Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Prayer to the Holy Spirit

Prayer to the Holy Spirit
Oh, Holy Spirit, Soul of my soul,
I adore you, I praise you,
I thank you, I magnify you.
I thank you that you have made me,
your unworthy servant, your temple.
Do not despise, the inadequacy of your dwelling place,
but rather purify it with your holy presence
that it may be a worthy living sacrifice to God.
I consecrate myself to you today;
all that I am, mind, body, and soul,
I give you today.
Make me your instrument today and everyday
so that the will of the Most Holy Trinity may be fulfill in my life.
Enlighten my mind
so that I may know the truth.
Strengthen my will
so that I may live according to the truth.
Fill my heart with love
so that I may mediate the love of Christ
to everyone who crosses my path.
Strengthen me with a Holy discipline
so that I may diligently preserve through the duties and challenges of my day.
Help me to be a more fervent disciple of Christ, my Lord and Savior.
Sanctify and Transform me
so that I may bear your Holy Gifts of
love, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Discipline me so that I may learn to master my tongue;
Keep me from words that are untrue, unkind, and unnecessary.
Turn my grumbling into thanksgiving;
My gluttony into temperance.
Replace my pride and vanity
with humility and simplicity.
Bestow upon me your charismatic gifts
so that I may boldly proclaim
and bear witness to the Gospel of Christ.
Empower me
to resist the temptations of that world, the flesh, and the Devil
so that I may live with you
as well as the Father and the Son for eternity.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Intercommunion and Putting the Ecumenical Cart Before the Horse


I have been visiting a lot of churches in the past few months and as a Roman Catholic visiting Churches not in communion with Rome, I have had to respectfully decline the communion plate and cup, an action that sometimes causes offense. These visits have forced me to think about the problem intercommunion among Christians and why it is good to refrain from partaking in the body and blood of Christ together until we are actually in communion.

I have visited, among others, a lot of Anglican churches recently, and in Anglican churches, right before communion is shared, the celebrant almost always says that all baptized Christians are welcome to the table; I have noticed that if it is a small congregation and the minister notices my unfamiliar face, he or she will inevitably offer this invitation. And when I refrain from going up for communion, a parishioner almost always comes up to me and says, “You know, everyone is welcome as long as you are baptized.” (At least, there is still requirement of baptism; some churches have even done away with that.) I usually respond with, “I know. Thank you.”

Occasionally, I have noticed that the priest or parishioner takes offense at my refusal to come to the communion table. They think I have rejected them; they probably assume that as a Roman Catholic, I am rejecting the validity of their Eucharist.

My decision to refrain has nothing to do with validity or lack thereof. During many non-Catholic services, I have experienced the same sense of the presence of God that overshadows me during the celebration of the mass at a Catholic Church. I don’t really doubt that God is here. But that does not change the fact that we are divided.

In a recent conversation with an Anglican priest, I asked whether we should not confess the same faith before sharing the body and blood. She said, “yes, but we do. We believe in the Nicene Creed.” This is a problematic reduction of confession of the same faith. Certainly, if all that is necessary is confession of the Nicene Creed, then there was no need for reformations and counter-reformations and the multiplicity of Christian confessions cacophonously claiming access to a more perfect understanding of God’s revelation. Presumably, these divisions exist because there are consequential differences between us; differences that have great impact on our faith and morals. Is the Pope infallible? Are you saved once and for all by saying the sinner’s prayer? Can one remarry after divorce? These differences must be worked out before we can honestly say we confess the same faith.

By partaking in Holy Communion together before doing this important work, we are shirking the responsibility of truly being one in Christ. Recently, an Anglican woman told me, “We don’t really talk about what we believe. We assume that we believe the same thing.” This is not oneness in Christ. This is a superficial gathering at the table; it is lazy. Instead of working towards Christian unity, it mocks it with indifferentism.

