A Deo et Rege

My first contribution on Benedict XVI’s newest encyclical to the Per Christum blog Spe Salvi roundtable:
As I read through the Holy Father’s recent encyclical, my thoughts kept returning to the connection between hope and humility. Benedict consistently contrasts the philosophers, scientists, and activists who want to build the kingdom of God through technology and human progress with the humble saints of the Church who succeeded, in their lives and in their deaths, as a witness to the real meaning of hope. Outcasts know hopelessness so well that they are uniquely disposed to zealously embrace hope and just as eagerly share it with the world. Even those who are in positions of power and wealth and status need hope too, as Benedict points out, but it requires us to recognize that we are “living without hope and without God in the world.” Sometimes those of us who are rich or even “comfortable” have just the right number of toys, institutional affiliations, and reasons for optimism that we can put aside that nagging voice telling us that maybe something greater exists: the love of God and the coming of a life that is “truly” life. This is the great hope that we have as Christians, but are we humble enough to truly embrace it?

This blog has essentially been inactive for several reasons: work, classes, and general family commitments. It’s not that there hasn’t been time as much as there haven’t been creative ideas. Advent begins this evening and what a perfect season in which to simply slow down and find fertile intellectual and spiritual ground where ideas can grow.

As of September 14th, the old mass is now available to all Catholics around the world, regardless (in theory anyway) of intransigent bishops, aghast DRE’s, and outraged professional liturgists. And for all those in the media and diocesan newspapers who insist on saying so, this is not about Latin. It’s about tradition, continuity, and a restoration of a “something” that was lost following Vatican II. I’ve never been one to advocate for the Latin mass. And, I think Vatican II, at least in the letter, was a necessary and important council. However, following its implementation, a reform of the reform is definitely needed. And I believe this motu proprio is a good step in preserving the Church’s wonderful heritage for future generations.

The Tories in Great Britain, recognizing the spiraling cost of healthcare suggest that the obese and smokers be denied treatment until they clean up their act. They suggest giving incentives, similar to frequent flier miles, for those who have or develop healthy lifestyles. This news coincides with a CNN story that focuses on two businesses that save money by either penalizing those with unhealthy lifestyles in the form of higher insurance premiums or rewarding those who are healthy with lower out of pocket costs. The firm that practices the rewards saw no premium increase when the average firm saw the prices rise by 8.8%.

My thoughts? The Tory plan has some merit, but it would have to be implemented in a somewhat forgiving manner, at least at the start. The plan of penalizing or rewarding an employee financially sounds great. A healthy person should not have to pay more to cover people who show an indifference to health. I’ll bet some habits will change when the wallet thins.

1. The first Ohio State football game of the year

2. Starbucks starts selling “pumpkin spice” frappuccinos and lattes.

The Jesuit run Creighton University is creating headaches for the archdiocese of Nebraska. The school is promoting speakers with views that run very counter to Catholic morality and has theologians that contradict Church teaching. Universities have the job of teaching students and also allowing open academic debate. Catholic universities have this job in addition to promoting Catholic theology and spirituality. Other Catholic universities have found a balance between open debate and faithfulness to the Church, so I’m sure the many Jesuit run institutions can as well. The question remains: do they want to?

Two Australian Catholic bishops are making calls for a “new” Church. The first one, Geoffery Robinson, wants to change Church teaching on Papal authority and sexuality (in other words the Pope won’t let people “have any fun”). The other, Pat Powers, wants to have a discussion on ending celibacy and ordaining women. Bishop Powers claims the laity want these changes. I’m sure many do. It’s times like this that I’m grateful the Catholic Church is not a democracy and that there are higher authorities than chattering laity and also checks and balances against aging bishops. Mind you, I’m not against having an honest discussion on these issues. I’m convinced that sound Catholic theology based on Scripture and tradition would easily win the day. However, in all my years of theological training and practice, “having a discussion” usually means “keep listening until you see it my way.” The Church does not need that kind of discussion.

