Thursday, June 19, 2008

USCCP -- United States Conference of Catholic People

Bottom of Form

In the fall of 2002, when I was jumping in to write about the  Church, I got upset at the alphabet soup of lay people activity. There were so many groups: ARCC, CTA, VOTF, et al. But, there was no spokes-group or -person for the laity. In a frustrated mood, I wrote a piece later on March 25, 2005, about starting up a United States Conference of Catholic People – USCCP. It was to be fashioned on the USCCB. I even wanted USCCP to have its offices in the same building with USCCB in Washington. We the people would pay for it, because we were already paying for the USCCB.  And we the people would have a central office, in which all the alphabits could find a home and start talking to each other and working together. It would be one powerful organization, the USCCP would. For, then, the Sensus Fidelium would have its own platform from which to vitalize and make real The Magisterium itself, of which it is an essential partner.  The piece written then went on and on, as is usual for me.

That article was in a former blog, Paul of Pine Point, and I am re-postging here in this blog, because VOTF had just called for a National Peoples Synod, and that has awakened that old dream. We the people need to come together in a central place under a central umbrella, to shelter our national spokespersons and feature writers. I think the USCCB would sit up and say "Welcome, People, we were hoping you would come join us. We need you so much." A dream? Perhaps. But so was Christianity when Jesus spoke in parables. The People's Synod looks exciting, the perfect vehicle in which we can all fit to travel together and rebuild our Church. It may or may not evolve into a USCCP, but it will surely bring us together. And even the USCCB will listen up. And then we become a genuine Church, people and clergy, clerical and lay. We might even succeed in abrogating the adjective "Roman" before "Catholic," so that we have an authentic Catholic Church.

First, then, the VOTF announcement received today:


People's Synod

By Susan Vogt

Periodically, Popes call Vatican Councils and Bishops call Diocesan Synods. Sometimes the voices of lay people are heard through these forums but too often it is a gathering of church professionals and clerics with a tightly orchestrated agenda and predetermined outcomes. It is a breath of fresh air when this doesn't happen (like Vatican Council II) but that was over 40 years ago. The time has come for a different kind of council – a people's synod. This is consistent with VOTF's philosophy of being a vehicle for the voices of the faithful and working toward common ground together.

A national gathering of Catholics has also been on the minds of many Catholic organizations  for awhile and VOTF has taken the role of midwife. Thus, a National People's Synod
a
potentially transformative project for the Church in the U.S. – is ready to launch. Although we are walking into an unknown future, one thing we do know is that a synod will happen best if it is not solely a VOTF project but rather a collaborative partnership with the support of a wide spectrum of Catholic leaders and organizations.

We are, therefore, now at the point of transitioning from a VOTF planning committee to forming the Synod Planning Partnership (SPP). VOTF will be the convener, but it is time for us to join our energy with that of other national groups. Don't get too attached to these initials, however, since we've also played around with calling it a National People's Council (a la Vatican II). The newly formed Planning Partnership will make the final call on the name and all accompanying logistical decisions.

So who will make up the Synod Planning Partnership? It will be 25 prominent Catholics and/or their organizations who are willing to put time into making this dream a reality. The date and location of the Synod are tentative although we are aiming for 2010-2011 in a large Midwestern city with proximity to an international airport and facilities large enough to accommodate the numbers we are looking to attend.

Guiding principles of the synod are:

  • In the spirit of Vatican II we want to renew the Church through adding many voices to the decision making process.
  • VOTF will act as a catalyst to convene other groups which, together with VOTF, will prompt those who care about the future of our Church to plan and participate in this history making movement within the Church.
  • It will afford time and opportunity for the Spirit, to define our role in renewal.
  • The foundation of such a gathering will be respect, including assenting and dissenting voices, in the belief that truth emerges when all sides of an issue are explored and different perspectives are represented.
  • An atmosphere of co-ownership and responsibility.

A challenge and a goal of the synod will be to bring together a broad spectrum of Catholics and to really listen to their concerns and ideas for reinvigorating the Church we love. Given this listening, we trust that strategies and actions will evolve to move us closer to the church Jesus inspired. Over 25 Planning Partners have been invited and we are in the process of finalizing the Partnership. Stay tuned for ongoing progress.

++++++++++

And now the article on USCCP

Paul of Pine Point


To engage the future of the Church in the 21st Century.

Friday, March 25, 2005

The USCCP

The Roundtable and Other Groups

On March 14, The National Leadership Roundtable On Church Management released its Final Report as the launching of a new group of lay persons, religious, clergy and hierarchy, to render assistance to the church.
The web site for the NLRCM is http://www.nlrcm.org.
The 88 page report is available at: http://www.nlrcm.org/pdf/Final%20Report.pdf
For the last three years, many groups of Catholics have been hard at work to help those harmed by the sexual abuse of minors by some deviant Catholic priests, aided and abetted by some covering-up bishops, and to make sure that such crimes against humanity never happen again.
These groups are many. ARCC, CTA, Survivors First, Future Church, VOTF, SNAP, BishopAccountability, CORPUS, CITI, and so many, many others. Many of them are banned and barred from church property. Some CTA people have been formally excommunicated. The most accurate term for depicting the relationship of those groups to those bishops is Polarization. A few have called it The Roman Church Civil War.

