Devoutly Progressive at Work

The Bell Tower and a Cherry Tree in Bloom from UP's Academic Quad

I have a full-time job, a good one. I'm the newest member of Campus Ministry staff at the University of Portland, a Holy Cross School in the same tradition as my beloved Notre Dame. It is a great place to work and a job full of challenges and creative thinking, as well as some enjoyable liturgical tasks.

Since starting the job in July, I have tried to downplay my own 'devoutly progressive' opinions in public, online places. I've been effectively on hiatus on this blog for a couple of reasons:

2.) Alienating students - I know that a minister who is too openly political with their opinions can alienate wide swaths of their entrusted flock. I don't want to turn away students from more conservative backgrounds/families/worldviews with my peace- and justice-oriented Catholicism.
3.) Self-consciousness/fear - It seems that a sort of conservative voice is dominant from the Hierarchy in this country, at least the media grabs hold of that image and pushes it down our throats. Many people equate Catholicism with conservative politics, and not without good reason. I find myself susceptible to this distortion and am afraid to speak too loudly about my own interpretation of Catholic Doctrine and New Testament Spirituality.

In other words, I'm kind of scared to publicly declare myself as decidedly not-republican now that I'm in a position of ministry. I don't want to be rejected by the dominant voice of the Church, but if that voice is getting too much amplification at the expense of my own (and others') voice, then it's time to put that fear way.

But, aside from a few personal questions which I will not discuss on this blog, nor indeed with any students, my opinions adhere closely and consistently to the Magisterium and to the US Bishops. In fact, despite all the negative press, I am proud to have been formed by the Catholic Church - it is my faith that feeds any commitment I have to the common good and social justice. I believe in a loving God who wills freedom and happiness for individuals and peace and justice in society.

That said, I am still devoutly progressive throughout my political views. What does that mean? A commitment to creating a progressively more egalitarian and inclusive society, which goes out of its way to care for the environment, provide health care and quality education, and minimize prejudice of all kinds - racial, gender, sexual, religious, economic. The government has a place in guaranteeing the equality of dignity and opportunity for all citizens. This involves continually facilitating upward mobility for the poor and marginalized and requiring responsibility from those blessed with abundance of material goods and education.

All of this is in-line with Catholic Social Teaching and, in fact, stems from it. I will do my best to make room for other opinions on economic and social issues. However, I will be up front about some things: I am pro-life in that I am in favor of federal prohibition of abortion. I am also in favor of robust social services for those who need them, including universal access to health care, however that's achieved. Finally, I am anti-war and would probably be best described as a pacifist. In my view, these issues are all complimentary and related.

My progressivism has its roots in my own deeply orthodox theological views: Jesus's example in the New Testament emphasizes that mercy and justice, together, must be priorities over all else- over profit, over ideology, over personal security.

Colbert V. The Jesuits

Yes, that's Paul Ryan as Big Foot.

Okay, so this video from last night's episode of the Colbert Report is too good not to share, especially given my recent obsession with the GOP Budget, as reflected on this blog. Enjoy!

Video of Stephen Colbert and Georgetown Theology Professor and Jesuit Priest Thomas Reese:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Paul Ryan's Budget - Thomas Reese
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Subsidiarity

Paul Ryan loves Subsidiarity,
But doesn't seem to get the
Prefential Option for the Poor.

You've got to hand it to Paul Ryan. I think he really believes that the principle of Subsidiarity compels him to eliminate as many federal services for the poor as he sees fit. What is subsidiarity? In short, it's the belief that the best people to take care of the needy are those closest to them. The Church believes this. St. Francis believed this. Mother Teresa believed this. Dorothy Day believed this.

It is a beautiful principal, in line with the personal love that Christ displays in the New Testament and through the experience of Christian spirituality. Subsidiarity reminds us that it's not okay to just let a huge, impersonal system plug and chug with serving the needs of individuals and communities. It asks us to do everything we can to strengthen communities from the bottom up, get to know each other and take personal responsibility when a neighbor needs help. Ideally, according to subsidiarity, government would not even be necessary because we would all care for each other's needs freely and readily, leaving no one out.

Dorothy Day also loved Subsidiarity,
but prioritzed the poor, too.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I would guess that Rep. Ryan sincerely bases his economic proposals on this ideal. He eliminates federal spending on services with the hope that private individuals and states will pick up the slack in a more efficient, personal way.