A few months ago, I attended a beautiful service at an Orthodox Church. And while the parishioners went up for communion, I knelt, mourning. I knelt knowing that Christ was indeed present and I could not receive Him, not until I have resolved my problem with my brothers and sisters. And so I did the only appropriate thing, I wept. I did not dream of avoiding the actual tragedy of Christian disunity by claiming a right to come to the table, nor by pretending that there were no real differences between us, nor did I dare feel rejected, as if the whole thing, the centuries of Christian strife was about me.

Weeping. That is what I disunity demands. We must start by weeping. It is this very need to weep that intercommunion avoids. When we refrain from partaking in communion together, we remind ourselves that there is a tear that needs to be mended. If we partake at the same table, what need is there to mend anything? Intercommunion must be the end of our ecumenical dialogue, not the beginning.

Furthermore, there are a good pastoral reasons for not offering communion to those not in your tradition. In his first letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul cautions us against the kinds of reception of the body and the blood that brings judgment to oneself (1 Cor. 11:29). In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, there has always been an understanding that one cannot come to the table when one has serious, unconfessed sin in her life. This is not unique to these traditions, even evangelical reformers like John Wesley, were known to have asked people to refrain from the communion table unless they were repentant.

Unfortunately, given the disagreement among Christians about what constitutes sin and repentance, the discernment about whether one is prepared to receive communion can only occur within that particular tradition. When I walk into a protestant Church, it is possible that I may be unrepentant about something they consider sinful. Perhaps, the night before I walked into a particular Baptist Sunday service, I had had a few beers over a game of poker. I don’t consider that sinful but many Baptists do. Likewise, the protestant does not know whether I refrain from communion because I have acted in ways that I consider sinful. And if sin does not factor into reception of communion, then that church simply does not take communion seriously.

Lastly, when a baptized person walks into the door, even if she is trying earnestly to follow Christ, it does not follow that she knows a thing about the Nicene Creed, or that he does not have some misguided notions about sin. It is the responsibility of each Church to shepherd these seekers in the ways that they believe will lead them into greater union with Christ. By rushing every baptized person to the communion table, Protestants are not only avoiding the hard work of Christian unity, they may be endangering souls.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Equality vs Freedom: Public Education and the Politics of Envy


While citizens around the country are loudly demanding for lower taxes and reductions in government spending, a group of Kansas City moms want the opposite. Parents in a wealthy suburban district voted to increase their property taxes to improve their local public school, and ironically, they are being opposed by the Republican Governor, Sam Brownback, who said that local school districts cannot raise taxes to improve the quality of their particular schools because all public school must remain relatively equal, even if that means relatively mediocre.

The conflict between these suburban moms and the state of Kansas highlights how the well-intentioned quest for equality and social justice not only inevitably leads to violations of individual liberty and the principle of subsidiarity but sanctifies the immoral impulse to envy another’s good fortune.

The nonsense masquerading as justice that often characterizes public policy induces some of us to dream of amending that famous John Lennon song, perhaps, adding to his “imagine there is no country,” imagine there is no state and no public schools to defend their existence through civic courses. But this is admittedly a far-fetched fantasy. Back on Earth, the state and its wasteful and mediocre public institutions are a well-entrenched reality. Thus, the lover of liberty can only hope minimize its damages by exposing the fallacies and injustices in its upside down morality.

In the case of the Kansas suburban mothers, the state, having placed these mothers in a situation that diminishes their right as parents to educate their children as they see fit, adds insult to injury by denying them the right to direct that education in ways that they see fit even at their own expense. Governor Brownback responded that parents still have the right to hire private tutors for their children. Great! Let us not be ungrateful for small favors. However, what the parents cannot do is raise money through the means that the government renders most sensible, i.e., taxes to add enrichment programs such as violin classes or Chinese language instruction. One might hope that these women could find more creative ways to augment their children's education, but that does not justify the state of Kansas arrogating what ought to be a local issue.

