charges.

Across the bridge, in New York, anti-abortion activists are calling on the New York State Department of Health to investigate late-term abortion clinics following the release of a series of videos in which staff at a Bronx abortion clinic are shown on tape telling a pregnant woman that, if a fetus is delivered and is breathing and still moving, it will be placed in a jar of solution to stop its breathing. The New York Times reports that the activist group, led by Lila Rose, plans to release additional videos.

In Germany, the Archbishop of Freiburg has called for the Catholic Church to end its ban on ordaining women deacons. The Archbishop made other remarks as part of the 4-day conference, and attendees were left with the hope that the public comments might signal impending changes to Church policy.

Does the Holy Spirit "Choose" the Pope?

Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:45:55 -0400

Over the last couple of weeks, coverage of the Catholic Church has reached a fever pitch as Cardinals from around the world arrived in Rome to elect a new Pope. By and large, the American media, for whom the Conclave is an irresistible fascination, has approached it much the same way they would the South Carolina Primary, the Golden Globes, or the NFL Draft, churning out opinion pieces, candidate profiles, and, of course, process stories about the politicking and gamesmanship that takes place behind closed doors.

But of all the storylines that’ve emerged, perhaps none is more unusual than the one centered around the role of the Holy Spirit in electing the next occupant of the Chair of St. Peter. Catholics, after all, profess that the Church is of Divine origin and sustenance—founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. So the question inevitably becomes… just what exactly does that “guidance” look like?

Well, in the case of Pope Fabian way back in the third century, it is said that a dove descended upon his head, and that he was elected by universal acclamation of all gathered who interpreted the occurrence as an unmistakable sign that he had been chosen by the Holy Spirit. (If only the Holy Spirit ALWAYS communicated by way of such unambiguous gestures!)

So how DOES the Holy Spirit “guide” the Cardinal-electors as they attempt to select the person best equipped to carry on the apostolic mission of spreading the Gospel and caring for the flock of believers?

The peerless humorist, theologian, and author, Jesuit Father Jim Martin, took a swing at it in the pages of Time today, and it’s well worth a read. Religion News Service’s David Gibson digs a bit deeper into the admixture of Holy Spirit and human politics in his piece posted to NCR. And the invaluable John Allen, who, along with Whispers in the Loggia’s Rocco Palma, carries on the proud legacy of Xavier Rynne during the Second Vatican Council, interweaves a bit of discussion about the role of the Holy Spirit throughout all of his excellent, must-read articles like this one, entitled, “Conclave 101.”

Amid a surfeit of such trenchant exposition, I hardly need add my own amateur analysis, but Jesus frequently communicated singular truths through multiple formats, one of which was the use of metaphors drawn from the world around him that would be accessible to his everyday listeners. And since we’re just commencing March Madness… what better way to expound upon the role of the Holy Spirit in the guidance of the Church than by invoking a college basketball analogy?

What do we mean when we say that the Holy Spirit guides the Church?

The bishops can be likened to the players on the court, and the Coach can be likened to God. What brings these players together is a belief that this Coach knows what he is doing and has a plan for the team to succeed. They share a common mission—to win. And they share many common beliefs about the best way to get to that goal; that’s what has brought them to play at this program, be it Georgetown, Duke, Michigan, Kentucky, or UCLA. The program might emphasize certain first principles that all can agree on, like the basic premise that unselfish play on offense and a tenacious refusal to relent on defense are the two sine qua nons for success.

And these first principles might be further extrapolated to include specific approaches, such as an agreement that there should be no fewer than three passes on offensive possessions before anyone takes a shot. But ultimately, as the principles become more and more specific to real-game situations, there will inevitably be disagreements about the best way to proceed. If the opponents knows of this strategy about passing and is content to fall back into a 2-3 zone, allowing unperturbed passing around the outside of the arc, but preventing any passes into the paint, might it be a good adjustment to have one of the guards put the ball on the deck and attempt to penetrate the zone, collapsing the zone and allowing for a better look? One may think so, while another may believe that the zone simply necessitates well-placed bounce passes to a post player near the foul line, rather than switching styles entirely to have the guards play a more slashing and driving style.

Such is the case with a “team” of believers like the Church, or in this instance, the bishops of the Church. All are playing for the same team; all share a common mission; and, by and large, all believe wholeheartedly in the game plan of the Coach. But as particular circumstances arise, there will inevitably be disagreements about the best way to proceed. Jesus utilized wheat and grape wine, because he lived in the Mediterranean. What about communities of Christians in South Asia or sub-Saharan Africa, where rice, yam powder, or some other grain is traditionally made into bread, rather than wheat, and palm, date, or rice wine, is more readily available than that from grapes? Does the fact that the unleavened bread of the Eucharist is made from wheat, rather than millet, make a significant difference in light of Jesus’ instruction to, “Do this in memory of me?” Well, different disciples are going to come to different conclusions, and as long as the disagreement comes from a place of sincerity and the dialogue is marked by charity and humility, then that tension isn’t the end of the world.

But when the disagreement becomes a dispute, and the teammate is seen as someone whose position will actually harm the team and impede success, then it becomes a whole lot harder to maintain unity and work together towards a common goal.

So, returning to the original question… where does the Holy Spirit fit in?

Well the Coach draws up plays… those can be likened to the revelation of Scripture, which provides a blueprint for how we ought to “play” together as a team. The team reviews the plays together at practice, rehearsing together, and gearing up to go out and take the court with one another in the games. That’s not unlike the Mass, where we review our “game plan,” talk about how we ought to handle various scenarios if and when they arise, and gear up to “take on our week,” so to speak.

Once out in the game, the fury and frenzy of the action overtakes all else. Powerful frames pound the floor and throw elbows for position, with the echo of missed shots clanging off the rim and the high-pitched squeal of sneakers on freshly waxed hardwood reverberating throughout the arena. Throw in the overwhelming roar of the fans, and it can feel as though a thick fog of discombobulating noise has descended directly onto the court, drowning out the voice of teammates in a blur of sound and chaos. (The crowd noise, in this sense, functions like the noise of 21st century culture… an interminable brouhaha of music, movies, mobile devices, and many more technological miracles that prevent us from ever being silent!)

It is into this impenetrable din that the Coach is shouting his instructions, “Pass to the post!” “Get back on D!” “Call out screens!” and the faces of the players can often be seen glancing back at the sideline with confusion and angst.

The voice of the Coach can be likened to the Holy Spirit, emanating from the lips of God in an attempt to provide guidance to the players out on the court. Sometimes, the guidance is clear and unmistakable, “Don’t foul!” but other times, it’s difficult for the players to hear exactly what he’s saying, and it’s not entirely clear. (“Did he want all of us to crash the boards when the shot goes up, or are a couple of us supposed to start backpedaling on D to prevent a fast break?”)

And even then, the Coach himself can’t come out onto the court and force the players to follow his instructions. Ultimately, they have to make the decision to pass the ball or take the shot. And for myriad reasons, ranging from ignorance (“I didn’t realize the refs would call all these hand-checks”) to selfishness (“I haven’t been getting the ball enough, so I’m going to take it to the hoop myself on this one”) the players at times fail to follow the Coach’s instructions to the letter. They may decide to improvise a bit; to add their own flourishes; or even to discard it altogether, deciding that they’re the ones getting shoved around under the basket and can make a better decision about whether to put the ball on the deck or go right up with it on the next play.

The Pope, then, is not unlike a Captain. He’s not “in charge” of the other players; his role is to get everyone on the same page and serve as a source of unity. In the stress of a game situation, owing to fatigue, frustration, and differing experiences, various players may grow irritated with one another or tempted to do their own thing. It’s the job of the Captain, in the huddle, to get everyone on the same page and reminding them of all the success they’ve had when they stuck to the game plan.

So to recap: the bishops are like college basketball players, all buying into the same gameplan, all attempting to carry it out to the best of their ability as a team. The Coach continually communicates with the team out on the floor by shouting instructions, but due to any number of factors, not the least of which is the crowd noise, these instructions are often difficult to make out exactly, so the players do the best they can to interpret, all while they keep playing. And even then, they’re free to choose to disregard the instructions.

The Coach guides, but ultimately, the players on the court have the freedom to decide. That’s how the game works.

There’s more than one March Madness taking place this year, and both are likely to be full of drama, suspense, upsets, and unpredictable finishes.

Lenten Reflection - 2nd Sunday of Lent

Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:23:32 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/022413.cfm

As they were about to part from him, Peter said to Jesus,
“Master, it is good that we are here;
let us make three tents,
one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
But he did not know what he was saying.