Now, what he might not understand is that Subsidiarity requires that necessary outreach and assistance, especially to the poor and sick, be ensured. Always. It doesn't say that assistance should always be conducted on a level close to the need. It says that assistance should be conducted as close to the need as realistically possible. The question to ask ourselves, that I hope he's asked himself, is whether it's realistic that the hungry will receive better food assistance when federal food stamps are limited. Will sick children receive better insurance without federal support for Medicaid? Is there funding and man-power at state and local levels that will ensure the continuation and improvement of aid to people served by the 3.3 trillion dollars he proposes to eliminate from the federal budget?

It's not hard to see that the answer is a definitive "no!" Due to the economic crisis, states and local governments, charities and non-governmental organizations  have a far decreased capacity to assist those who need them. I am unsure how removal of federal assistance will help them to do better.

Perhaps it is theoretically possible that it will encourage donors to give more locally. However, the results of such cuts already occurring throughout state and local governments makes such a theory suspect to me. People simply don't have the extra money right now to make up for the loss of governmental assistance.

I think Ryan has misinterpreted Subsidiarity, whether willfully or otherwise. Further, he does so inconsistently, bolstering national defense with increased funding. This essentially prioritizes high-tech bombs and jets over food, education and medicine for those who desperately need it. It seems to me that he has cleaved closely to the Republican Party Platform and twisted Catholic Social Teaching to justify it.

I suppose we're all guilty, from time to time, of such twisting of our faith. However, that's why we have others to point these things out to us. The Bishops and hundreds of other faithful Catholics of all political persuasions have raised their voices to tell Catholic Republicans in Congress not to follow this line of politics. So, I hope they're going to give it a listen and change their tune accordingly.

Below is a letter from faculty at Georgetown University to Rep. Ryan regarding his misinterpretation of Catholic Social Teaching. I'm also including some other links on the topic. I'll stop posting about this budget now, I promise.

More information on the Ryan Budget here and a really good commentary here.

GeorgetownLettertoRep.PaulRyan

The Ryan Budget, The Bishops and the Bigger Picture

The Huffington Post has an article about John Boehner's recent dismissal of the concerns of many Catholics, specifically the US Bishops Conference, surrounding the House budget, proposed by Paul Ryan. Both Ryan and Boehner are Catholic and have been open about the fact that their faith influences their decisions as lawmakers.

For review, it proposes that the federal government spend $5.3 trillion dollars less over 10 years than we would with the current budget relatively unchanged . That's a lot of money (for some perspective, check out this illustration). The savings comes entirely from non-defense spending. In fact, it asks for an increase of $200 Billion in defense spending. Of the 5.3 trillion, 3.3 trillion (that's 62%) comes from cuts to programs we can describe as aid for low-income people. They include food stamps, medicaid and financial assistance for low-income college students. Given this, it is no exaggeration to say that the Ryan Budget disproportionately targets the poor and needy as unnecessary governmental investments.

Honestly, I don't have much of anything to add to the conversation surrounding the proposed budget, other than to add my voice to the mix. So, let me say it: it is ridiculous to cut aid to the poor and sick without asking the well-off to make any additional sacrifices at all. Actually, many corporations and wealthy individuals will find  lower tax rates. This is all, sad to say, something I expect from the Republican party, a case of backwards priorities.

What's different, however,  is that Rep. Ryan has had the audacity to appeal to Catholic Social Teaching as the inspiration for his plan. This dynamic is further exacerbated by the public disapproval of the Bishops, followed by Speaker Boehner's blunt dismissal of their concerns.

Catholic priorities, articulated by both the Institutional Church and in evidence through the Church's history, have always began with assistance for the vulnerable. Further, the Church expects government to use its resources effectively to protect and nourish the worst-off in the nation. This principle and expectation explains the vocal opposition to legalized abortion, the death penalty and euthanasia. This same set of values, a preferential option for the poor and vulnerable in Catholic-speak, demands a budget that whole-heartedly supports services for the poor.

From where I sit, lawmakers who prioritize corporations and wealthy individuals so blatantly are, at best, fooling themselves and, at worst, intentionally favoring the powerful over the voiceless.