Certainly, these parents have the option of placing their children in private school where such niceties maybe available. However, they already pay for their children’s education through taxes, an arrangement they cannot opt out of even if they wish to, and the most efficient way to supplement that education is by adding funds to those that they are already forced to pay. Since the overwhelming majority of states do not allow parents to use vouchers to patronize private schools, parents are essentially forced to buy whatever product produced by their neighborhood public school. Those who understand basic economics know that the inevitable outcome of such a monopolistic arrangement is a low quality product at an ever increasing cost.

In addition, this arrangement violates the principle of subsidiarity. The Principle of subsidiarity is a Catholic Social Teaching doctrine that states that no function should be organized at a higher level that can be organized at a lower level. For example, it would be not only be imprudent but unjust for the city mayor to intrude into someone’s home to assure that the parents are feeding their children three healthy square meals a day. Or it would be equally problematic for the state government to interfere with such local matters like a community recreation center.

The Catholic Church also teaches that the right and duty to educate one’s children belongs naturally to parents. It would seem, to me, that given that parents have this right and obligation, the very existence of a massive public school system under the direction of the Federal Department of Education, far removed from the parents and local communities affected by such decision, at the very least threatens to encroach on the natural rights of parents. This is, of course, my view and Catholics of good will are not obliged to interpret the Church’s social doctrine in such a manner.

Nevertheless, it is clear that in this particular case the rights of parents and the principle of subsidiarity are indeed being violated. Competent and caring parents are being denied the right to educate their children in ways that they deem appropriate by the state of Kansas. Parents are being told exactly what must be provided by their local schools from forces outside their community for reasons that have nothing to do with their particular community.

The excuse for state and federal government to encroach upon these rights is allegedly equity and quality. However, it is clear that they have achieved no such thing. Since the creation of the Department of Education, the quality of education has continued to decline and the recent national effort to improve student achievement, No Child Left Behind, has been an abysmal failure. The state has not achieved its admitted laudable goal of narrowing the achievement gap with respect to race and class. Despite their numerous regulations and generous public spending, only 47% of black young men graduate from high school compared to 78% of their white counterparts. This is a tragic and troubling statistics, but its resolution is beyond the competence of the government bureaucrats. Even if one does not acknowledge the moral wisdom of the principle of subsidiarity, it ought to be adopted by non-Catholics purely on its utilitarian merits.

The worst part of these efforts at achieving social justice is that they place a cloak of morality over that which is inherently immoral. In this particular case, Alan Cunningham, the superintendent of a poorer school district, is joining the state of Kansas in its suit to keep the parents from being able to raise their own property taxes. His reason for doing so is that his district is already having a hard time competing with these parents. Therefore, he seems to imagine that he has a civic duty to assure that the children of affluent, suburban parents do not receive an even better education. What exactly is moral about trying to deny to other children what their parents are able to afford them? Our political class has successful canonized the sinful impulse of envy and calls it social justice.

Monday, January 24, 2011

38 Years After Roe vs. Wade: Abortion Still Flunks Morality 101


Last Saturday marked the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion in the United States. Since that ruling, an astounding 52 million children have been killed and there seems to be little on the horizon to suggest even a small reduction in the ever-growing number. The arguments about abortion are admittedly tired and there seems to be little that one can say that has not been said. Nevertheless, in the face of such great evil, it is necessary to review once more why abortion violates basic morality and human rights.

The proponents of abortion, when they are not making exaggerated claims about women’s health and the need to rid the world of disabled persons, have consistently made one simple assertion—that women have a right to control their bodies and that they should not be forced to use their bodies in ways that they would rather not. There is an undeniable logic in this argument; as a lover of liberty, I am persuaded that each individual is the sole owner of her body and that a law that infringes upon that ownership by restricting how a person uses her body violates a basic tenet of justice.

But nature makes the bodily ownership of a woman complicated because there are times in which a woman’s body is the necessary sanctuary for another human being and she cannot exercise unfettered use of her body without doing harm to another and if she does not wish to be a host for that life, she must kill.

