A Biden truth

In my post on Presidential Impeccability I discussed can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump. Now I'd like to tackle the flip side, can a Catholic vote for Joe Biden. Just as in the case of Donald Trump, the answer hinges on the three "non-negoatiables" (please see the post linked to above for the whole discussion on non-negotiables.

Many of my friends who plan to vote for Joe Biden tell me they're actually voting for Kamala Harris, because they don't feel Joe Biden will be able to serve all (or maybe any) of his term. With that in mind I'm writing this as "can a Catholic vote for Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, and will be presenting material regarding both candidates.

So without further ado, let's go through the list:

On the dignity of human life from conception to natural death Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are not acceptable. Joe Biden has a 100% abortion support rating from Planned Parenthood and Naral. In 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood was struck down, upholding and affirming Roe v. Wade, due to a single vote, by Justice David Souter, whom Joe Biden had helped approve for SCOTUS. On the day this happened, fellow senator Warren Rudman describes meeting Joe as follows:

“At first, I didn’t see Joe; then I spotted him waving at me from far down the platform,” Rudman later recorded in his memoirs, Combat: Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate. “Joe had agonized over his vote for David, and I knew how thrilled he must be. We started running through the crowd toward each other, and when we met, we embraced, laughing and crying.”

An ecstatic Biden wept tears of joy, telling Rudman over and over: “You were right about him [Souter]! ... You were right!”

The two men were so jubilant, so giddy—practically dancing—that Rudman said onlookers thought they were crazy: “[B]ut we just kept laughing and yelling and hugging each other because sometimes, there are happy endings.”

Joe Biden opposes the Hyde amendment, which forbids using federal dollars to pay for abortions. He has promised to repeal the Mexico City policy, which forbids using federal money to support expansion of abortion in foreign countries. Biden is ok with China's "one child" policy of force abortion and sterilizations. Biden said he was "proud" to support a euthanasia bill.

Kamala Harris also has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and Naral. She opposes the Pain Capable Child Protection Act, which would limit late term abortions. Harris co-sponsored the “Women’s Health Protection Act,” which calls for abortion without limits until birth. Harris announced that as president she would require states that have a history of passing pro-life laws to seek preclearance from the Justice Department before they could enact any laws that would impact abortion on demand. Under her plan, any new pro-life laws would be considered unenforceable without preclearance from the Justice Department.

As Attorney General of California, when presented with video evidence that Planned Parenthood was committing crimes by illegally selling body parts, Harris colluded with Planned Parenthood to charge the reporters with crimes. That case is still ongoing, and Planned Parenthood still has not been investigated. 

On the dignity of marriage and family, Joe Biden has performed a same sex marriage. stuff
The protection of the right of parents to educate their children. 

As A.G. of California Kamala Harris refused to defend Proposition 8, the ballot initiative where Californian voters declared marriage to be between a man and a woman. A direct result of that was the legalization of same sex marriage in California.

On the protection of the right of parents to educate their children, Joe Biden wants to eliminate charter schools and eliminate funding sources for private schools. Kamala Harris has not voiced an opinion on the matter, although her overt bias against religious freedom and Catholics in particular make it unlikely she is a friend of private schools.

So... in pretty much every non-negotiable bot Biden and Harris are unacceptable candidates for a Catholic.

...and yet so many Catholics, even ones who claim to follow the Magisterium, plan to vote for them. Here's why I think, not only are they wrong, but they are putting their immortal souls in danger. The Catechism says:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

 So, the question is, is voting for Biden/Harris considered grave matter? Certainly being involved in abortion is (performing one, have one performed, paying for one, enabling another person to have one). But what about voting for abortion? In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II writes:

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops... I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. 

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection...

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.

Please take the time to go read all of Evangelium Vitae. It is not a long read, and there is so much more there and the brief excerpts I have included above.

 

I would think that would settle things, but I have heard two arguments to "get around" this teaching and vote for Biden/Harris.

The first argument involves a note, that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote at the bottom of a fraternal letter to the US bishops:

 

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

 

From this some have concluded that as long as they say "I don't like abortion, but boy, that Joe Biden has a better plan for 'X' than Trump"  they can freely vote for whomever they please with a clean conscience. However, they ignore the phrase "can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." What does "can be permitted" and what are proportionate reasons?