Anyone who hasn't heard, open your ears! While Republicans claim to value life above all, they refuse to use the government to protect anyone but the unborn and the well-off. Further, this budget proves that, when there are "tough choices" the poor lose where bombs, fighter jets and the companies that make them win.

Jesus told us that we will always have the poor. He also told us to be with him while we could. In Matthew he drives the point home by telling us exactly where his is: with the hungry, naked, imprisoned and sick. Now, who knows whether this budget will become law. But, we must live as people both of direct action and political power. We must take care of the needs of the poor through charities and non-profits but we must also ask for help on their behalf, finding ways to empower businesses to hire people and maintain assistance for those who will go hungry without it.

Embodying the Prophets

Dr. Walter Brueggemann

Last weekend, I had to opportunity to see Dr. Walter Brueggemann present at The Justice Conference. We read one of his books in my Old Testament Prophets class at Notre Dame, one of his most famous works, The Prophetic Imagination. Hearing him speak brought all the memories and themes of my Prophets class back like a flash flood. I was overwhelmed by how passionate and articulate (not to mention charming and good-natured) he was. He also elegantly connected the message of the Prophets to the message and person of Jesus. Further, he found clear ways to apply that message to our lives, both as a society and as individuals.

For now, I really just want to report on some of the insights he shared with that room of 2000, mostly Evangelical Christian, people.

First, he dove into 5 words in the book of Hosea God uses to describe his love for his people. Steadfast love, righteousness, justice, compassion and self-giving love. These words are all rough synonyms for the kind of fidelity God pleges to Israel, comparing himself to a spouse.

He emphasized that God's love is described as a 'gut-wrenching' kind of love in both Hebrew and Greek. It made me remember that the word for compassion used in the Magnificat in Luke is related to the word for entrails. For God, love is visceral, intense. It requires a response.

His response? Jesus. I was so taken with the way Brueggemann described Jesus as the literal embodiment of God's love and promises made in the prophets. He drove his point home by reminding us of one of John the Baptist's communications with Jesus: "Are you the one who was to come...?" His followers asked Jesus. Brueggemann noted that Jesus, rather than giving a straight answer, he describes what he's seeing: "The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear... the poor have Good News proclaimed to them."

Brueggemann's idea is that Jesus wasn't just being enigmatic, but that he was saying, "Look, I don't know any better than you, but wherever I go, the stuff the prophets said comes true." Jesus knew that gut-wrenching compassion and he couldn't help but do something about it! He became a radical conduit of love and healing for the world.

The conclusion? We must seek to love in a visceral, gut-wrenching way, like Jesus did by His own nature. Such love will always prompt action, will always lead us to heal and to proclaim good news. It is our response to God's gift of fidelity to us.

Simply Living

So, I'm finally living more simply.

Since I was 20 and spent a summer at a lay Catholic agricultural community I have talked and thought about 'simple living' a lot. Let's define it as this infectious idea that happiness and justice will come when we get rid of all our stuff and focus on God and each other. It's an idea that's truly scriptural. "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." Jesus focused on his disciples and his ministry in such a complete way that he didn't seem to own really anything but the shirt on his back and the sandals on his feet. Many of the Saints after him, from St. Paul to St. Martin Francis of Assisi to Servant of God Dorothy Day, continue this example for us, helping us to see what it might mean in our time and place. They do everything from giving up wages and living on the road to refusing to touch money to opening up a house where nearly everything is owned by everyone who walks in the door.

Now, we could get into questions of extreme simplicity and unhealthy self-deprivation. And, I probably will delve into my interpretation of such scriptural and hagiographal examples at a later time. For now, let's just say that today many of these examples translate into recognizable efforts at intentionally saving money, space and energy. There's a lot of canning and gardening and buying used items. You'll find people who've thrown out their TVs and still use the most basic cell phones on the market. They knit their own socks and blankets and compost whatever they can. They get rid of many of the luxuries we come to expect in favor of doing things themselves, getting closer to the earth and spending more quality time with others and God. For years, I've been totally down with this idea. It seems to me to be good for us as individuals, good for communities and good for the environment.

