Deacon Dan Wright

On How to Vote

I started this post as a response to a comment on my previous posting of last Sunday's homily. However, I try to keep my own comments from going on too long without placing any restrictions on how much readers are allowed to say. When it started looking long I decided that I might as well make it a post for tonight, seeing as how I'm a day overdue if you're looking for me to post daily (more or less). So with a little cutting and pasting and adding more on, here's what I have for you.

A reader writes:

For a Catholic in good standing to support politicians such as Obama and especially Biden and Pelosi flies in the face of what the Bishops have told us in documents such as Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

For me it flies in the face of what the Faithful Citizenship document tells us if we attempt to tell people who to vote for or how to vote (party-wise)—to allow someone to do our thinking for us goes against the Faithful Citizenship concept of forming one's own conscience in such matters. The fact is that we have to engage all the issues—and it isn't easy in the least.

Personally, I'm used to weighing the pros and cons of things and making comparisons. I tend to analyze with a critical eye toward just about everything. Also typically, when it comes to politics, I'll list what I support and what I oppose in the candidates and then ask myself how much I'm willing to work to change what is morally unacceptable in the candidate whom I choose to support—so it also includes a question of quantity. Will it be one issue only or two dozen issues that I'm going to be morally liable to do something about after I cast my vote?

When it comes to voting, keep in mind that the bishops tell us, "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position." (My italics for clarity)

I would never say who I'm going to vote for here or from any other public forum—to do so would go against my role as a deacon and would be taken as my offering public support for a candidate--essentially, I would be telling you who to vote for—something that I cannot do nor desire to do. However, if you asked me privately--and in person--who I like I'd have no problem telling you. I'd also probably tell you exactly what I don't like about the candidate as well.

You see it's one thing for me as a deacon to say who I support (publicly) and another for you as a private citizen to do it (especially given that you are basically anonymous here); however, both of us—clergy and laity—need to avoid saying "You can't vote for so-and-so because it's wrong." A well formed conscience tells us that we, as individuals in dialogue with the issues, must make such decisions for ourselves and, if we want to be moral about it, we need to consider all the issues and what we plan to do in addition to voting.

In summary, I do indeed plan to vote—you can bet on it, and I think that everyone ought to vote this time. There's a lot at stake when you look at the big, multi-issued, world of woe. There's something else that's true as well. My candidate of choice (as is true with yours) will support something that there's no way I could ever support in any possible universe. I'm going to vote for him anyway because I've looked at the issues; I've formed my conscience; I prayed about it, and I know that I'll be obligated to work to change what I cannot accept in the candidate for whom I will cast my vote. The bottom line is that support/opposition isn't so much what you do at the polling place as it is what you do afterward.

Click here for resources.

Sunday Homily: Taking Responsibility

Recently I read a headline announcing "60 Day Sprint to Election Underway," and at the same time I was considering today's readings and I was beginning to collect my thoughts for today's homily. It stood out to me that there really is a timely connection to current national affairs and what we are given in our readings for this weekend.

During all the times of our lives we have a call and duty as Christians to act responsibly toward one another. Indeed there is a good bit more than a hint of seriousness in our readings today instructing us that we are unquestionably responsible for one another. However, the question comes to us individually concerning our communal or social responsibility. Ultimately, the question of social ethics comes down to "What are you going to do?"

Concerning our actions in the public sphere, the Church teaches us that we have a responsibility to be faithful citizens. Taking a stance of apathy or noninvolvement, or even leaving it up to someone else, would be morally wrong—we must consider and carefully weigh all the issues while being aware of both the scope and depth of the world's needs.

The problem, and our challenge, is that as faithful citizens we have an obligation to participate in the selection of our leaders, but often there are not clear moral pathways to choose in doing so. All of us are probably well aware that rarely, if ever, does an election come around when a single candidate's platform or positions completely reflect the Catholic doctrine of Christian social responsibility.