 

"Can be permitted" in the context of the letter means "still able to receive Holy Communion" - in other words, he's not saying it's fine, just that it's not a mortal sin.

As for proportionate means, what is "proportionate" to the brutal murder of close to a million completely innocent human lives every year? The answer is really only one thing - the brutal murder of even more completely innocent human lives. That is, if you were voting for a pro-abortion candidate because if you didn't a worse pro-abortion candidate would win. George Weigel explains it much better than I could in this article. The situation is not simple, but it is clearly not the case that this note is a "loophole" to let Catholics ignore 2,000 years of church teaching.

What about climate change? If the world ends in twelve years that kills more people than abortion. Could that be a proportionate reason? For this to be a proportionate reason, we would at least have to be as certain about those deaths as we are about the reality of abortion. That presupposes the following:

• Biden/Harris alone have the power to change the earth's climate (e.g. the president has the power necessary to unilaterally change things).
• Biden/Harris will change the climate as their top priority (e.g. it's not a campaign promise).
• There is no other way to change the climate (e.g. we cannot work with any other lawmakers to address the problem)

There are problems right away with those assumptions. Although Biden has said he will eliminate fossil fuels by 2050 he has not proposed how that can be done (hint: it can't). Also, given that it was a priority for Obama/Biden for eight years, and there were no significant steps taken, it is unlikely that Biden/Harris can/will make such changes in half that time.

 

It is also unclear whether the methods the Democrats have proposed will even have a positive impact on climate. For instance, many of the initiatives put in place during the Obama/Biden administration, such as electric vehicles and solar power, simply moved environmentally dirty operations off to China and other countries with lax environmental laws and emissions exceptions in the Paris agreement. The current administrations' insistence on manufacturing things in the US has actually cleaned up some industries and reduced pollution, and Trump's Affordable Clean Energy Act is projected to reduce CO2 emissions by 35% by 2050. It is not at all a black and white issue.

In short, it is not a proportionate reason.

The second argument is that voting for a candidate is not the same as voting in favor of the policy. To me this seems a bit of a stretch because the only reason to vote for a candidate is because you want them to implement the policies you approve of. I suppose you could say "I don't care what the candidate's policies are, I just vote straight Democrat" but why vote Democrat unless you like the policies of the Democratic party (which are also extremely pro-abortion).

Another way to look at this is to use an analogy. Could a southerner in the  Civil Ware era say "I support Jefferson Davis and the south, but that's not related to supporting slavery?" As any honest person will tell you "A vote for Jeff Davis is a vote to preserve our southern institutions" (aka slavery). Likewise a vote for Biden is a vote to expand "women's healthcare" (aka abortion). When something is as integral to a person's platform as abortion is to Biden/Harris it is disingenuous to claim that your vote will not be an approval for them to go ahead with their support of abortion.

 

Ironically enough, this very same argument was used by Planned Parenthood to skirt the law against performing partial birth abortions.

 

“The federal abortion ban is a law, and laws are up to interpretation. So there are some people who interpret it as, it’s intent. So if I say on day one, ‘I do not intend to do this,’ what ultimately happens doesn’t matter.” (emphasis added)

For these reasons, I believe if you as a Catholic vote for Biden/Harris with full knowledge (knowing what has been discussed in this post) and consent, you are at risk of committing a mortal sin. I know people will excoriate me for pushing an agenda, and I am pushing an agenda, but my agenda is not political, it's spiritual. I don't want you, dear reader, to be in sin. Even if it is not mortal.

 

My other agenda is that we have, for the first time since 1973, a real chance to reduce the number of abortions in the US. Under president Trump abortions are already at the lowest level on over a decade. Having a president who promotes a pro-life cause, appoints pro-life judges, and allows pro-lifers to have a voice in government and the public square is already starting to change minds and hearts.

Read More

Presidential Impeccability

As you may or may not know, I expend a lot of effort into determining who to vote for. I don't believe in party politics, but in examining the positions and policies of individual candidates, and choose the one according to the principles of my faith and conscience. On the odd chance that you care what Mike thinks I will share my views about voting in general, and in the 2020 presidential election, in particular.