The Transfiguration is a fascinating piece of the Gospels. Each of the Synoptic authors record it as a distinct event, so it obviously bears enormous importance to the narrative of who this Jesus is. For a more in-depth exploration of the Transfiguration in this context, click here for an older Scripture reflection I had produced while at the University of Michigan.

But in my reflection today, I’d like to focus on the person of Peter. Understandably, most sermons unpacking the Transfiguration center around Jesus. He is, after all, the focal point not only of this story, but of the Gospels (and our faith!) more broadly.

On the other hand, there is something to be gained from considering Peter’s role in the story. We have Jesus revealing this awesome and indescribable reality… and Peter, somewhat typically, misunderstanding the whole thing.

Have you ever been out at a party, telling a really great story, and you have a friend who keeps interrupting you and trying to guess where you’re going with it? Imagine the following scene:

“So my friends and I manage to score tickets to the Super Bowl. And we’re all set to fly down there, when…”

“Oh no!” your friend interjects. “Did something bad happen?”

You give a look, somewhat annoyed, and you continue on with your story.

“So we get to the stadium, and we’re in the line to go through security…”

“Oh man! Did they stop you on your way in?” the friend once again interrupts.

At this point, you’d probably want to turn to your friend and say, “Would you just let me finish the story?”

That friend is Peter. Throughout the Gospels, we see Peter, Jesus’ right hand man, arguably the person with whom he is closest in the world… constantly leaping impatiently ahead. It’s who Peter is. He’s excitable, he’s impetuous, he’s antsy. And a lot of times, that anxious energy is channeled to do great ministry. But sometimes, Jesus looks at him, and it is a small wonder that the evangelists do not record Jesus saying, “Peter, would you chill out?”

“Let me finish the story,” Jesus could almost be heard to be saying. Right in the middle of this incredible event, Peter is already trying to skip to the next step. The experience isn’t even over yet, and Peter’s already like, “This is so great! Let’s build tents to memorialize it!” (It would be like if you were on vacation in Miami with a group of your closest friends, and halfway through a week-long trip, your buddy is like, “This is so great! We should go back to the hotel and book our flights for NEXT YEAR’s trip!” Everyone wants to turn to Peter and go, “Dude… just relax and enjoy what’s happening RIGHT NOW!”

Peter, for the best of reasons, is eager to do do do. He struggles just to be. Just to be present and fully immerse himself in the experience happening all around him. He’s anxious to get to the future. And that eagerness to start planning for the future prevents him from wholly appreciating what’s happening in the now.

In some sense, we are all Peter at some point in our lives. (For some of us, it’s a daily experience.) We are eager to plan ahead. Eager to think about the future. Eager to do do do, rather than allow ourselves just to be. Jesus was revealing something unique and profound to Peter, and he was already planning in his head how he’d memorialize it. Jesus is constantly revealing things to us as well, but in our hurried rush to get to the next thing, we may be too busy to fully experience what’s happening now.

As Americans, we are particularly forward-looking and action-oriented. From the time we are in high school and told we need to be taking AP classes, studying for the SATs, and thinking about where we’d like to go to college… which will help us get the job that we want… We are constantly looking ahead and planning what steps we will have to take. Rarely do we pause and just be… just enjoy being in the current state we find ourselves in and give ourselves over fully to the relationships and experiences that are all around us. In the coming weeks, when we find ourselves getting too caught up in the future, whether it is an exciting thing we are looking forward to, like prom or a wedding, or a stressful one we are dreading, like exams… let us take a deep breath, look around us, and see where God is already at work in the now. Perhaps we could ask Peter for help.

Lenten Reflection - Day 10

Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:09:39 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/022313.cfm

For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have?
Do not the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brothers and sisters only,
what is unusual about that?
Do not the pagans do the same?

There is an adage that goes, “The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.”

Based on today’s Gospel, Jesus, undoubtedly, would agree. The passage is taken from Jesus’ sprawling Sermon on the Mount, in which the evangelist depicts him as laying out a whole way of living. He uses multiple rhetorical devices throughout, and here we see him setting up a contrast, “You have heard it said…” after which he cites a well-known commandment from the Scriptures, only to continue, “But I say to you…”

Many of the examples Jesus takes are from portions of the Mosaic law that were minimalistic requirements meant to prevent society from descending into chaos and conflict. “You have heard it said that you should strike your brother,” and he raises them to a whole other level… “But I say to you, that anyone who harbors anger in his heart has sinned.”

This “new way” of living out the Law is presented as a way not simply of “getting along” with people, but of actively cultivating right relationship and societal flourishing. And the exhortations bear as much pertinence today as they did 2,000 years ago.

Imagine Jesus saying, “Be polite to those who are rude to you at the grocery store.” “Smile at those who give you nasty looks from across the room.” “Offer to give up your elliptical to the gym to the unpleasant woman who scowls and impatiently demands to know how much longer you will be.”

In other words, do not simply “Not lash out at people,” but intentionally treat everyone you meet with kindness, patience, and generosity… especially the people who show the least of it to you.

Taking a trip to Haiti to build houses following a hurricane, or serving sandwiches at a soup kitchen on a Saturday… these are the “easy” ways of being Christian. Not easy because they require little sacrifice (they require a great deal of sacrifice), but easy because they are glamorous. And obvious. It feels good to hand out food to homeless persons once a week, just like it feels good to help people rebuild following a disaster. And while these are important and commendable examples of living out our Gospel call to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick, etc. our faith as followers of Jesus extends far beyond these “big gestures.”

“The way to live,” as articulated by Jesus here in the Sermon on the Mount seeps into all the myriad moments in between. It permeates every minute of our day, compelling us to exude joy and charity throughout every interaction, particularly those we find least enjoyable. The instances when we are sleep deprived, frustrated at work, in need of a vacation, and someone walks away from a treadmill at the gym having left it a gross mess and not having wiped it down. When someone takes the last cup of coffee in the office and doesn’t make a new pot. When a family member uses up all the ice cubes and puts the tray back with only one left.

In these moments, we are challenged to “love our enemies,” and do good to those who annoy the heck out of us.

Lenten Reflection - Day 9

Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:50:26 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/022213.cfm

Do not lord it over those assigned to you,
but be examples to the flock.

The Feast of the Chair of St. Peter is a particularly appropriate observance given the events of the past two weeks. Pope Benedict XVI made the historic announcement that he would be resigning the Office of the Papacy, the first Pope to do so in over 600 years.

In doing so, Benedict followed the exhortation from today’s First Reading, providing an example to the flock (as well as to the other shepherds). By relinquishing the duties of the Pope, Benedict has emphasized that the Chair of Peter is an Office, not an individual. He explicitly cited his inability—given his advancing age—to execute the duties entrusted to him as the successor of Peter, as the justification for his decision. The move represents a powerful and unmistakable act of humility by the Holy Father. He is saying to those entrusted to his care that it is about us, and not about him. He is living up to the honorific bestowed upon the Pope, “Servant of the Servants of God.” This is an act of true service leadership.

And it has repercussions well-beyond the Office of the Papacy. Benedict’s decision ought to resonate with each of us, insofar as we find ourselves entrusted with a particular task. All too often, we can make the mission about ourselves. We can come to place ego above outcome; accolade above efficacy. Benedict, by his witness, is reminding us, “It’s not about me.”

We who are professional ministers or leaders of organizations do very well to heed this example. We are invited to discern, every day, whether the decisions we make advance the cause of which we are a part, or advance our selves apart from it. Each of us is called to this sort of discernment, to attempt to determine where we are called to invest our time and talent, and where we are challenged to move on.

Many of us can probably think of an example—be it a pastor, a coach, a teacher, a CEO, or some other leader—who did not recognize when it was “time to move on,” or did not see that his/her way of doing the job had become more about him/her as an individual, rather than about the mission itself. In circumstances in which we find ourselves struggling with whether or not to continue on, or to step aside, may we look to Benedict’s example of humility in relinquishing on of the most powerful Offices in the world, and pray to the Holy Spirit that we may be guided by that same humility in our own decision.

Lenten Reflection - Day 8

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:01:03 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/022113.cfm

“Ask and it will be given to you;
seek and you will find;
knock and the door will be opened to you.
For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds;
and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.”

“So how come when I ask, I so rarely receive?”

The promise of today’s Gospel seems fairly straightforward: “ask and it will be given to you.” Not a lot of room for ambiguity there. And yet, in our own lives, how often do we ask God for something, only to, well… not receive it?It would seem as though there’s been some misleading advertising here.