It is true that some issues outweigh others in terms of their moral gravity; however, that does not give us permission to ignore or diminish the real human need that stand unmet. We can never be a one-issue people. The world we live in demands more of us, which brings us to the true importance of today's readings. We are indeed our brother's keeper, and in every way imaginable we are the stewards of the world where we live.

Clearly we are to respect and protect human life at all stages and in every situation. Clearly also we are to promote peace, and to stand against violence and war. We are to hear the cry of the poor and we are to promote social justice. Essentially we must consider each person and his or her rights and needs in the same light as we consider ourselves and the needs of our own families, and thereby love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

I hope that everyone here who is able vote does so this year. However, given that regardless of which way we vote there will be things our candidate supports or promotes that are morally unacceptable, we must realize that voting is only the first step. We must go yet further and accept the responsibility of actively working to resist those positions and issues our candidate supports that stand against Catholic moral teaching. Only some of the world's problems can be solved by electing leaders who can solve them. The rest we must do ourselves.

The opportunities are practically endless to make a difference in our world. We can always do something to be morally responsible for others— with only a little effort we can be engaged in the world of our daily lives and effect real reconciliation among people.

Such is the stuff of which the law of love is made. We cannot turn a blind eye to the impoverished or say "too bad, poverty is not the most important thing." Nor can we cannot overlook the sanctity of life in the either the condemned or the unborn. Neither can we fail to hear the cry of the dying or the disabled. We must also look into the eyes of our enemies as though we were looking into the eyes of our friends and see men and women created in the image of God. We must consider every human need in the light of the law of love.

Today's first readings carries a stern warning—I take it to be a warning meant for everyone against the sin of self-absorption in our own well-being and the failure to take responsibility for the good of others. The call is to see the big picture and to act in a responsive manner. It is a call both to change the world and to take responsibility for it.

A Moonlight Meditation

Interestingly, this appears to be performed in a church.  At least it serves to take one's mind off politics, work, and everything else--a nice meditation to say good night, and certainly a great piece performed by two masters of classical guitar, Julian Bream and John Williams.

No blog post tomorrow--look for my homily early Saturday evening.

Religion and Politics--What Else?

I'm blogging this story as a former Pentecostal, and because I am of the opinion that a person's religious beliefs can't really be separated from their public life.  Besides all that there is some interesting information here.  Later this week I'd like to answer your comments on my Obama post from day before yesterday; however, right now it's competing with my writing this weekend's homily.

Here's the politically religious stuff--comments welcome:

The Rev. Ed Kalnins had no way of knowing he'd be a controversial figure in the 2008 presidential race when he became pastor of a small Pentecostal church in Alaska nine years ago.

But Kalnins has begun to gain attention after The Huffington Post political website reported Tuesday that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee, may have drawn her religious convictions from Kalnins' Pentecostal church.

Kalnins has preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted into heaven; and preached that the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq were part of a world war over Christianity, The Huffington Post reported after reviewing recorded sermons by Kalnins.

A statement on the website of Kalnins' church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, indicates that Palin attended that church from the time she was a teenager, but adds that she and her family haven't been members of the congregation since 2002.

Even so, Kalnins said, Palin has maintained a friendship with his church and attended various conferences and special meetings there — most recently in June, when the governor spoke at a ministry graduation service.

"Whether I influenced Sarah, I don't know," Kalnins said, adding that Palin seeks God on her own.

"She and her family were a part of our church until 2002," he said. "From 2002, she went to another church ... called Wasilla Bible."

He said he doesn't know why the Palin family made that change and said it's easy for the press to distort views expressed in a religious sermon if they are taken out of context.

"You can take any kind of a sermon ... without an introduction and without a conclusion and say that this guy is weird."

Peter Feldman, a spokesman for the McCain-Palin ticket, said he didn't have any information he could provide about Palin's ties to, or history with, the Wasilla Assembly of God Church.

Instead, he said that Palin was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church, was a member of a Christian athletes fellowship in high school and, during the last seven years, she and her family have attended a nondenominational evangelical church in Wasilla.