But the focus of this post is not to do all of that, but to speak to a particular issue - can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump given that he is "X" (substitute your own value for X - liar, adulterer, racist, etc.). I have seen a lot of arguments along the lines of
A: "Catholics can't vote for Biden because he is pro-abortion."
B: "Well, then Catholics can't vote for Trump because 'X'. therefore Catholics are free to vote for Biden as the lesser of two evils."

First off, there are more than two candidates. If you can't vote for Biden, that doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump, and vice versa. There are several other candidates, such as Brian Carroll, or Tom Hoefling, who embrace most of Catholic social teaching without being Joe Biden or Donald Trump. If you honestly can't vote in good conscience for either major party candidate, rather than violate your principles, vote for one of them, or write in another candidate. "But that is throwing away my vote" - nonsense. It is staying true to your values. If being on the "winning" side in a political contest is more important than your conscience and moral values, you need to rethink your priorities.

Back to the issue at hand. There are "non-negotiables" from a Catholic perspective. These are explained here, and I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here is a summary. From the EWTN site, the distinction is as follows:

Non-negotiable issues involving essential moral goods (e.g. life, liberty) are the most important. Essential goods directly oppose intrinsic evils which may never morally be chosen.

Negotiable issues, on the other hand, are not matters of essential goodness or evilness. Rather, they involve determining the best means, or policies, to achieve good ends.

If a candidate (in any race, not just POTUS) promotes any non-negotiable issues, a Catholic may not support that candidate unless there are no candidates who do not support non-negotiables, in which case he must vote for the candidate who he believes will do the least harm.

In the 2016 election, there were five non-negotiable issues identified specifically.

• Abortion
• Human Cloning
• Euthanasia (assisted suicide)
• Stem Cell Research
• Homosexual "Marriage"

In the 2020 elections, this is the list.

1. The dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
2. The dignity of marriage and family, upon which the good of every society and the human race itself depends.
3. The protection of the right of parents to educate their children. 

What happened? Did some issues become "negotiable"? Did new ones become "non-negotiable?" Part of it depends on what's at stake in an election. In 2016 parental rights to educate children wasn't an issue at all -  nobody was attacking that right. Now that right is threatened. The first four issues on the list did not go away, but have been combined into one item in this year's guidance.

Note that this list does not say anything about the impeccability (moral character) of the candidate. While moral character is important, we are not trying to canonize the person, we are hiring them to do a job, and the important thing is whether or not they will do a good job, not whether or not they have a good personal life. Unless Jesus or Mary are eon the ballot (and boy, I wish they were) we are always going to be voting for someone who is a sinner.

Now let's look at where Donald Trump stands on those issues, and others.

On the dignity of human life from conception to natural death, Donald Trump has been a steadfast champion. He has spoken numerous times about the dignity of human life. He is the first president to promote and attend the March for Life. He has done everything in his power to defund Planned Parenthood. He has surrounded himself with pro-life people, like Marjorie Danenenfelser, Alveda King, Abby Johnson, and others. He has appointed Supreme Court justices and federal judges who interpret the Constitution as it was originally written (and hence can work towards the overturn of Roe v Wade). Likewise his judicial choices oppose euthanasia. He has criticized and removed funding for fetal tissue research.

I have heard objections that Planned Parenthood's funding is at its highest level this year. That is not due to Donald Trump, but house Democrats, who have increased funding to make up for Trump's funding cuts. You can't blame a man for something someone else did.

I've also heard objections that Trump is not pro-life because he does "X" (supports the death penalty, puts kids in cages, wants to arrest immigrants, didn't fund social welfare program "Y", etc.). Some of those criticisms are justified, others are specious, but the one thing they have in common are that they are not non-negotiables. We cannot conflate not letting someone into your country with dismembering a baby. One is a prudential decision which may or may not be best for the common good, the other is murder, plain and simple.

On the dignity of marriage and family, Donald Trump has, for the most part, been a force for good. Again, his judicial nominations have been pro-family, and pro-religious freedom. According to an NBC News report Trump said, referring to same sex marriage:

“It’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law,” Trump said in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday night. “It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done. These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And I’m fine with that.”