Abortion rights advocates have tried to wiggle around this ugly reality of killing by setting arbitrary dates for when an unborn person can rightfully be deemed a person. The most radical pro-choicers have set birth as the moment when a fetus makes the magical transition into personhood. This is absurd. Is there anything substantially different between the being which was previously within the woman’s body and now, outside of it? What is this metaphysical transformation that now renders what was previously a non-person a person with human rights?

Recognizing that this is nonsense, some abortion rights advocates have set viability as the reasonable cut off point for when a fetus become a human person. They argue that prior to viability, the fetus is a non-person because the fetus depends wholly on the woman for survival. But this logic makes independence, the standard upon which human rights depend. This is a dangerous position for human beings who are often partially if not wholly dependent at various points of their existences, most especially at the beginning and the end of life.

Human babies are dependent on their mothers long after birth. No human infant can survive without the constant care and nourishment that their mothers provide. In fact, once a child is born, the infant’s incessant demands on the mother are even more taxing. New mothers find they are actually more restricted by the care required by their new infants than when they were pregnant. Babies require both material resources like clothing and shelter and bodily resources such as breast milk and being held. The new infant’s dependency is so extensive that if the pro-abortionist were actually consistent in his position, he would have to concede that a mother must also have a right to infanticide. Some ethicists, like Peter Singer, are at least intellectually consistent enough to admit this.

For those who are honest enough to admit that abortion is indeed killing a unique human person no different than an infant, some still maintain that the rights of women to control their body trump the need of the infant to receive sustenance from the mother. Where the needs of the child conflict the right of the mother, they claim that it is the mother’s rights that ought to prevail. In short, that child has no rights.

The primary flaw in this argument is failure to realize that rights are often relational. A person can make claims upon another based on the relationship that that person has with the other. The relationship between mother and child makes these otherwise unreasonable demands, just obligations. There is a natural contract between the child and mother—a contract imposed by nature—that women are morally bound to recognize. Claims can be imposed upon a woman by her child which she is obligated to respond to by virtue of the fact that the child is her offspring. The sound of a crying baby might naturally move all of us to compassion or at the very least curiosity, but that very same sound to the ear of a mother constitutes a command.

Children do not ask to be placed into the world and sometimes, women do not even ask that they be placed in their wombs, but nevertheless, here they are, making their claims. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon this natural process in which claims are made upon the bodies of women by other human beings. The only way to silence their demanding voices is to kill them.

And surely, it is wrong to kill another human being who has not used violent aggression against you. There is nothing religious about this claim. One does need to be a Catholic to acknowledge this basic fact of life. All cultures have recognized that it is wrong to kill another human being. The only way to grant a woman unlimited autonomy in her body is to grant her a license to kill. In other words, the woman must be granted the right to transgress against the most basic right of another human being. She must become herself an aggressor.

Only women are asked to offer up their bodies so that another might live; only in a woman’s body does a soul become flesh. Some feminists have described the fetus as a parasite, a leech. So be it. Leeches we all once were. On what grounds do we look down our noses upon a new generation of leeches? Since it is through this parasitic system that human life depends, then let us stand in awe of it. For although our bodies are indeed our own, they are undeserved gifts and how rarely are we granted the opportunity to offer gratitude for this unmerited favor.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Fear, Nationalism, and Ignorance: The Sins of Guantanamo Bay


Last week, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “It’s probably going to be a while” before Obama can fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo Bay. That Gitmo is a stain on the nation’s image and possibly a fuel for anti-American terrorist activities has been said too many times, by too many people; these arguments hardly merit repetition. But even more important than our image, and the prudential considerations concerning our safety is our duty before God. Before a God who loves and a Christ who is the prince of peace, we have disdainfully detained and violently treated innocent men who happened to be at the wrong place, at the wrong time and of course of the wrong religion. It is not only embarrassing; it is sinful.