What’s telling is that Jesus then goes on to invoke the analogy of a parent being asked for a loaf of bread by the child, saying, of course you will give the child bread rather than a stone. But, as any parent knows, there are an awful lot of things that children ask for, that, to be frank, aren’t in their best interest. A child may ask to eat brownies every night instead of solid food. Or to stay up till midnight watching TV. Or to go days without showering and brushing teeth.

Also worth noting is that Jesus says, “ask and you shall receive,” not, “ask and you shall receive exactly what you asked for.” And he says, “Knock, and the door will be opened,” but not, “Knock, and you will find precisely what you were expecting behind the door.”

Sometimes, what we receive… what we find behind the door… is not what we asked for or were looking for, but what we need. We trust that our Heavenly Father knows what we need to flourish and will provide that for us, even if it is not what we would necessarily choose for ourselves.

Let us pray today not only that we may receive; but that we may have the trust to accept what is given, even when it is not exactly what we had in mind.

Lenten Reflection - Day 7

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:08:00 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/022013.cfm

R. A heart contrite and humbled, O God, you will not spurn.

The word “contrite” is not one we ordinarily hear outside of church. Catholics are familiar with contrition primarily through the Sacrament of Confession, in which they are required to recite an “Act of Contrition,” prior to receiving absolution. Altar servers and those in proximity to the presider at Mass may recognize that term from the preparation of the altar at the outset of the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The words are actually lifted from today’s Psalm—the priest petitions that the gifts of bread and wine offered “with humble spirit and contrite hearts” may be found acceptable to God. He then proceeds to wash his hands, asking that he be washed of his iniquities and cleansed of his sins, that he might be made worthy to preside over the sacrifice at the altar.

But beyond these limited circumstances, we are unlikely to use the word “contrite” or to express “contrition.” So what does it really mean?

Contrition is a powerful concept. Contrition means far more than sorrow or regret over a sin committed—it rather means an abject detestation for sin. Contrition entails a clear knowledge of precisely how heinous a sin is and an equally visceral loathing, in the pit of our being, of the sin for that reason. And although it may sound, at first, as though it is a very negative concept, it is, properly understood, the product of great love. But in order to understand it better, we need to unpack it a bit more.

Let us take the fairly common contemporary example of prescription drug abuse. It may, upon initial consideration, seem like the matter of whether or not one decides to pop vicodin each night is a personal matter, affecting only the person who swallows the pill. But upon further reflection, of course, this is not a case. The teen who is getting high most likely causes great anguish in his/her parents, who suffer immensely to watch their beloved child damage his body in this way. Moreover, the drug abuse inevitably permeates into other areas of the person’s life, as was poignantly depicted in the hit television show House. Over the past decade, viewers have watched as this ostensibly personal struggle seeped into every corner of the main character’s life, causing great pain to nearly everyone he encountered throughout. In fact, one of the recurring themes of the show is the way in which House’s colleagues and friends attempt tirelessly to get him to understand the hurtful consequences of his selfish habits.

At various points, House expresses some degree of regret over his decisions. In isolated moments, his regret even rises to the degree of an unmistakable, soul-shaking remorse at his actions. But more often than not, his primary reaction is one of irritation or false regret. He expresses remorse not because he “detests the sin,” but because he is annoyed that he has been caught, or because he fears the consequences.

This latter example is what theologians refer to as “imperfect contrition,” i.e. sincere sorrow over what one has done… but motivated out of fear of punishment. Think of the example of the young child who has deliberately disobeyed his/her parents and regrets the decision not because s/he knows how wrong it was, but because s/he fears the punishment. Back to the teen popping vicodin, the imperfect contrition might be one in which the teen is authentically sorry… but primarily because of the negative consequences, not out of a hatred of the act itself.

Perfect contrition, by contrast, is one motivated not by fear, but by love. Imagine that the teen walks in on his mother in tears, bellowing with anguish from the pain caused by watching her beloved child hurting himself so. The teen then realizes how hurtful the act of popping the pill is to someone he loves, and he begins to detest the act itself. Not because he is afraid he will get in trouble, but because he greatly loves his mother and would never want to cause her this sort of pain.

Returning to the example of House, there are moments of lucidity, in which the character (who struggles with this addiction, and addictions always complicate the concept of “sin” because they compromise one’s ability to choose freely) genuinely does see the pain he is causing those he cares about, and he temporarily feels what might be described as perfect contrition.

Or at least the pre-requisite for it. Because in addition to sincere loathing of the sin itself, understanding how it damages those we love, one must also cultivate a firm resolve to eliminate that sin from one’s life, taking the necessary steps to do so.

In every instance of sin, we recognize that, like the mother of the teenager, our Heavenly Father, God, is watching us with that same degree of deep and indescribable angst. Even the most seemingly of “individual” sins has relational repercussions, because the God who created us hurts beyond words to see us hurt. Therefore, expressing contrition ultimately means recognizing the extent to which we are loved by God, wanting desperately to be able to love God back in that way, and hating everything that impedes us from doing so. Perfect contrition, perfectly understood, means despising with every fiber of our being, everything that prevents us from being the happiest, most flourishing version of ourselves, because that is what, more than anything, our God who is love and made us in love, wants for us.

Phew. Quite a bit more than just saying, “I’m sorry.”

Our challenge as persons of faith is not merely to express sorrow, but to feel authentic contrition. To, as the Psalmist implores the Lord, be washed completely clean of all those things that prevent us from being the person God made us to be. And to be imbued with the grace of the Spirit to choose in the future to express our love to God by loving ourselves and one another as God has loved us.

Lenten Reflection - Day 6

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:06:00 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/021913.cfm

Jesus said to his disciples:
“In praying, do not babble like the pagans,
who think that they will be heard because of their many words.
Do not be like them.
Your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”

There is a great scene in the movie Meet the Parents, in which Ben Stiller’s character, Greg, is asked to offer grace at the house of his in-laws. Greg isn’t a particularly religious person, but he feels compelled to meet the expectations of his stern father-in-law, portrayed by Robert DeNiro, so he begins reciting bits and pieces of various religious-sounding quotes, stitching together a well-meaning if nonsensical string of platitudes and prayer-bites.

We laugh, because, of course, it is a ridiculous and incoherent mess. But we laugh, too, because we can empathize with Greg’s condition on some level. We all want to meet the expectations that are put upon us, and sometimes we end up giving it our best, but still feeling totally inadequate afterwards.

We sometimes even feel that way about prayer.

In my ministry, I hear the refrain all the time: “I should really pray more.”

“Oh?” I ask the person. “Why is that?”

Almost invariably, the person seems confused and perhaps even annoyed. Isn’t it obvious? “Well because we’re supposed to pray,” or something to that effect, is the usual response. “Supposed to? Supposed to according to whom?”

“Well, I dunno. The Church. God. We’re supposed to pray!”

But why? The idea that we ought to do something can only come from one of two sources—either internal or external. We may hear external pressure to get to the gym more or eat healthier, but we often begin to resent those external sources of pressure. It feels like nagging and judgment. It isn’t until we internalize that “ought,” that we begin to perceive the, “I should get to the gym more,” not as an oppressive burden imposed upon us from outside, but as a positive declaration emanating from within. I really do WANT to go to the gym more.

The same is true of prayer. So long as the source of our motivation to pray is external—our parents, the teachers we had in CCD, the pastor chiding us from the pulpit—prayer will continue to be something we do to satisfy others. And to satisfy God.

But what Jesus here calls us to is a radical re-orientation toward prayer. God doesn’t want us simply to multiply words to fulfill some felt sense of obligation. (What friend or spouse would want to talk on the phone each night with a person who was only doing it because s/he felt like s/he “should,” and therefore struggled to find things to say the whole time? Would we not rather be friends with someone, dating with someone, married to someone, whose voice we cannot wait to hear on the other end each night? Someone whom we cannot WAIT to share our day with?)

When you pray, Jesus tells us, don’t simply sit in church mindlessly repeating formulas because someone told you you were supposed to. As though being in church longer made it a holier act, or using more words made it a better prayer. Say what is on your heart. Be honest. Don’t just go through the motions!

None of us wants a friend or spouse who is just going through the motions of talking with us, so why on earth would God want us to go through the motions with God?!

And if we have nothing to say, perhaps we can begin by saying that! Two of my favorite quotes on prayer speak to this exact point: St. Paul writes, in the Letter to the Romans:

In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings.27And the one who searches hearts knows what is the intention of the Spirit, because it intercedes for the holy ones according to God’s will.