These comments appear to contradict statements Trump made during an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace in January, where he said he would "strongly consider" appointing Supreme Court justices who would repeal same-sex marriage.

Does that mean Trump supports a non-negotiable? I think it is a matter of personal interpretation. I see it as something similar to what Bishop Robert Barron said in an interview on the Rubin Report.

Rubin questioned the bishop on his “personal feelings” about the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling that legalized homosexual “marriage”: “I assume you felt it was a wrong decision by the court?”

“I do,” replied Barron. “But I don’t think I want to press it further. I think where we are right now in the States, I’ll apply the Aquinas principle. I think it would probably cause much more problems and dissension and difficulty if we keep pressing it.”

In other words, not wanting to press the issue at this time is a far cry from endorsing it. Given the second part of NBC's coverage, and other remarks the president has made, it seems clear that he does not support same sex marriage, nor does he believe Obergefell was correct, but it is not a hill to die on right now. Making this a campaign issue would likely cause more problems than it would help.

Still, if you personally feel those two words "I'm fine" undo his support of marriage and family in other areas and indicate true support for same sex marriage, then yes, you would have to not vote for Trump as a good Catholic.

On the right for parents to educate their children Trump is a strong ally. He has championed conscience rights, religious freedom, school choice and homeschooling without government interference. His choice for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, is very much in favor of private and religious schools and homeschooling. The president's judicial nominees have been in favor of parental rights and religious rights.

All in all, I think you have to say that barring two words, made in a 60 Minutes interview, there is nothing you can point to about the president supporting non-negoatiable issues. Even those two words "I'm fine" do not, in my opinion, indicate "support" or "endorsement" of a non-negotiable. In fact, as the president's detractors point out, his actions have contradicted those two words.

I also see Catholics decrying other "non-negotiable" issues that the president supposedly supports. Here are a few:

The president supports the death penalty. This is true, but the death penalty is not a non-negotiable. According to Pope Francis' latest statements on the issue the death penalty is no longer needed. That does not change the church's long standing teaching that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is the intentional killing of an innocent human being. In the case of the death penalty, the human being isn't innocent, and is being killed in a manner of self defense. We shouldn't kill if we have a better means of defense, which is Pope Francis' point, but that doesn't change the teaching, just the circumstances.

The president is pro-gay because he appointed Richard Grenell acting director of the Office of National Intelligence, which made him the first openly gay Cabinet member. In addition, president Trump has worked to decriminalize homosexuality in the 69 countries where it is illegal, and worked on a plan to eradicate HIV/AIDS. The catechism says, paragraph 2358:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 

There is no reason not to hire a homosexual person for a job if their sexuality does not impact their ability to perform it, and if they are qualified. In fact, it would be unjust not to. Decriminalizing homosexuality sounds bad, until you realize that most of the criminal penalties being discussed are death. I don't think anybody believes that is just. And eradicating HIV/AIDS is a work of mercy. The disease is not restricted to homosexuals, and even if it were, they deserve to have their health needs met. Although homosexual acts are to be avoided, people with homosexual inclinations should be treated with respect and compassion.

Again, if you honestly feel that this constitutes promoting homosexuality, then by all means vote your conscience. To me this, like his words "I'm fine" do not rise to the level of support.

So can a Catholic vote for Donald Trump in good conscience? I believe one can. There are a few items (his reluctance to challenge Obergefell at this time, and his call for other countries to stop locking up and executing homosexuals) that one could interpret in such a way as to eliminate him as a potential candidate, but I don't believe either of these constitutes support of these issues, merely prudential decisions to get support to address larger issues, like the abortion of almost one million innocent children.

Read More

No White People!

I'm seeing a lot of people making the claim "There are no white people in the Bible." The best response I've seen is "how about Lot's wife?" but seriously, this claim is ludicrous.

My first thought is "who cares?" If we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, and race doesn't matter, why are we racially profiling Biblical people?

The impetus behind this claim seems to be to somehow discredit art which depicts Christ or other Biblical figures as white, or perhaps the idea in white people's minds that Biblical figures are "like them." Again, who cares? Isn't the whole point of the Bible that Biblical figures are like you and I? For that matter, every culture has depicted Biblical figures as members of their own culture. This is not an attempt to deny the historical lineage of the person, but to make the person more relatable to the viewer. New flash - the purpose of literature and art is not always to depict everything literally.