I never truly made much progress in that arena on my own- I own a car, have some debt, a smartphone, a blu-ray player, tons of kitchen stuff, a spare bedroom, a nice laptop... a lot of things that make my life complicated all the time. However, now that I am married and working only a 12 hours a week, there are many ways in which I'm living more simply than ever. This is not, unfortunately, completely by choice. We simply can't afford to buy all of the distractions in which we might otherwise indulge.

We both love traveling and going out to eat. Since I was probably 18 I'd taken for granted the ability to travel a lot and go out to eat multiple times a week. On a budget like ours, those days are no more! I'm learning all kinds of new recipes, just to ensure that there's plenty of variety at dinner. I'm drinking hardly any beer (and, when I do, it's usually beer I've made). And when we go out, we stick close to home, getting to know all the nooks and crannies of Northwestern Oregon. Soon enough, we'll be composting and gardening to conserve even more money.

When we're not worried about how to pay the bills, it's actually pretty nice. I find I love riding the bus; a trip down Martin Luther King Ave in East Portland is about as much of an education for me as many of my classes at Amherst were. The highlights of my day now include cooking for Angie, curling up beside her on the couch with a book and playing with our two cats. They are, I admit, simple pleasures. But they are things that draw me closer to her and to my surroundings. If I drive myself to work, I'm as likely to arrive there angry and anxious as not. But, I've never gotten road rage on the bus. Much of what remains is mostly distraction- Hulu and Netflix and Amazon Prime, smartphones and iPods. It all makes it easier for me to tune out the problems both within myself and the world around me, numbs the pain a bit. If I'm distracted, I'm also out of touch and useless to myself and to the world around me.

Living simply, even if starts as a necessity, saves us from some unnecessary frustrations and focuses us on the people and things around us, which tend to be the people and things that are most real, that need us the most.

I hope to continue a trend toward living more simply, even in the future when paying the bills is a bit easier (hopefully soon). Let it show me how to be more loving at all times.

Voting Democrat

Now, given the choices in our political process, I nearly always vote for the Democrat. I'm never really 100% sure whether it's the right thing to do.

For some Christians it's cut-and-dry: Does the politician support Abortion rights? If yes, no votes. If no, then it might be okay to vote for her. If only I were able to think this way! My political life would be somewhat easier, at least my choice of candidates would be. I would feel less pain when submitting my ballot.

But, for better or for worse, I vote for the politician whose policies I deem to be more protective of the overall common good and, I'm ashamed to admit, can get a little utilitarian in the process. I had 8 years of a 'pro-life' president through my most politically formative years. Abortion was legal at the beginning of his administration and remained so by the end, though instances of abortion may have dropped in the early 2000s. The Morning After Pill, which seems to be an abortifacient, was introduced and legalized. A culture of war and fear grew. Economic inequality widened. If abortion law wasn't going to effectively change under a Republican president or congress, then why put up with all the other garbage they bring along?

But, sometimes, in the face of millions of unnecessary deaths caused by abortion, these things seem small- too small. Sometimes, I lie awake at night and think of how I'm not using my vote to send a message to the Democratic party. Am I trading support of unions, minimum wage, health care access, international peace and good diplomacy for the lives of the unborn? Would voting republican be more consistent with my conviction that life begins at conception?

A pro-life candidate who considers food stamps and welfare for single mothers to be an enabling handout is not helping the pro-life cause. Someone who truly believes that the Marketplace will somehow magically strengthen the moral and economic power of poor families needs to remember the industrial revolution, child labor, sweat shops and 7-day work weeks. Abortion is, in part, a response to the incredible suffering and hopelessness caused by economic and social injustice. It is also rooted in a sick view of sexuality and human life, one that is not helped by examples of philandering politicians, warmongering, the death penalty or victim-blaming.

In my view, neither party offers a cure for the sickness of abortion. On one hand, I see a party that wishes to prohibit Abortion but deny that families need help from a government. On the other, I see a party that wants to take concrete and direct action to create a more peaceful and just society but leave the definition of life up to  the individual. Do I vote for the hope of systemic change or for the hope of prohibition?

In the end, my answer is to look at the larger picture- single-issue voting just doesn't sit well in my heart, although if I were to vote with the Single Issue in mind, my choice would be simple. Perhaps one day I will.

Guide us, Lord, to an end to legal abortion and raise up more progressives who support its prohibition. Amen.