Right there, from the earliest moments of the Church, we see an explicit example of what so many of us feel so very often! That we do not know how to pray as we ought. And yet, thank God, the success of our prayer does not depend on our form. (It’s like the opposite of Olympic Diving or the Gymnasts on the balance beam… technique matters not a bit, so long as we get up on the platform and give it our best… we earn a perfect 10 from God who judges only whether or not we are trying!)

More recently, the 20th Century monk Thomas Merton famously opined: “I believe that the desire to please you, does in fact, please you.”

Too often, prayer becomes a source of anxiety for us. We sigh and give ourselves a hard time for not doing a better job with it. We lump it in with our New Years’ Resolutions, our fizzled diets, our forgotten birthdays, and all the other times in our life we fail to live up to expectations. But we see Jesus laying out the key components of a successful prayer, all of which have at their core honesty and authenticity.

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name,

Adoration and Humility: We begin our prayer by acknowledging that we are speaking to someone more powerful than ourselves. God who is good, and God who is all-powerful.

thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Submission: We submit our will to the will of God, a radical and profound act of humility. We say to God, “Not my will, but thy will.”

Give us this day our daily bread;

Supplication: “HELP! Give me what I need to get by!” Still continuing with the theme of humility, this is perhaps the part of the prayer that delights God most—when we acknowledge before God and our community, that we are NOT God. That we NEED God. That we are dependent upon God. If the source of all sin is pride, then the antidote is radical dependency on God, without whom we can do nothing.

and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us;

Contrition: We acknowledge our failings, and we beg forgiveness. Another radically counter-cultural thing to do. To admit we were wrong. Admitting we were wrong leaves us vulnerable… it permits the other person to use that against us. And yet, it is the only way we can rebuild relationships that have been damaged. To begin by saying, “I am sorry.”

and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

Supplication, Pt II: “Help (again)! It’s hard out there!”

The components of a successful prayer, as outlined by Jesus, are acknowledging that God is God (and, thus, as logical corollary to that: we are most definitely NOT God); asking God for what we need; and apologizing for where we have failed to be the person God made us to be. (At other points, it is clear that giving thanks to God is the final key piece.)

At no point in this instruction does Jesus mention the minimum length of the prayer, nor specify that it should be one style as opposed to another (Rosary, Liturgy of the Hours, Lectio Divina, Eucharistic Adoration, free-form caterwauling) and at no point does he indicate that we are to do this in order to satisfy God’s expectations. Rather, he emphasizes that prayer is meant for us, and that God wants us to authentically express what is on our hearts, which God already knows anyway.

God is not sitting up in Heaven by the phone, staring at his watch and growing more irritated by the minute , waiting for us to fulfill our daily obligation to call. Rather, God hopes that, when we get that job we had been hoping for, we will call up and exclaim, out of pure joy, “I got it!” Or, conversely, that after we have had a horrible day, we will call up to vent and scream about the injustices at work or the agony of a broken heart.

When you pray, Jesus could be paraphrased, “Do not tell your Heavenly Father what you think he wants to hear. Tell him what you want to say.”

Lenten Reflection - Day 5

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:43:00 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/021813.cfm

“You shall not bear hatred for your brother in your heart.
Though you may have to reprove him,
do not incur sin because of him.
Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen.”

In today’s first reading, we have a reiteration of perhaps the most famous and influential moral code in all of human history: The Ten Commandments. And then in the Gospel, we hear the nearly as famous passage from the Gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus puts forward a vision of the Last Judgment in which his followers are judged on how they treated the least of their neighbors.

Both of these selections make clear that it is insufficient simply to profess faith in a set of beliefs, or to claim membership in a religious body. Rather, authentic faith compels one to live one’s life in a particular manner. True discipleship cannot merely be intellectual assent to a set of abstract propositions, but necessarily permeates one’s day-to-day actions and transforms our entire way-of-being to one radically focused on the service of others.

And these prescriptions pack as much punch several thousand years later as they would have to their original audiences in a completely foreign culture at a totally different epoch in human development. Whether an unskilled day laborer picking wheat in ancient Mesopotamia, or a modern stock broker on Wall Street, we are called to consider how our faith insists that we take note of those who lack food, clothes, or a home and demands that we eliminate dishonesty, slander, and profanity from our vocabulary.

But more than these actions, both the text from Leviticus and the words of Jesus call us to a still more difficult standard of extirpating anger, enmity, and jealousy from our hearts. It is, in a sense, fairly easy not to go around murdering anyone. It is even relatively easy to help feed the hungry, be it by volunteering at a soup kitchen or sharing of our hard-earned paycheck with a church or non-profit that provides social services. It is far harder to let go of the grudges and bitterness that remain buried deep in our chest. Jesus was firmly within the tradition of his Jewish forebears when he exhorted, in the Sermon on the Mount, that we not so much as look at our brother with anger, much less strike him.

What both the authors of the Torah and Jesus himself understood keenly was that nothing was so inimical to human relationship, nothing so intractable an impediment to deeper intimacy with God and one another, as the harboring of a grudge in one’s heart. Grudges are a toxic poison that infects not only the one holding onto the hurt, but all who knowingly or unknowingly encounter this pain, which all too often is transferred outwards unconsciously, spreading to other relationships.

As we take inventory of our own calls to discipleship, let us be mindful not only of the actions that reflect an authentic faith—feeding the hungry, clothing the naked—but also of the internal states to which we are called. And where we see ourselves struggling, let us not forget that we are invited to call upon the Holy Spirit to receive the grace necessary to let go of such hurts, that we might begin to heal.

Lenten Reflection: 1st Sunday of Lent

Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:03:12 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/021713.cfm

Have you ever been in the midst of a particularly demanding activity—like running windsprints at practice, rehearsing for a recital, or studying for an exam—and been tempted to quit?

Have you ever signed on for some commitment but struggled to follow through? Maybe you decided to do summer swimming but cringed when the alarm went off and declared, “I’m sooooo tired. I think today I’m just going to sleep in.” Or you signed up to sing in a choir, perform in a play, or participate in some other sort of activity that seemed worthwhile at first but, after weeks of rehearsals, has started to wear you out.

Maybe you committed to give a long-distance relationship a try. Or to help plan a friend’s wedding. Or to be supportive of someone going through cancer treatment, a rough break-up, or some other major life crisis.

In each of these circumstances, we may very well find ourselves fatigued from the duress of our commitment. It’s always easier to sign up for something in our minds, than it is to summon the energy to follow through, on a daily basis. Particularly when we are tired. Exhausted. Frustrated. Ready to be done. Ready to focus on our OWN stuff for a while.

And yet, if we ARE able to summon that resolve to push through, what is it that gives us the energy to do so? Most likely, it is the deep and unshakable belief that the end result—winning a state championship in soccer; successfully performing the school play; seeing our friend walk down the aisle in her wedding gown—will have been worth all of the sacrifice that went into that success.

Surely, this is what Jesus must have clung to as he was tempted during his 40 days in the desert. The unifying theme of each temptation is to take the easy way out. To give up. To decide, “What this task requires of me is too demanding. Too difficult.” And what’s notable is that the temptation is not some great evil thing—turning stones into bread when you’re hungry, after all, seems to make a lot of sense!

In much the same way that the temptation to turn off the alarm and sleep in, rather than go to practice, would seem to make a lot of sense! You’re tired! You’re sleep deprived! Your body craves sleep!

Of course, any great accomplishment, whether it is studying for the LSATs and getting into Law School; successfully training for your first marathon; or building a life together with someone you love in marriage—requires sacrifice. Requires us to drag our exhausted bodies out of bed on mornings we would rather sleep in. Demands that we focus on the end goal and convert that desire to see it accomplished into the energy necessary to sustain us throughout the most grueling moments of the preparation.

Throughout his public ministry, Jesus undoubtedly was tempted to give up or take the easy way out. When the religious leaders of his day were plotting to kill him; when the crowds of people were seizing upon him; when his disciples were driving him crazy, failing to understand the meaning of his words and arguing over who would sit where at the dinner table that night… Jesus must have been tempted to just take a break.

And even less extreme than the temptation to give up must have been the temptation to take the easy way out—to use his considerable gifts (he was God, after all) and to carry out his mission by way of “awe factor.” Jesus’ sermons were impressive, but how much easier would it have been to convince people of who he was if he had just gone around performing miracles all the time. The miracle of the multiplication of the loaves is noteworthy not because Jesus did it, but because Jesus did not go around doing it all the time. Think of how popular he would’ve been if, every town he went to, he turned stones into bread, jumped off the highest buildings, and dazzled the crowds with his tricks.