Additionally, when Jesus and Mary have appeared in visions to people, they appear as members of the culture that person belongs to. Take Our Lady of Guadalupe, for instance. Mary appeared as a young pregnant Aztec girl, who spoke to St. Juan Diego in his native Nahuatl language.

I won't go through the numerous depictions of Jesus and Mary in art, but here's an article with a small sampling of them.

But the real point of this post is to debunk the claim that there are no white people in the Bible. Skin color is mentioned only a few times in the Bible. The only places I can think of are Jeremiah 13:23 "Can Ethiopians change their skin or leopards their spots?" - presumably referring to the dark color of the skin of Ethiopians - and Song of Solomon 1:5 "I am black and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem." So it would seem we have ample evidence of dark skinned people in the Bible.

However, Song of Solomon 5:10 says "My beloved is all radiant and ruddy distinguished among ten thousand." Ruddy meaning red. Hard to be red when you're black. Furthermore, later in the same chapter,  verses 14-15 say "His body is ivory work, encrusted with sapphires. His legs are alabaster columns, set upon bases of gold." Alabaster and Ivory are light colored. My reading of this is that the lovers described in the book are a light skinned or white male and a black female.

Both Esau and David are described as ruddy as well and at least in Esau's case it is describing his hairiness. Did they have red hair? Reddish skin? Were they "white?" Who cares. but it seems at least possible, if not likely.

I guess some of it depends on who you consider to be white. An Aryan, white supremacist Nazi type person would say that only the Aryan race is truly white and all others are inferior. However, we are not Aryans, white supremacists, or Nazis. To contemporary Americans, white generally means of European descent, including Mediterranean cultures and Hispanics. At least that's the way race is considered in government forms and statistics. So let's look at whiteness from that perspective, especially since we're looking at this from a contemporary perspective.

There are Greeks in the Bible. Greece is a European country these days, but even in antiquity, Greeks were descended from various people, including white skinned people, and certainly at least some of them were what we would call "white." But regardless of skin color, Greeks are considered white today.

There are Romans in the Bible. Rome was and is in Italy. Italians are considered white.

There are many references to Tarshish in the Old Testament. The exact location of Tarshish is lost to history, but some scholars think it was in Spain or even Britain. Spanish people are considered white, as are British people.

Lastly there are the Galatians. The Galatians were Celtic people originally of France and the Balkans. Celts and eastern Europeans are considered white.

So yes, Virginia, there were white people in the Bible, even excluding Lot's wife. So stop virtue signalling with incorrect statements about the Bible.

N.B. if you want to discount Italians, Greeks, etc. as being non-white because of the way people were classified in antebellum times, note also that Catholics and Jews were not considered white, regardless of skin color, and so all religious art would get a pass, since they are depicting non-whites (Jews and Catholics), regardless of the color of the skin in the art.

Read More

The Wages of Sin is COVID?

In one of the Great Adventure Bible studies I was in, the host, Jeff Cavins, made a comment which had a profound effect on me. He said the punishment for sin was that it felt good. Think about that for a minute. What? Feels good? How is that a punishment? How does that square with "the wages of sin are death"? Oddly enough, they fit perfectly.

What is the greatest good? Union with God. What is the effect of sin? Disunion with God - destroying the life of grace within us. If a sin feels good, it makes it all the harder to regain that union with God. In Genesis, Adam was to tend and guard the garden, and Eve was to be the mother of all. The effect of Adam's sin was "cursed is the ground because of you;  in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you" - it became harder to fulfill what God had asked of him. Likewise Eve "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children."

In his book Confessions, St. Augustine talks about how he and a group of other young men stole some pears. They didn't do it for money, or because they were hungry, they did it just for the thrill of having done it. This is the wages of sin. The attachment to the sin itself, which makes it harder for us to do good.

Anyone who's struggled with pornography can attest to what a serious attraction sin can be. Even "smaller" sins, like "white" lies, make it hard for the person to tell the truth, even when it doesn't really matter. Gossip becomes habitual, to the point where we can't resist sharing a bit of information even knowing it will harm someone. God gives us what we ask for. In the Bible Solomon prays for wisdom and gets it. What you sow, so shall you reap.