Most of you probably thought this was an Episcopalian, huh? The conservative Anglicans among us can breathe a little easier. This utterly mistaken man who believes we can achieve better relations with Muslims by calling God “Allah” is actually a Catholic bishop in the Netherlands. His goal of achieving peace between religions is laudable, but I disagree with this method. His argument that Catholic liturgies regularly use “Allah” for God is also not convincing since in those places he lists, referring to God as “Allah” is culturally and linguistically proper. Calling God “Allah” in a Western country is totally foreign and has very non-Christian connotations. If we want to have dialogue between Catholics and Muslims, we can start by better understanding and engaging each other, not by changing our traditions to suit ecumenical pipe dreams.

President Bush’s new war adviser says that the USA should consider the draft. This means that men and women (yes, thanks to feminism, women will be certainly eligible for the next draft) in their late teens and early twenties could be called upon to fight for the USA or to serve in other capacities. As a teacher and new father it saddens and angers me to read this. However, as long as leaders in both parties continue to insist that the USA is the world’s policemen, there must be bodies to do the policing. I hope our President and Congress choose peace and reality in their foreign policy decisions rather than perpetual war and the inevitable draft that comes from it.

Now that the presidential primaries are near (at least by campaigning standards), one issue that frequently arises is health care. The media presents touching stories of average people angry or sad because they and their families do not have health insurance. The solutions range from universal insurance to more capitalistic plans like requiring families to buy basic health insurance. I think that most of these solutions miss the point about the high cost of health care and insurance. Health care is a commodity like anything else and subject to the laws of the market. If demand for health care is extremely high, then the cost is going to go up. If the insurance companies pay out a ton of cash to cover those who buy their policies, the premiums will rise. The current solutions all focus on getting more people insured rather than reducing demand in health care, which is kind of like saying the government should pay to fill up people’s tanks since oil prices are so high. I’ve been uninsured and had trouble with less insurance than I needed. So, I understand. I also recognize that short term solutions will require that we find ways to insure the uninsured. However, ultimately, health care costs and insurance premiums can only be reduced by reducing how much we use the health care system. Here are a few ways I want to discuss (based loosely on this article ):

1) Prevention- many diseases are completely preventable through adjustment in diet and activity; the odds of getting others can be greatly reduced in the same way. If Americans made healthy food choices, kept near their healthy weights (I’m talking health here, not looks), and followed even minimal fitness guidelines, health care costs and insurance premiums would probably be greatly reduced. A recent estimate predicts that 75% of Americans will be overweight by 2015. That doesn’t bode well for health care costs.

2) Reduce risky behaviors- Riding motorcycles without helmets. Not wearing seat belts. Smoking. Doing illegal drugs. All of these increase the chance of serious medical problems and even death and they raise the cost of health care for everyone. I’m fairly libertarian, so I’m not necessarily arguing for banning all these activities. However, individuals engaging in these activities should definitely pay more for their insurance premiums. I feel the same way about obese people. Even though it would affect people I love, they must bear more of the cost. If people have to pay more, then they would be more likely to stop the risky and unhealthy behavior. Money talks.

3) Self-Management- Americans view health insurance as free medical care, not something to be used as “insurance” when we get sick. If our otherwise healthy kids have a sniffle, it’s off to the doctor. If we are sore from working out, it’s time to visit doc. That small patch of poison ivy? Better not risk it. Call the doctor. Doctors are great, but they are not needed for everything. For example, there still is no cure for the common cold or the flu. For cases other than kids, elderly, and frail adults, all doctors can do is tell you that you need to rest and drink liquids. If the insurance company has to pay for a doctor’s visit to hear that and to pay for the antibiotics he wrongly prescribes to get you off his back, premiums will eventually go up. If we can use OTC medications, vitamin supplements, diet and exercise to treat an ailment, we should be obligated (morally) to do so.

These are just a few of my thoughts on health care. I now wait for the politician who’s willing to say to the people “you’re too damn fat, too damn immature, and too damn quick to visit the doctor. If you want more people insured and lower premiums, take some personal responsibility!” Ok, that last line was somewhat tongue in cheek. Still, I’d like our leaders to
address the underlying issues of our country’s crisis (even if not full blown yet) in health care.