Source

Being at Peace

I wasn't exactly sure where I wanted to go with the blog this evening before I turn out the lights and call it a day.  Indeed, a busier than usual day was still weighing heavy on me--it was one of those days when we ask, "Why do I choose to do this?"  The answer to that question, of course, is never too far away from the dedicated heart.  We need only look as deep as our hearts.

I believe there is a truth in saying that a day's work bears a similarity to a life's work--especially when the struggle is such that we can feel it pressing in: when we can literally sense age being added.  There has to be a place to turn where we find perfect peace.

The Psalmist says, "In God alone is my soul at rest; my help comes from him."  Of course, as Christians we certainly believe that being in Christ is the only source of rest for our souls--this I would never deny, but I think that often our being at rest--that is, our being at peace--finds expressions in the things that point us to an intrinsic peace in the world and a rest that becomes clearly visible with only a little uncovering.

Earlier this summer I was fortunate to have acquired a guitar.  I have always loved the sound of classical guitar pieces--for me, music has the power to go beyond the ordinary world where often meanings conflict if they are to be found at all.  This morning in the Morning Prayer, the Canticle from Isaiah read, "we shall sing to stringed instruments in the house of the Lord all the days of our life."  It came as a little affirmation to me.

I have never really tried to learn to play an instrument with any seriousness, but now as I am only a year away from turning 50 I have decided to dedicate a good portion of my spare time to finding oneness through the vibrations of nylon strings--not to sound too far-fetched.  After all, I'm not attempting to make a doctrinal statement of any kind, nor am I commenting on one.  I'm just commenting on something I see after looking deeply.

Many years ago as a university student I studied the philosophy of art.  When we came to Picasso's El Viejo Guitarrista the prof didn't say anything, which was surprising for a fellow who was in the first place a knowledgeable musicologist.  Some things just go beyond words and still manage to express all the meaning in the world.  A work of art is like that, whether the medium is oil or nylon.

Recently, I told my guitar teacher that my goal for age 90 is to resemble Picasso's guitarist.  What I see in it is an expression of peace, harmony, and oneness with everything.  If something like satori can really be achieved, I think it has to do with frequently returning to the idea that life--complete with it's struggles and hardships, with it's no easy answer days--always has something to give and something to say, though meaning expressed in words may or may not be part of it.

Obama, the Candidate of Catholic Values?

After my recent lengthy break from blogging due the responsibilities of returning to my job as a teacher, I feel that there's just been too much noteworthy news to ignore.  So I'm back until something else takes me away from daily posting.  It may not be what you might expect or even want, but for the time being I have returned--and again I'll try to make it daily, though I'll probably be posting in the evenings.

So what caught my attention most recently is a New York Times article that claims Obama is the candidate of Catholic values.  I found some very interesting stuff here--stuff worth serious consideration.  As faithful citizens we, as Catholics, are obliged to take a good look at where the candidates stand. I am impressed with anyone who takes the time to grapple with the issues, rather than simply taking a side as somehow right without giving it the effort of serious consideration.

While several issue and questions are important to us--just to name a couple and to point out where we agree and differ--I believe that questions of social justice and environment are at the forefront.  I'm merely one voice among many; however, unlike many voices in the Catholic blogosphere, I do believe there is considerable evidence that climate change is man-made--but that's only one issue, and should we vote on one issue only?  Also I believe we must consider the issues of poverty, and seriously consider what we can do about it--as we should with economy, war, capital punishment, and abortion.  They all have to be considered--everything has to be put in the balance.

So here's the article--I hope you find it comment worthy here at DDW.org:

When Douglas W. Kmiec endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president last spring, it made waves, especially among Roman Catholics.

A constitutional scholar who headed the Office of Legal Counsel under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Mr. Kmiec was well known as an articulate opponent of abortion.

He explains his current stance in “Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama,” which will be published in two weeks by Overlook Press. But reached this week in Denver, Mr. Kmiec agreed to give necessarily brief replies to questions sent by e-mail.