But to do so would have been to doom his long-term mission, which was to bring his listeners the Good News, a mission that he himself could not complete, but which would require generations of disciples after him. And if the reason people had listened to him was that he could perform magic tricks, rather than the fact that he spoke the truth, there is little reason to think that this thing we 2,000+ years later call Christianity would have survived his departure. For the rest of the disciples, mere humans that they were, would not have been able to replicate his miraculous loaf-multiplication and blindness-curing, and thus the movement would have been very short lived.

Instead, Jesus was called to do the hard work of getting up every day, despite exhaustion from his ministry, opposition from leading figures of his day, and the many other challenges he faced. It was his temptation in the desert that prepared him for this grueling public ministry… the pre-season conditioning, if you will.

Sometimes, in our own lives, we may find ourselves in the desert, facing extreme challenges and wondering why God would be allowing such things to happen to us. We may be tempted in those moments to give up, give in, or take the easy way out. But it is precisely in the desert that we are called to summon our strength and reaffirm our trust that this time of testing is precisely what we need to get us ready for what comes next, for what God has in store, for what we were created to do. In those moments, let us recall Jesus in the desert—starving, alone, and exhausted—and ask for his help in getting through this temporary pain, that we might experience permanent success.

Lenten Reflections - Day 4

Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:48:05 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/021613.cfm

Teach me your way, O Lord, that I may walk in your truth.

Too often, faith is thought of as assent to a series of intellectual propositions. We reduce faith to belief in creedal statements like, “I believe that there is one God, and I believe that God sent His only Son, Jesus, to come into the world for our salvation.”

And certainly such beliefs undergird all that comes after, but “faith,” authentically understood is not simply a set of theories or propositions. It is, rather, a whole WAY of living. Early followers of Jesus did not refer to themselves as “Christians,” (a derisive term at the time of its original use) but as “followers of The Way.” Jesus spoke of being “the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” and throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus teaching his disciples “the way” to pray, “the way” to fast, and “the way” to respond when you see a leper lying at your door or a hungry person begging for food.

In fact, all of the Parables we famously recite—from the Prodigal Son to the Pearl of Great Price—teach us not so much an intellectual truth as a fundamental WAY of living our lives. Everything about Jesus—be it a sprawling sermon or a conversation with a woman at a well—points us to a radical, challenging, and all-consuming way of living our lives. And the first disciples understood this. They did not merely profess belief in Jesus—they reoriented their entire existence around the model Jesus has set. Selling what they owned, sharing property in common, caring for the sick, welcoming the stranger, and proclaiming the Good News to all the ends of the earth.

But the notion of faith as an all-permeating way of living is not a novel innovation unique to Jesus—it was, rather, the understanding of the Jews, as well. (Jesus was, after all, a Jew!) The Jews understood that Torah was not simply to be obeyed, much less memorized, but to be lived. It was a WAY of living in right relationship with neighbor, with friend, with family, and with God. Living according to the word of God was to follow a way of life that led to ultimate happiness and flourishing. So we hear the Psalmist imploring the Lord, “Teach me your way!” Help me better understand this way I am meant to follow! Show me the way to live that I might experience this incredible joy!

The next time you find yourself struggling with a particular teaching or belief of the Church (or whichever community of faith to which you belong), just remember: faith is not simply a set of beliefs to which we are called to lend assent, but a wholesale way of living modeled after the example of Jesus and continued by his disciples. If the Jesus of the Gospels is to be believed, what matters most is not, ultimately, which tenets you cling most tenaciously to… but how you live your life.

Lenten Reflections Day 3

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:53:35 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/021513.cfm

Lo, on your fast day you carry out your own pursuits,
and drive all your laborers.
Yes, your fast ends in quarreling and fighting,
striking with wicked claw…

…Do you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD?

This, rather, is the fasting that I wish:
releasing those bound unjustly,
untying the thongs of the yoke;
Setting free the oppressed,
breaking every yoke;
Sharing your bread with the hungry,
sheltering the oppressed and the homeless;
Clothing the naked when you see them,
and not turning your back on your own.

Very little unpacking is required of today’s first reading… it’s a kick to the gut that packs every bit as much vigor today as it did almost 3000 years ago.

We become so caught up in the external trappings of fasting and observing ritual for the sake of ritual, that we completely overlook the underlying meaning of the act. I think of the old adage that living the Gospel begins in the Church parking lot… how often have you seen people piously professing their devotion to a life of discipleship in the pew, only to be found in the gridlock exiting the church parking lot, impatiently gesticulating at the car who is holding up traffic.

Today’s passage takes direct aim at such glaring cognitive dissonance between our professed beliefs and our lived faith.

Fasting is great, both as a personal practice and a social statement. But its transformative power is truly tapped only when we inevitably allow the grace of God to move us from a momentary consideration of our ephemeral experience of hunger to a deeper reflection on the persistent pangs of malnourishment that afflict so many of our sisters and brothers around the world on a daily basis.

Challenge: May our weekly Lenten observances be inextricably linked with the issues of structural justice raised by the Prophet Isaiah in today’s readings. May we abstain from meat products and ask ourselves questions about whether or not our sisters and brothers have access to adequate protein; to what extent our consumption impacts climate change; and the relationship between our individual dietary patterns and our respect for our physical bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit.

Lenten Reflection - Day 2

Thu, 14 Feb 2013 08:53:54 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/021413.cfm

“Today I have set before you
life and prosperity, death and doom.
If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God,
which I enjoin on you today,
loving him, and walking in his ways,
and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees,
you will live and grow numerous,
and the LORD, your God,
will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy.

We modern Americans hear the word, “Commandment,” and tend to think of a, “Thou shalt not…” style prohibition on some immoral activity like lying or killing. In fact, Moses here is referring to the entirety of the Law, which was given as a gift to the people Israel from God for their benefit. We see in this passage how Moses is delineating the way in which submission to the Law is meant to lead to our own greatest flourishing.

All too often, we think of “the Law,” be it civil law limiting us to 55 mph on the highway or religious law telling us not to have sex outside of marriage, as being oppressive or constraining. But “the Law of the Lord is perfect!” the Psalmist exclaims, “refreshing the soul!” and compares taking in the Law to tasting “honey from the comb.” The Law, when properly understood, is not a burdensome set of “Do’s” and “Don’ts” meant to prevent us from making free choices, but more akin to a recipe or driving directions.

When we plug into Google Maps where we’d like to end up, and it tells us to, “Make a left onto the I-95 ramp,” the instructions are not Google’s attempt to prevent us from having freedom to drive wherever we want, but an effort to help us get where we are going in the fastest, most efficient manner. Similarly, if our desired outcome is to bake chocolate chip cookies, the recipe on the back of a bag of Nestle Tollhouse chips isn’t meant to cramp our culinary style, but to impart upon us the tried-and-true best way to produce delicious cookies.

All too often, we think of religion’s teachings as being “a set of commandments,” rather than a recipe or driving directions. But really, that’s what they are meant to be. And they’re given to us for our own benefit, which is what Moses is trying to impress upon the people. We’re welcome to ignore the recipe and decide how much butter to throw into the batter, but the cookies probably won’t come out as well as we’d like. Likewise, we can take whatever route we’d like to get from New York to Washington, but there’s a good chance that the directions Google is giving us will get us there most efficiently. Instead of producing cookies or getting us to DC, God’s directions are meant to help us arrive at a more fully human life.

Today’s challenge: think of a particular “commandment,” or Church teaching you struggle with, and try to be open to what the reasoning behind it might be, in the hopes of better understanding how we are called to a more fully human life.

Lenten Reflection Day 1: Ash Wednesday

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:36:30 -0500

Daily Readings - http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/021313.cfm

Even now, says the LORD,
return to me with your whole heart,
with fasting, and weeping, and mourning;
Rend your hearts, not your garments,
and return to the LORD, your God.

In my experience, most preachers at Ash Wednesday service focus on the word, “return,” from the first reading. It is, after all, the broad theme of the day and of the season of Lent: conversion, repentance, and return to the Lord. But in our eagerness to emphasize the need for penance, we may race too quickly past another word in that passage: “whole.”

