Monday, November 15, 2010

CCHD Questions Remain

Last year, we did not contribute to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), whose collection is held the Sunday before Thanksgiving.  There were too many questions about contributions to organizations who either directly or by association were in opposition to the Church's moral teaching, including on issues like abortion and gay "marriage rights."

After viewing the spot below by RealCatholicTV and doing a little follow-on investigation of my own, we decided that we are not convinced that the bishops' report entitled "The Review and Renewal of The Catholic Campaign for Human Development As Accepted and Affirmed by the USCCB Administrative Committee" documents an investigation specific and thorough enough that we are comfortable contributing to the collection this year either.  Below is an email reply I sent out in response to an article that was sent to me in defense of the report.

Thanks for the forward. I appreciate that the committee has made a set of commitments to review and renewal, but I'm just not satisfied that those guiding principles have been followed up by a thorough, top-to-bottom and inside-out review (i.e. a full review of each and every organization receiving funds, including their significant associations).

Case in point, this Reform CCHD Now report, hot off the presses today, details line by line several questionable statements (to say the least) supporting "reproductive rights" made by the alliances that CIW, the group praised in CCHD's Review and Renewal Document, is an expressed member of.

For the interest of time, Reform CCHD Now's summary:

"The simple fact is, the CCHD stated specifically in its Review and Renewal document that 'CCHD will not fund groups that are members of coalitions which have as part of their organizational purpose or coalition agenda, positions or actions that contradict fundamental Catholic moral and social teaching.' In conjunction with this declaration, CCHD propped up an organization that is doing exactly that. This glaring contradiction within its own renewal document casts serious doubt on CCHD’s ability to effectively implement the new guidelines."

Also, it raises a personal question for me that the Review and Renewal statement has been approved by the administrative committee, but not yet reviewed by the bishops themselves. Speaking for myself and myself only, a matter with the gravity of the Church potentially contributing millions of dollars in funds to groups or alliances that directly oppose the Church's moral teaching dserves the urgent attention of the bishops.

We, for one will withold contributions until evidence of a more thorough "cleaning house" has taken place.

In Christ,

This program is from

Sunday, November 14, 2010

What's In A Name?

"And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every other name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."                                              -Philippians 2:8-10

I cringe whenever I hear the Lord's name taken in vain, especially when it's used in a negative or derisive manner.  It literally causes me physical pain, particularly on the occasion when it is I who let his name slip from my lips without respect and reverence.  The funny thing is, several years ago, if anyone else had told me they had a physical reaction, I would have been very likely to--at best--give a smirk of dismissal.  Sure, I knew that it was a Commandment, but certainly God would not strike me down for the simple act of letting an utterance carelessly slip from my lips, would he?

The answer is no, but for a very different reason than I used to think, but I'll get back to that in a second.

First, let's take a moment to think about the implication of what St. Paul described in the above passage from his Letter to the Philippians.  Imagine a name so powerful that every creature in heaven, on earth, and under the earth--indeed all of creation itself should bow at its mere utterance.  For all eternity, all of creation, led by the angels and the martyrs, falls down in worship before his throne, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!...To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!" (Rev 5:12-13).  The wind and sea obey his commands (cf. Matthew 8:27), and even the demons who know their days to roam the earth are numbered cower in fear at the recognition of him (cf. Matthew 8:28-34).

The power of his name is not limited to situations of such large consequence.  Try speaking his name in the context of an everyday conversation.  Either it will cause an instantaneous bond, warmly and excitedly received (by fellow Christians), received with  inquisitiveness (by those seeking the Truth but who might not know that he is a person, Jesus Christ), or you will be flat out rejected and dismissed (by unbelievers).  The bottom line is that his name is divisive.  It knocks people out of their comfort zone.  Jesus came to forgive, surely, but also to eliminate the "middle ground."  It is so easy to forget that that the middle ground, in the scheme of eternity, will not exist for very much longer.  Our response to and use of the power of his name will leave us either in the first group or the last.

His name is also incredibly powerful with interior struggles against temptation and evil.  Try speaking and meditating on his name--only his name--when you encounter them.  Set your mental and spiritual focus on him, place yourself at the foot of his cross, and before very long the demons will not be able to stand it.  They cannot stand its power will flee in fear just as quickly as they came.

Back to the reason God will not strike us down.  We are not struck down because of the merciful power--or better the infinitely powerful mercy--of his name.  It is so easy to forget that even the slightest sin merits us being stricken and condemned.   But he, the name, stepped down into our time and took that death and condemnation on himself.  Because he is man, he could suffer for us what we deserved.  Because he is God, he could take it away our offense as if it had never existed.  To carry his mercy forward in time until he comes in glory at its end, he gave us the Sacraments, especially Reconciliation and the Eucharist, as concrete, tangible communicators of that grace and mercy.

So, when I hear that power of his name--the power to create, bless, unify his body, divide the wheat from chaff, forgive sins, and deliver our prayers to the Father--used so carelessly and nonchalantly, it hurts.  Let us pray for the grace that, for love of his heart that bleeds for us, it will hurt all the more.

Benedictus qui venit in nomine domini.


Friday, November 5, 2010

Have things changed?

Fresh off the heels of an election that ushered in a change of  power in the House of Representatives (the branch of government that was designed by the founders to have the most power), I figured I'd take this Philosophy Friday--aka Philosophy weekend--to open up some discussion on a document that was literally revolutionary and changed the world, the Declaration of Independence.

First, the source:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
This brief document, which was the culmination of literally centuries of political philosophy and historical shift away from the idea of the "divine right of kings," made some pretty bold and unambiguous statements about our rights as human beings and citizens, where those rights ultimately come from, and how England--specifically the king himself--had abrogated its ultimate responsibility as a government authority, to protect and safeguard the rights of men.

In the interest of generating a little discussion, I would like to pose the question:  Two hundred years later, have things changed?  Do the Declaration's assertions (elaborated on and codified in law by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution) still apply, unchanged, today?  To be more specific, I guess I should ask, if our rights do not come from the "Creator" God that many in our society have rejected--or at least refuse to publicly acknowledge--as the ultimate grantor of rights, then where do they come from?  How can we determine them, and who serves as the ultimate arbiter as to which declared rights are valid and not valid?  How do we set a benchmark to know when those rights have been so egregiously violated, that there remains no choice other than "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I've been thinking about this a lot lately but, before I comment further, I would like to hear your thoughts.  Please share. I'd appreciate your frank and honest comments.