Q. What is your position on the morality of abortion, and how is it related to your religious faith?

A. I fully accept the teaching of the church that participating in an abortion is an intrinsic evil. My acceptance of abortion as a grave, categorical wrong is one part respectful deference to authoritative Catholic teaching and one part reasoned deduction from our scientific knowledge of genetics and the beginning of an individual life.

Q. Would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned?

A. Yes, but not on the terms usually suggested by Republicans. Roe is mistaken constitutional law not just because it invalidated state laws on the subject but because it is contrary to what is described as a self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence, namely, that we have an unalienable right to life from our creator. It may surprise the general citizenry that not a single sitting justice utilizes the declaration as a source of interpretative guidance.

But even employing the jurisprudential methods applied by the modern court, there is no satisfactory showing that abortion as a matter of custom and tradition was properly found to be an implied aspect of the liberties protected by the 14th Amendment.

Q. Given those views, why do you support Barack Obama?

A. There is a widespread misconception that overturning Roe is the only way to be pro-life. In fact, overturning Roe simply returns the matter to the states, which in their individual legislative determinations could then be entirely pro-abortion. I doubt that many of our non-legally-trained pro-life friends fully grasp the limited effect of overturning Roe.

Secondly, pundits like to toss about the notion that the future of Roe depends on one vote, the mythical fifth vote to overturn the decision. There are serious problems with this assumption: first, Republicans have failed to achieve reversal in the five previous times they asked the court for it; and second, it is far from certain that only one additional vote is needed to reverse the decision in light of the principles of stare decisis by which a decided case ought not to be disturbed. Only Justices Thomas and Scalia have written and joined dissenting opinions suggesting the appropriateness of overturning Roe.

So given those views, the better question is how could a Catholic not support Barack Obama?

Senator Obama’s articulated concerns with the payment of a living wage, access to health care, stabilizing the market for shelter, special attention to the needs of the disadvantaged and the importance of community are all part of the church’s social justice mission.

Applying this to the issue of abortion, the senator has repeatedly indicated that he is not pro-abortion, that he understands the serious moral question it presents, and, most significantly, that he wants to move us beyond the 35 years of acrimony that have done next to nothing to reduce the unwanted pregnancies that give rise to abortions.

Q. But all the same, isn’t your support at odds with Catholic teaching?

A. Quite the contrary. Senator Obama is articulating policies that permit faithful Catholics to follow the church’s admonition that we continue to explore ways to give greater protection to human life.

Consider the choices: A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion.

It is, of course, not enough for a Catholic legislator to declare himself or herself pro-choice and just leave it at that, but neither Senator Obama, who is not Catholic except by sensibility, nor Joe Biden, who is a lifelong Catholic, leaves matters in that unreflective way.

In my view, Obama and Biden seek to fulfill the call by Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae,” to “ensure proper support for families and motherhood.” It cannot possibly contravene Catholic doctrine to improve the respect for life by paying better attention to the social and economic conditions of women which correlate strongly with the number of abortions.

Q. You have been fiercely attacked by some Catholic abortion opponents and in one instance barred from receiving communion. How do you feel about that?

A. To be the subject of an angry homily at Mass last April 18 and excoriated as giving scandal for endorsing Senator Obama and then to be denied communion for that “offense” was the most humiliating experience in my faith life.

To be separated in that public manner from the receipt of the eucharist, and to be effectively shunned or separated from the body of Christ in the sense of that particular congregation, has left, I very much regret to say, a permanent spiritual scar. Thankfully, it has also given me a new appreciation for the significance of the sacrament in my daily worship. And the priest, having been called to order by Cardinal Roger Mahony, sent me an apology, which of course I have accepted.

Nonetheless, I remain deeply troubled that other church leaders not fall into similar traps. That would do untold damage to the church within the context of American democracy.

There are clearly partisan forces that want nothing more than to manufacture or stir up faith-based opposition to their political opponents. The church has been careful to underscore that Catholics have unfettered latitude to vote for any candidate so long as the intent of the Catholic voter is not to express approval of a grave evil.

Source