For many of us, conversion is piecemeal. Return to the Lord happens on our terms, at our pace. Not all-at-once, and not in too uncomfortable or inconvenient a manner. We “give up” something that represents a legitimate sacrifice (chocolate, beer, facebook), but that does not require us to fundamentally alter our entire way of life. But authentic conversion—a true return to the Lord is precisely that: life altering. It is, by its nature, all-consuming and irresistibly transformative. It is a frankly difficult and demanding experience. Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus calling on people to leave behind whatever it is that will prevent them from following him WHOLE-heartedly. For some people, it’s family. For others, it is their job. For the rich man who diligently obeyed all the commandments, it was his wealth. None of those things, as such, are bad or evil. Quite the opposite—they are all very good things. But for those particular individuals, each thing represented the ONE THING s/he was unwilling to give up in order to follow God wholeheartedly. And it was therefore the one thing s/he needed to leave behind.

Too often, when we are asked to do something, we attach our own conditions. “I’ll go to the concert with you if you’ll buy me dinner first.” “I’ll marry you if you promise that we’ll stay in this city.” “I’ll go to church with you, if we can get brunch after.” IF, IF, IF. We want things on OUR terms. And we want to be able to repent, to convert, to give ourselves over to God the same way. On our terms. Without demanding TOO MUCH sacrifice or discomfort.

But the unambiguous response from God is: not on your terms, but mine. “Return to me with your WHOLE heart.” Don’t just share your fears about money with me, share ALL your fears and anxieties. Don’t just offer me some of your talents, offer me all that I made you to be. I do not want some of your suffering, I want all of it. I did not come that you might be mostly healed, but that you might be fully healed. Made whole. And the only way to allow the grace of God to make us whole is first to return, with our whole selves, for that to happen.

Lenten Reflections

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:13:23 -0500

This Lent, I’m going to try and offer a brief daily reflection on the day’s Readings from Scripture. Hopefully I’ll actually follow through and post something every single day!

#Lent

What I'm reading... [Tues, Jan. 15]

Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:43:14 -0500

It’s been a while since I’ve had a chance to post one of these, but here we go…

America Magazine asks, “Should we forgive Lance Armstrong?” [America]

DCist continues its coverage of what local hotels are doing to welcome guests for this coming weekend’s Inauguration and asks, “What the f*ck is a social media butler?” [DCist]

Over the past 10 years, Duke’s Men’s Basketball team has lost 31 road games… and opposing fans have rushed the court for 25 of those 31 losses. The Wall Street Journal affirms: everyone rushes the court after beating Duke. [WSJ]

The CEO of a bond trading company suggests that game theory explains Washington’s seemingly intractable gridlock. [The Atlantic]

The NFL gets the Bad Lip Reading treatment.

Astronomers have found a clustering of quasars that is 4 billion light years across, making it the largest observable object in the known universe. [The Week]

Buzzfeed lists some great “selfies,” (photos of oneself posted on the internet).

Anonymous hacked the Westboro Baptist Church’s Twitter account following the Newtown Tragedy. They later convinced the WBC to cancel its plans to protest the funeral services. [The Atlantic]

The US House of Representatives passed a new $50.7 billion Sandy Relief Bill, with support from 49 Republicans. The measure represents the second time that House Speaker Boehner has violated the so-called “Hastert Rule” this year, advancing legislation that the majority of his party did not support. [Time, WSJ]

A new study suggests that 86% of Division I collegiate athletes live below the poverty line, and that the average out-of-pocket expense for a full scholarship athlete is still over $3,000 a year. [Sporting News]

150 experts from a range of fields were asked: “What should we worry about in 2013?” and here are their answers. [Edge]

Facebook unveiled a massive new search tool today, and Gawker helpfully points out that you can use it to find everyone else on the planet who shares your passion for trail running. [CNET, Gawker]

A widow of one of the victims of the Aurora, CO shootings is suing the gunman’s psychiatrist for not having him locked up. [The Atlantic]

Rod Dreher explores the phenomenon of black-on-black crime in Louisiana. [The American Conservative]

The White House announced that they are raising the threshold for “We the People” petition responses from 25,000 to 100,000 due to the enormous rise in the number of petitions being submitted. [The White House]

The rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church across the street from the White House has been selected to deliver the Benediction at Monday’s Inauguration. [USA Today]

Governor Cuomo has signed into law New York’s new gun control measures, making the Empire State the first to do in the wake of the Newtown shootings. [Reuters]

Speaking of gun control, Salon’s chief political reporter eviscerates the Obama-Hitler comparisons that have been surfacing in recent weeks as gun-rights advocates grow anxious over possible new regulations. [Salon]

Meanwhile, the NRA has released a new TV commercial deriding the President as “an elitist hypocrite,” and a House Republican is threatening to initiate impeachment proceedings against him if he pursues an Executive Action on gun control. [TPM, WaPo]

Enough for now. Hope you found something to read!

Why I'm Voting for...

Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:07:00 -0400

Over the past few weeks, numerous friends have asked me for whom I will be voting in the Presidential Election coming up in a few days. Although I am flattered to be approached, I believe the inquiries are more reflective of the deep ambivalence many voters feel towards the two major candidates than of any unique insight I am esteemed to possess. Of course, there are deeply convicted supporters on both flanks—activists enthusiastically staffing phone banks, distributing pamphlets, and registering voters. Partisan surrogates making preposterous proclamations at campaign rallies to the effect that President Obama is attempting to move the United States towards a communist state, or that Governor Romney would like to set back women’s rights fifty years. Both are patently absurd, and to take the time to repudiate such insultingly inane assertions would be to honor them with a dignity they do not deserve.

But it is my observation that the majority of people are not nearly so vigorous or unqualified in their allegiance to one candidate or the other as social media streams or cable news might indicate. There is a turgid middle of voters who, although not technically “undecided” (they are pretty certain for whom they intend to vote) are nonetheless still less than thoroughly comfortable with their preferred candidate. So in light of this reality, I figured I would elucidate my own analysis, in the hopes it might help some other people think through the issues facing us as a country.

On Tuesday, November 6, I am voting for President Barack Obama.

Why?
“It’s the economy, stupid.”
The President is neither an all-powerful wizard who can unilaterally “fix” the economy, nor an impotent figurehead whose Budget Proposals to Congress offer little more than content for campaign rhetoric. Make no mistake: the person who sits in the Oval Office has immense ability to shape the future of the national economy… but the Constitution of the United States makes very clear that spending is properly the domain of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.

President George W. Bush ballooned the national deficit (whether prudently or not) by committing us to two indefinite overseas military occupations—Iraq and Afghanistan—which have cost the country trillions of dollars, by authoring the Bush Tax Cuts, which have cost another trillion plus, and by pushing a series of stimulus packages over the course of his Presidency, including the first auto bailout.

This reality is not introduced by way of indicting President Bush, but merely as evidence that the Executive Branch very much affects the US economy, so it is appropriate to have “the economy” listed as chief among one’s considerations when electing the President.

The previously stated corollary to this is that the President does not possess unlimited power, and the majority of federal spending pertains to untouchable entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which, along with Defense, accounted for over 60% of Federal Spending in 2011, and which everyone can agree will continue to spiral out of control, until nearly the entire Federal Budget is accounted for by such mandatory payouts. There is no room for argument here: we need entitlement reform. But neither has an easy or obvious solution presented itself, and as long as elections are decided by voters whose benefits are at stake, there will never be a candidate who articulates a serious and sincere plan for cost control. Quite simply: they’d lose.

That said, I believe that making permanent the Bush Tax Cuts for the top earners, eliminating the capital gains tax, and continuing to provide incentives for corporations to stockpile cash overseas rather than hire workers here, all while continuing to dismantle the banking regulations enacted in the wake of the Great Depression, which led directly to the Great Recession of our current era… is an unacceptable proposal for improving our economy.

It has been independently assessed that the Obama Stimulus Package worked, and although there is legitimate disagreement as to how best to interpret the raw data (“lies, damned lies, and statistics”) there can be no refuting this chart which illustrates the number of private sector jobs added to to the US economy during President Obama’s tenure. Even The Wall Street Journal acknowledges that the private sector, which lost 646,000 jobs during President Bush’s two terms, has increased under his Democratic successor.

As stated in the headline, “The U.S. Economic Policy Debate is a Sham” (Bloomberg). In fact, there actually exists “a secret consensus among economists” about the effects of President Obama’s efforts. And to the extent that the White House can “create jobs,” at all, as has been pointed out, Democratic Presidents claim a 2-1 advantage over their Republican counterparts in that department. (One of the most egregious examples of cognitive dissonance on display in America right now is the simultaneous insistence by conservatives that the government does not create jobs, the private sector does; and the indictment that President Obama has not created enough jobs during his term at the head of this same government. That’s like arguing that public schools haven’t done enough to instill values in our children while concurrently maintaining that it’s not public schools’ job to instill values—it’s parents’.)