It is now well documented that a majority of those detained at Guantanamo Bay are not and have never been sworn enemies of the United States and posed no security risk to Americans prior to their having been subjected to torture and unlawful detention, which may have inevitably led to their radicalization. Many of those whom the government has admitted are not guilty or cannot be proven guilty remain detained. And even worst, the detainees have been subjected to human rights abuses, such as receiving unsafe dosages of malaria drugs to treated conditions which they were never shown to have.

Yet, it is unlikely that anything resembling justice will occur at Guantanamo. This is not only due to callousness of the Bush administration officials like Dick Cheney, or even the incompetence of the Obama administration. No, the enemy is us. It is our silence and flouting of the Gospel mandate to love our neighbor as ourselves that most explains this travesty.

The first Guantanamo sin is fear. Three-hundred and sixty five times, the Scriptures say, “Be not afraid.” Yet, all of us have a hard time heeding those words. We regularly allow fear to dictate public policy. As a result of the attacks of 9-11, American citizens have permitted the United States government to violate the rights of citizens and foreigners alike. It is fear that has led to two wars that have cost more American lives than were killed during the September 11 attacks as well as hundreds of thousands of uncounted Afghanistan and Iraqi citizens. And it is fear that dictates that terror suspects must be detained without trial, cannot be tried in a United States court, and cannot be released when they are clearly innocent.

While the fear of terrorism is real, it is grossly out of proportion to the risk that it poses. The fact is that Americans are far more likely to be victimized by domestic criminals. Yet, no war has been declared on murder, rape, or armed robbery. And no one has suggested that the government indefinitely detain those who might be inclined to murder, rape, or rob despite there being no evidence that that they have done so. Likewise, terrorism does not justify the indefinite detention and mistreatment of prisoners.

And it is this double standard that brings us to the second Guantanamo sin and that is nationalism. Yes, nationalism. In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul said, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). While the Scriptures proclaim the oneness of the human race, human beings eagerly revert to atavistic tribalism. Peoples all over the world are inclined to think that there is some great virtue in giving preferential treatment to those who happened to have been born within the same arbitrarily set border as themselves. It is purportedly the pinnacle of morality to place American lives as well as American rights over those of others around the world.

Even in our Churches this preferential treatment is rampant; for while prayer petitions are routinely offered for US soldiers (which is a good thing to do), they are never offered for Arabs who suffer as a result of these two wars. Yet, they suffer far more than Americans. A conservative estimate of the collateral damage of the Iraqi war indicates that over 66,000 Iraqis have died, over 175,000 have been injured, and almost 2 million have been displaced. Do these victims not deserve at least our prayers?

In the case of the detainees, many Americans cannot countenance the thought that foreigners are equally entitled to the natural rights protected by the United States constitution. That many of these men were born in places where such rights are not acknowledge is tragic but they are no less deserving of them. For these truths are not the patented inventions of Americans, but rather they are self-evident truths endowed by the creator. When Americans acknowledge that even suspected terrorists have a right to due process, they are not being naïve, they are simply assenting to the truth. And when Christians proclaim that Muslim prisoners must be treated with justice, they are being faithful to God.

The third Guantanamo sin is ignorance. Thomas Aquinas said that ignorance of that which one is required to know in order to act morally is sin. But for many Americans ignorance is bliss. Many of us have had a few good laughs at watching television programs mocking those who know a great deal about the private affairs of celebrities but do not recognize the vice president. Yet, this ignorance is far from harmless. It is this ignorance and nonchalance that allows government officials to carry out these injustices. Surely, Americans have a duty to care about those activities which are authorized by their representatives and funded by their tax dollars.

Like many Americans, I participated in this ignorance. Like many Catholics, I placed overturning Roe vs. Wade above all other issues of justice. And in the hope of seating one more pro-life judge, I accepted the logic of the Bush administration that there is a special class of people called “enemy combatants” who deserve neither the protection of the United States Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions. I, furthermore, justified this position by giving little credence to those voices that exposed the injustices, which occurred in Guantanamo. I said, these people were leftists and naive of the necessities national security and for a very long time, I ignored them. For this ignorance, I repent and I ask you to do likewise.