What does all this have to do with COVID-19? For decades we have been a selfish people. We have shut out our neighbors. Things like social media, which have the capability to unite us, instead divide us and make us more and more isolated. We have developed a utilitarian society as well, where the elderly and the disabled are seen as a burden instead of a blessing.

Along comes COVID-19. Isolation is enforced, we got what we wanted. We are now dependent on the technology that has divided us for years, and instead of talking face to face, we connect in online platforms, where common courtesy is uncommon. The elderly and ill are especially vulnerable to the disease. Tired of visiting mom in the nursing home? Now you have the perfect excuse. In fact, if you're lucky your governor will send COVID patients to the nursing home and mom will not be a burden any more. You don't even have to go through the bother of a big funeral, since you can't have one.

Hate going to church on Sunday? Now you don't have to; in fact you can't. You can watch a video stream in your underwear any time of day or night. Or better yet, you can get free entertainment instead. At least porn sites are up. Don't like paying extra to go to your local store? It's closed. Perfect time to find an online overseas place that sells at a discount.

And you'll be happy to know that the highest priority is making abortions available. Sure you can't get a biopsy of that lump or have that cancerous tumor removed, but at least you can get what you want - no babies. For the days are surely coming when they will say, "Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed."

You can sin all you want, and you don't have to confess it; the churches are closed.

We asked for it, we begged for it. Not begged God, of course, for we ignored Him, but we asked "the powers that be" for it and God heard us nonetheless. We sowed the wind, now we reap the whirlwind.

Proverbs 11:27-29
Whoever diligently seeks good seeks favor,
    but evil comes to the one who searches for it. 
Those who trust in their riches will wither,
    but the righteous will flourish like green leaves. 
Those who trouble their households will inherit wind,
    and the fool will be servant to the wise.

Read More

Non-essential Heroes

My meditation for today:

During this lockdown I have heard praises from every quarter for our "essential" workers, who risk their lives on the front lines everyday to keep us safe. Police, EMS, nurses, truck drivers, etc., and rightly so. Amen! God bless them for their sacrifice!

However, in all this we seem to have forgotten about the "non-essential" workers? How about some praise for those who are giving up their livelihoods, their dignity as workers, and sometimes their life dreams in order to keep us safe? They are sacrificing themselves and their families too, to keep us safe. Let's not ignore their sacrifices. May God bless them and keep them safe, and hopefully restore to them what they have lost and more.

Note also that I put "essential" and "non-essential" in quotes. I object to this nomenclature, because there is no worker, no person in this world who is "non-essential." We are all sons and daughters of God, and as such we all are essential. There is no such thing as a non-essential worker. You might say "But what is meant is that the jobs are non-essential." Well, then we should not call the workers non-essential, but even so, there is no legitimate job that is non-essential.

Consider Jesus' ministry. Going out into crowds proclaiming the Gospel. By the standards of the world their is no worker and no job more non-essential than Jesus and His ministry. Yet it is the most essential thing in the world.

Words matter. Let's get out of the mindset of "essential" and "non-essential" and start talking about "safe" and "unsafe." All jobs are essential. Some may be safer to do than others. And let's remember all those suffering in the name of public safety, not just the ones we can see.

Read More

Divine Mercy Reflection

Today is Divine Mercy Sunday. I attended mass with Fr. Mike Schmitz who gave a wonderful homily. I encourage you to watch the video, but for those who don't, let me add my own reflection, which was stated much more eloquently by Fr. Schmitz.

In Luke 10:27, Jesus gives the two greatest commandments, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” These are actually taken from the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 6:5 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" and Leviticus 19:17 "you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

It strikes me that these two commandments echo God's principle attributes, justice and mercy. To love God is to love His laws, and to seek justice.  According to justice each should be treated according to what is due. In today's post-Christian world, karma. However, love of neighbor enables us to show mercy, that is, forgiving our neighbor even when he does not deserve it by justice. This, to me, is a great mystery - how God is both mercy and justice.