So there’s the fact that President Obama’s economic policies have been effective at counteracting the Recession… and then there’s the equally important truth that the Romney-Ryan Campaign has offered no viable alternative. Their incessant mantra has been that Obama has failed, but they have put forward no meaningful proposal for what could have been done differently. (Which is why authentically conservative outlets such as The Economist and The Financial Times, which are not mere media wings of the partisan right-wing establishment, have refused to back Romney.)

The Romney-Ryan Tax Plan, inasmuch as it exists at all (spoiler: it doesn’t), cannot possibly add up, mathematically. I recognize that those are self-refuting statements, since one cannot assert both that (1) that a plan does not exist; and (2) that the non-existent plan fails basic math… but what approximations of specifics the GOP Candidates have articulated mean that the plan is “mathematically impossible.” This is not partisan sniping from the Obama Campaign—this is analysis from the left-wing commies at Bloomberg, and others.

Perhaps most damning to Romney’s candidacy—which is premised entirely upon his purported business experience—is the fact that Ronald Reagan’s Budget Director, David Stockman, absolutely eviscerated this carefully constructed myth with a devastating must-read piece concluding that “Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped a business.” (Seriously, read the entire piece.)

Healthcare

I do not think that the Affordable Care Act is a perfect law by any stretch. But I do think that a piece of legislation that extends access to basic medical services to millions more Americans, all while reducing the deficit, is a huge step in the right direction. And so do most Americans, when they’re asked about the specific provisions of the Bill. This belief is upheld by my faith, as the Catholic Church has insisted on healthcare as a universal human right, with the Vatican going so far as to issue a statement calling on governments around the world to move towards universal healthcare, and Pope Benedict referring to it as an “inalienable right.”

I have had friends argue that such is a distortion of Catholic teaching, and that access to basic medical services does not mean that the federal government should be the entity providing such care. I agree that this distinction both exists and matters. And, at least in the United States, there has been no serious proposal to institute a system in which the government itself becomes the provider; rather, it reimburses providers and ensures coverage for all citizens.

The fact of the matter is that we are never returning to a system of healthcare in which the local family doctor drove out to the house and performed a checkup in exchange for a basket of eggs or a new pair of shoes. We are in a system of managed care, and until I hear a better alternative than the ACA, I applaud the effort to get more individuals covered by such networks, imperfect though they be. (And I’m pretty sure everyone can recount horror stories with HMOs.)

Until I am presented with a serious proposal for what to do when a patient arrives at the ER with no insurance, but who requires tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars of life-saving care, I see the ACA as our best step forward. Either we would have to refuse to treat, for instance, a gunshot victim or a young girl, born in the United States but whose parents came here illegally, and who has pneumonia, or we have to find another way to pay for such un-reimbursed care.

If anything, the Democrats are to be condemned for their abysmal handling of this issue, politically. In the era of global terrorism, international travel, and drug-resistant bugs, it is a matter of public safety that every American have access to basic medical treatment. Nearly every major food-borne illness outbreak has been traced back to minimum wage (or less) workers handling vegetables and other types of food. The people who make your sandwich at Subway, who clean your hotel bathroom, who ride public transit right next to you… you WANT them having access to basic medical services, because they cannot afford to take a day off from work when they get a cough. (All of which is to say nothing of what happens when someone comes back from South America carrying a virulent case of drug-resistant TB and then proceeds to ride the Metro.) Quite simply, healthcare is not only a human right… it is a matter of national security and public safety.

Climate Change and Alternative Energy

While the extent to which humans have contributed to global climate change can and should be debated, there can be no disputing that we need to explore alternatives to fossil fuels for a variety of reasons ranging from how our petroleum dollars fund terrorism to the simple fact that we’re running out. At the moment, I do not see either party championing a particularly robust pursuit of alternative energy (primarily because they rely too heavily on corporate campaign donations to get elected), but President Obama’s policies are at least superior to those of his counterpart.

War and Foreign Policy

After giving substantial consideration to the economy, I realize that I am moving quickly past other major policy points, this included, but one of the reasons I am not spending more time on them is that I do not believe the candidates differ significantly. I support President Obama’s plan for troop drawdown in Afghanistan (the entire situation there is, to my assessment, an unwinnable quagmire), and I wish that he would make care for veterans and their families a more prominent piece of his agenda, particularly in light of terrifying data about the number of veterans committing suicide and struggling to find employment. This is as clear a moral issue as can be: we need to do a better job caring for the women and men who serve to protect our freedoms, as well as their families.

Beyond that, I am generally satisfied with President Obama’s foreign policy leadership, particularly his balancing of action and restraint with respect to situations arising from the US response vis-a-vis the Arab Spring, Iran, Israel/Palestine, and China. I am, to be honest, more than a little terrified of Romney’s foreign policy advisors, particularly Dan Senor, and I worry what a Romney Presidency would do to US-Israel relations, as Netanyahu gets more and more aggressive with Israeli posturing. Don’t get me wrong: support for Israel, our strongest ally in the region, and a beacon of democracy amid oppressive regimes, is both necessary and just. But support does not equate to unqualified, uncritical endorsement of all their actions and a blank-check commitment to go to war with whomever Netanyahu wishes.

Drone strikes are a whole other thing, and a topic which we, as Americans, need to begin examining more rigorously.

Social Issues

Let’s be very clear: Mitt Romney is not pro-life. We have no idea what he is. His position adapts to the situation. During the primaries, he needed to convince the right (who wanted Santorum and only begrudgingly accepted Romney once his nomination was inevitable) that he would champion their cause. Now that the general election is upon us, he has tacked back towards the center. Social conservatives are scrambling to justify their support, and pro-life activists are standing by him.

So let’s presume for the moment that Romney is elected—what would President Romney do? He’s explicitly stated that he will enact no new legislation, so the hopes of the pro-life movement are concentrated in his appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Except that Romney campaign surrogates are assuring people that Romney would not appoint justices that would endanger Roe. But even if President Romney did nominate such an individual, I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the United States Senate would confirm him/her. It simply would not happen. Democrats in the Senate would not allow the swing vote to overturn Roe (presumably replacing Ginsburg) to be confirmed.

But even if they did, let us for the sake of argument, play the tape forward. What then?

Assuming further that a case made its way to the Supreme Court, and that Roe were overturned (so far, a dizzying number of extremely unlikely hypotheticals), where would that leave us? The answer: back at the States.

Each State Legislature would enter round-the-clock sessions drafting competing Amendments to the respective State Constitutions. The options would be as follows: (a) Abortion is always legal, under all circumstances; (b) Abortion is never legal, under any circumstances; and (c) Abortion is illegal, except in instances of rape/incest/or for the life of the mother. [We will put aside the question of, in the hypothetical of it being made illegal, what the criminal charges would be, and whom would be prosecuted, because, really, we don’t even need to go there for the sake of this analysis.]

Most Americans skew pro-life, unless they are faced with an all-or-nothing option as outlined above. But when faced with only the three above options—always legal, or always illegal—the public overwhelmingly shifts to keeping it legal. To put it simply: the pro-life movement would lose this fight. State by state, amendments would be added to the constitution to protect the legal right to abortion, and with those amendments, all sorts of parental consent, mandatory waiting period, counseling sessions, and other pro-life victories would be instantaneously abrogated. And then, there would be no further legal recourse. So then what?

President Obama is not pro-life. Not at all. (At least not in the contemporary parlance, i.e. “anti-abortion.”) But we don’t know where Romney’s stance will be if elected, and even assuming the most ardently anti-abortion positions imaginable, the actual impact on the lives of unborn children is almost certain to be non-existent. This is not to suggest that abortion does not matter as a political issue; it does. But not the way the two parties currently use it, i.e. as an instrument to manipulate and exploit the passions of otherwise languid or apathetic portions of the electorate.

In light of the many pointed statements being put out by members of the US hierarchy, it’s worth offering additional clarification. The terms “objective evil,” “intrinsic evil,” and “grave evil” get tossed around as though they are conversation stoppers. They are not.

For starters, there is a distinction to be made between moral acts and legislative responses. Many acts are “objectively” or “intrinsically” evil, i.e. they are, no matter the circumstances, always wrong. Lying is one such intrinsic evil. Murder is another. So, according to official Church teaching, masturbation. Not only that, but masturbation is a “grave” moral evil. A more comprehensive list of intrinsically evil acts can be found here.

But the fact that something is an intrinsic evil does not mean that it must be outlawed. Thomas Aquinas rightly argued that not all evil acts could or should be outlawed—indeed, to do so would be to create a scandal of the law by burdening it with unenforceable statues that would lessen the public’s overall respect for the law as such. It was for this reason that the US Bishops dropped their opposition to legalized contraception in the 1960s.