I saw Tommy Makem in concert two years ago and loved it. In addition to playing great music, he was an all around entertainer, cracking jokes and telling stories. I was supposed to see him in concert again yesterday at the Dublin (Ohio) Irish Festival and imagine my shock when I visited their website on Thursday and noticed his concert had been changed to a “Tribute to Tommy Makem.” The tribute was well done with some great memories and renditions. However, it wasn’t the same without Tommy there. He will be sorely missed. Some of my favorite Makem songs include Red is the Rose, Willie McBride, Four Green Fields, and Bread and Fishes. I’ll leave you with a quote from the latter:

Sadly, I left them, in an old country lane
For I knew that I never would see them again
One was an old man, the second a maid
And the third was a young boy who smiled as he said:

We’ve the wind in the willows, and the birds in the sky
We’ve a bright sun to warm us, where ever we lie
We have bread and fishes and a jug of red wine
To share on our journey with all of mankind

Eternal rest grant unto him O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.

The Catechism notes that pride is a “capital” sin, meaning that it leads to other sin and vices (1866). I discovered this last week in the liturgy of the Word during the Sunday mass when I realized how lax I had become in listening to and focusing on the Scripture readings. I have a Masters degree in theology and have read the Bible and Bible commentaries numerous times; I even teach Scripture. Consequently, I’ve found myself drifting during the readings in the mass because I already “knew the stories” and with great pride, even if subconsciously, felt I had little more to learn. This approach may work if the Bible is simply great literature, but it is so much more. The Catechism notes:

In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”. “In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. (104)

and

And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life. (131)

These amazing words from the Church certainly don’t describe my recent experiences during the mass. The Catechism describes the reading and hearing of Scripture as a conversation with God. I, on the other hand, felt that since I had studied the texts in depth, I had no need for further conversation. I had shut off the working of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures in my life because I had a theology degree. Rather than becoming food for the soul and a source of my spiritual life, Scripture had become an academic exercise, something I knew of, but had little impact in my life. I certainly believe in the academic study of the Bible, but it must always be in concert with the truth that the Bible is the book of the Church and her members.

Fortunately, as Catholics, we are confronted with the Bible every single week. The Word of God is sharper than a two edged sword and it can cut through any level of pride or whatever else gets in the way of receiving the grace God wants to give us through the Bible. Each week God is talking to us through the Scriptures. What hinders us from listening?

I am finally a homeowner! Of course, it also means I have to wait for Time Warner to come out with the internet! So, as of today, I will finally be posting again.

Tom Hunt tells of his conversion to the Catholic Church. I always enjoy conversion stories because they give insight into the diverse reasons why people choose Catholicism. I especially liked Tom’s story because it’s very similar to mine: evangelical background, seeking in an academic context, discovery of the Church Fathers, admiration for JPII, defending Catholicism, and more.

Honestly, it made me a bit sentimental.

The story of convicted and incarcerated border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean reminds why I support limited government and taking power away from bureaucrats. You can read their story here. I’ve not said anything about their story yet because frankly there are some issues. Did Ramos and Compean do everything right in their encounter with Mexican criminals? No, they didn’t. However, I don’t think that justifies the excessive prosecution and sentence. They had been in a struggle with a criminal, shots had been fired, and they were in pursuit of criminals. In that situation, following every procedure could be difficult. I’m not arguing they shouldn’t have received a reprimand or something, but 11 and 12 years in prison?

I am most bothered by two points in this case: granting immunity to a Mexican drug trafficker for testimony against Ramos and Compean and misapplying a federal law. First, the government put up a Mexican drug trafficker in a local hospital and gave him immunity to testify against the two border agents. Why is our government going after our own citizens who risk their lives and giving immunity to a guy bringing drugs to our streets? It boggles the mind. Second, the federal law in question, which accounts for most of the sentence of Ramos and Compean, shouldn’t even apply to their case. Recently liberal California senator Diane Feinstein argued as much, even asking President Bush to commute the sentences of the border agents. Other Congressmen agree with Feinstein and also have appealed to President Bush for commutation or a pardon.

And yet, Bush says he is not going to use his authority to free these guys. California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican, said this about Bush’s refusal to commute the sentences of Ramos and Compean: “I think it has a lot to do with an attitude in this administration that refuses to admit any mistakes and protects its own clique but nobody else.” Well said Congressman.

So, I hope, along with a bipartisan group of Congressmen, that Ramos and Compean are freed immediately. Should they face some internal disciplinary action? Perhaps. But the response shouldn’t be a prison sentence based on giving immunity to a drug dealer and misapplying a federal law. The ball is in Bush’s court, but I’m not hopeful.