On Divine Mercy Sunday we are called to contemplate not just how we, through sin, deserve punishment, but rather to trust in God's mercy and forgiveness. Psalm 136 is a good read for today "Praise the Lord, for he is good; for his mercy endures forever..."

It is said that nobody is condemned to hell for sin, but rather for refusing God's mercy and forgiveness. But who in their right mind would do such a thing, and why? God's mercy and forgiveness is offered to us through the sacrament of Confession. John 20:21-23:

 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

I know many people who say "Jesus died for my sins, past present or future. I am saved no matter what." But that's not what Jesus says, that's a tradition of men. Others, "I can take my sins directly to God and He forgives me." But that's not what Jesus said, that too is a tradition of men. How do you know you are forgiven? There is one simple way. When a priest, ordained by Jesus, and acting in His name, using the power expressly delegated to him by Jesus, says those words to you "I absolve you from your sin" then, and only then, are you assured that you are indeed forgiven. This is not something the church made up - it is in black and white in the Scriptures.

Are you too embarrassed to go to Confession? Don't believe it is effective, or that it applies to you personally? Don't believe you will be forgiven? Then you are refusing God's mercy, which is being freely offered to you. Please think about this, and I beg you - make an act of contrition today and a firm resolution to go to Confession as soon as you can, and accept the mercy that is being extended to you by God.

"My God, I am sorry for my sins with all my heart. In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good, I have sinned against you whom I should love above all things. I firmly intend, with your help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin. Our Savior Jesus Christ suffered and died for us. In his name, my God, have mercy.   Amen."

Read More

Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?

According to Matthew 27:45-46:

From noon on, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And about three o’clock Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

This year, given the state of my life, I am reflecting on these words more and more. We are in a time of darkness, disease and quarantine, physically and spiritually, and I am tempted to cry out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Every day I read that more people have become ill and more people have died, more and more people are losing their jobs, their hope and their faith. Today 196 people died in New Jersey. Has God forsaken us? Did God forsake Jesus on the cross?

Yet the words spoken by Jesus were not His moment of despair, but a teaching moment. Even in His agony Jesus thinks only of us. In fact, there is not one word or action of Jesus that was not for the good of others. This is an amazing revelation to me. These words, that sound like a cry of despair, are actually meant to recall Psalm 22:

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
    Why are you so far from helping me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer;
    and by night, but find no rest.

Yet you are holy,
    enthroned on the praises of Israel. 

In you our ancestors trusted;
    they trusted, and you delivered them. 

To you they cried, and were saved;
    in you they trusted, and were not put to shame.

...

Go ahead and follow the link above and read the whole thing. It alternates between what the psalmist feels at the moment and what he knows to be true of God. The psalm ends in firm trust that God has, in fact, not forsaken him

Posterity will serve him;
    future generations will be told about the Lord 

and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn,
    saying that he has done it.

At no time did God forsake His people, at no time did God forsake His Son, nor does He forsake us. In Genesis, God says "Let there be light" and there was, and man is created. At the Crucifixion, there are three hours of darkness until God brings back light, and brings forth the righteous dead from their graves - man recreated anew.

We are in Lent, but Easter is coming. I don't just mean this week, but in our lives. Now is a time for sackcloth and ashes, but I know and believe that after these days of comparative darkness, God will restore the light and bring forth something new and wonderful. And those who died in His love will rise again, for nothing is ever lost with God.

Join me in reading Isaiah 40. This is usually read during Advent, but I think it is particularly appropriate to meditate on the consolation of God.

Why do you say, O Jacob,
    and speak, O Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord,
    and my right is disregarded by my God”?

Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
    the Creator of the ends of the earth.

from the Litany for the Church in Our Time:

Jesus our God, in these dark hours when Thy Mystical Body is undergoing its own crucifixion, and when it would almost seem to be abandoned by God the Father, have mercy, we beg of Thee, on Thy suffering Church. Send down upon us the Divine Consoler, to enlighten our minds and strengthen our wills.

Thou, O Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived, Who hast promised to be with Thy Church until the End of Time, grant us a mighty faith, that we may not falter; help us to do Thy Holy Will at all times, especially during these hours of grief and uncertainty. May Thy Most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of Thy Holy Mother be our sure refuge in time and in eternity.
Amen.

Read More