If Catholics can never in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil acts, then Catholic voters will need to find a candidate who believes lying, masturbating, committing adultery, and using artificial contraception should all be outlawed. The bottom line is that direct, voluntary abortion is, by Church teaching, objectively evil, but such a designation does not tell us what our response ought to be from a public policy standpoint, much less which candidate for whom we are compelled to vote. All political decisions, not simply economic ones, require the virtue of prudence. Every act of legislation is a prudential act—not simply a moral one—according to Catholic moral theology. And, as I have delineated above, I, a pro-life Catholic who wishes very sincerely to see the number of abortions in the United States of America decreased as effectively as possible, do not believe that, in the year 2012, simply voting for a GOP candidate will have that effect. Those who do not share my belief are welcome to do so, but I have yet to hear a convincing, realistic projection of how that would happen, in light of the considerations listed herein.

Finally, the HHS Mandate. Simply put: both sides have provided plenty to critique. The Obama Administration has deeply disappointed me with its entire approach to persons of faith, but Catholics in particular. The Campaign employed Catholic surrogates like Doug Kmiec to win the White House, then callously used Blue Dog Reps. like Bart Stupak and Kathy Dahlkemper as well as influential allies like Sr. Carol Keehan to get the Affordable Care Act passed. It is no exaggeration to say that without Sr. Carol and Rep. Stupak, there would be no “Obamacare.”

So it is immensely frustrating and hurtful to see the way the Administration has so cynically discarded these crucial collaborators during the entirety of the HHS brouhaha, which, by all accounts, was forged by Secretary Sebelius and White House Czar-of-Everything Valerie Jarrett. Rather than admit a mistake and invite Cardinal Dolan, Sister Carol, and Vice President Biden to the Oval Office, the Administration doubled down. Undoubtedly, they looked at polling and assured themselves that this would be an issue they could easily spin as the Catholic Church (read: male hierarchy) being hopelessly out-of-touch with American women who overwhelmingly favor contraception. When the key advocates of the Affordable Care Act withdraw support for the Bill they helped craft, and the one Representative most singly responsible for its passage decries the Mandate as “illegal,” you know there is something wrong.

The Bishops, for their part, responded equally poorly by issuing statements comparing Obama to Hitler, using the language of battle and war, and seemingly reducing the entire election to the issue of religious liberty.

Ultimately, the HHS Mandate does strike me as unconstitutional, and it is my sincere hope that it will be struck down by the courts, even as I hope with equal fervor that other provisions of the ACA that extended coverage to millions more Americans will be upheld.

Final Thoughts

In 2008, I was wildly enthusiastic about the election of President Obama. Although I have been disappointed and frustrated by several decisions by the Administration, the handling of the HHS Mandate being primary among them, I am overall very satisfied with his performance across the spectrum of issues. Furthermore, my greatest concern with Mitt Romney is that he seems to want to achieve nothing so much as to BE President. This was my primary critique of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries. I don’t think a President Romney would choose what % milk to pour on his cereal in the morning without first consulting the polls and evaluating the anticipated effects on his re-election bid in 2016. And that scares me more than anything.

Jon Huntsman 2016.

#FF - Lots 'o' Links

Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:22:27 -0400

It’s been a ridiculously busy stretch at work, so I haven’t been able to post links in a while, but this week’s been overflowing with #mustread articles, so here are a few of the best… As always, follow me on Twitter if you’d like to read ‘em in real time.

Obviously the big news is last night’s Vice Presidential Debate, which the invaluable Annenberg Center at UPenn has dissected for its FactCheck.Org project. [Factcheck]

Just prior to the debate, over 100 theologians from Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston College, Harvard Div, and just about every other university with a theology department in the country unveiled a new website designed to push the conversation about Catholic teaching beyond abortion and religious liberty into the realm of Catholic Social Teaching.

The Atlantic has a nice analysis of the language used during the debate, providing some insight into “malarkey,” “my friend,” and other linguistic strategies. [The Atlantic]

Regardless of which VP candidate you believe performed better, there’s no question in most people’s minds who “won” the debate: Moderator Martha Raddatz, who has been almost unanimously extolled by outside observers as having set the bar for this sort of affair. [NYTimes]

Ubiquitous humorist and social commentator, Official Chaplain to the Colbert Nation, Fr. James Martin, SJ, weighs in on last night’s Vice Presidential debate, exhorting readers, “Don’t vote for the better Catholic.” [America Magazine]

Earlier this week, Mitt Romney committed what his campaign staff is calling a gaffe, but what other observers are describing as a calculated strategy to win certain key demographics, when he gave an interview indicating that pro-life legislation would not be on his agenda as President. Pro-Life groups immediately took to his defense, insisting that they were confident he would keep the promises he had made to them previously, despite the dissonance with his more recent campaign statements. [Politico, Bloomberg, Newsweek]

Also, here are the 8 issues that have been conspicuously ABSENT from the campaign trail these past few weeks. [The Atlantic]

With all of the post-debate commentary, it might be easy to overlook the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to… the European Union. Reactions have been ranged from confused to outraged, with many claiming this further undercut’s the Prize’s credibility following its recent awarding to President Barack Obama, who pretty obviously won for “not being George W. Bush.” Foreign Policy tries to sort out why the EU might’ve received this recognition. [Foreign Policy]

Also easy to miss would be the major gathering of Bishops from around the world taking place in Rome this week, at the Vatican’s Synod for the New Evangelization. National Catholic Reporter’s peerless observer John Allen has been blogging about it, but the highlight might be this latest post, in which a Filipino Archbishop warns his brother bishops against “arrogance, hypocrisy, and bigotry.” [NCR]

Also at the Synod, the head of the Belgian Bishops’ Conference delivered an impassioned plea to his colleagues to consider how Church leadership might do a better job raising up women. [CNS]

In other news, Wyclef Jean’s charity for Haiti turns out to have been pretty sketchy. [The Atlantic]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta today acknowledged that the Pentagon has been developing the capacity to launch a pre-emptive or retaliatory cyber attack if necessary. DOD is currently “assembling” rules of engagement for this new realm of warfare. [The Hill]

The Washington Post reviews a haunting, powerful new book about the realities of war, claiming The People of Forever Are Not Afraid is “a fierce and beautiful portrait of the damage done by war.” [WaPo]

#FF - To hold you over this weekend

Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:52:37 -0400

Well, due to Labor Day, there was no #MustReadMonday and it was a big week, so why not? Here’s a Friday edition of the day’s best links. I tweeted each of these as I came across them, so if you’re looking for a #FF recommendation, I guess, I’ll suggest myself! @mbayer1248

Yahoo Finance has got a listing of the 10 worst college majors for your career… and unsurprisingly, it’s littered with the likes of anthropology, philosophy, photography, and fine arts. [Yahoo]

Former President Bill Clinton delivered what many believe was the best speech of either political convention, and the Annenberg Center’s FactCheck.Org project described it as a “nightmare for fact-checkers”—“lots of effort,” but with pretty much everything checking out as true. (A bold speech based on factual claims instead of preposterous fabrications? How boring!) [FactCheck.Org]

Also at the DNC, Vice President Joe Biden literally used the word “literally” 9 times, which led to one author parsing some of the more common “crutch words” used by public speakers. It’s literally the best thing you’ll read all year. [The Atlantic]

But all of these speeches were lead-ups to the address by President Obama, who accepted his Party’s nomination for re-election. Consensus? “Meh.”

Mother Jones thinks he phoned it in. New York Magazine says he settled for a bunt rather than swinging for the fences.

The Atlantic is a bit sharper in its critique of the “perplexingly lifeless” speech. Bloomberg called it lame.

On the other end of the Convention Speech Spectrum, Clint Eastwood gives his first interview since the instantly legendary “Invisible Obama” performance at the RNC last week, claiming he came up with the idea for the empty chair 15 minutes before he went onstage. [The Atlantic]

Also on the GOP side of things, even Fox News anchors are starting to lose patience on air with the Romney campaign’s refusal to release details about what, specifically, he would do if he were to take office. [Fox News]

Oh, and a GOP Congressman from Maryland claimed that student loans were unconstitutional, warning that they represented the sort of slippery slope that led to the Holocaust. [Examiner]

Switching gears completely, Texas A&M managed to pick up 2 National Championships and a few Conference Titles in college football over the summer, so… hey, congrats! [Deadspin]

Aight, happy weekend!