A Stalemate of Silence
The bishops of those dioceses have decreed A Stalemate of Silence to the repeated request from those groups for dialogue in this time of perhaps the most serious crisis in the history of the Roman church.
The bishops will not talk, despite the exhortations of a dying Pope to his priests and bishops throughout Christendom. Here are a few words from the spokesman, Cardinal Hummes. Why do American bishops ignore these words in their hostile treatment of their own people?

Dialogue Seen as a Tool of Church's Service
Cardinal Hummes Addresses Congress on "Gaudium et Spes"
VATICAN CITY, MARCH 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).-

The Church must constantly exercise dialogue in its commitment to serve people and protect their fundamental rights, says Cardinal Claudio Hummes. . . .

The prelate spoke of the Church's role in relation to the world, expressed in "a dialogue with courage -- open, frank, sensible and humble. A dialogue with contemporary man, with human reason, the sciences, the progress in biotechnology, with philosophies and cultures, with politics and economics, with everything that refers to social justice, human rights, solidarity with the poor. A dialogue with the whole of society and its segments." . . .

"The Church supports and favors all the present efforts to seek the full development of the personality of every human being and to promote his fundamental rights, dignity and freedom," said Cardinal Hummes.

Our bishops gave no heed to these words, but they seek relief in the courts, against the charges being made for their mismanagement of church affairs. It is as if they and their institution were corporations and citizens of the states and country, where they have long reigned as entities above the law. They refuse to release information about who and where the predator priests are, even today. Our children, thousands upon thousands, over 100,000 in some estimates, were and still are at risk. The bishops seem not to care.

Bishops and Knights of the Roundtable
There is only one thing about which the bishops of America do care, and with ferocity: The Roman Church, the institutional church. Each one of the bishops has taken an oath never to break secrecy lest scandal or harm come to the church. Truly, Omerta! The institution is more important than the people, be they little children or any of the non-ordained.
And yet and yet, it now appears that bishops have talked and will continue to talk to a high-powered group of 225 leaders from investment banking, the corporate world, professions, and other successful business persons in America. It is The Roundtable—NLRCM. The banned and barred lay groups are wondering where they got the clout and why the bishops chose to dialogue with them.
A friend wrote on reading info from John Moynihan of the VOTF National Representative Council

". . . it seems that this group is accomplishing in a very short period of time all that we have been working towards . . . [T]his self described group of "influential" people has caught the attention of even the most reluctant bishop. Where do we go from here? Is the Roundtable group now taking the lead?"

Questions worth asking and deserving an answer, not only from the NLRCM but also from the USCCB. These prompted more:

• What's the big secret?
• What's happening?
• Who is taking our church somewhere?
• Why are we being told two years after the bankers and the bishops started their private dialogue?
• Will the USCCB grant formal recognition of the NLRCM at the June meeting this year?
• Are any members of the NLRCM also members of a lay group which is currently banned and barred and standing?
• How come the bishops are talking with you?
• Is the NLRCM aware that we People are standing still in A Stalemate of Silence, yet trying to realize that we may have to Toss the Gantlet that we will go it alone as the People of God sanctioned by Vatican II?

Can Grown-Ups Make A Tree Out Of Splinters?
For two and a half years now, suggestions have been urged, that lay organizations should think about bringing all their groups together, so as to speak with one voice.
The Roundtable, nicer sounding than the forbidding acronym of NLRCM, pronounced reverently as Enn-el-er-see-um, made its announcement just two weeks ago. It was obvious that those people got together, and with the clout they have, got bishops interested. While nobody has said yet that they have episcopal approval, it looks as if their group is going to be considered at the June meeting of the USCCB.
The program they offer is astounding. Were any of us to make a similar announcement, we would be instantly dismissed as wallowing in dissidence and usurping authority. The Knights of the Roundtable seem to have avoided that. Perhaps we should have named ourselves something with a Camelot in the title. Instead we came out as VOTF, SNAP, ARCC, CORPUS, CTA, pronounced, in snarls, as Vote-uff, Sh-nap, Arc or Arch, Core-poose, and See-tee- yeah!
Each one out loud is better than USCCB – Us-ku-ka-bub. Surely better than the one I will shortly propose: USCCP – Us-ku-ka-pee.

Roundtable and Us -- Dialogue or Silence?
Leaders of our groups ought to be asked, whether we should get in touch with Roundtable, or they with us. They might prefer to stay self-contained, like the Jesuits, especially when they started up in 1540, almost as a personal prelature of Pope Paul III, or Opus Dei, actually a personal prelature of Pope John Paul II.
The Roundtable is intent on solidifying their relationship with the USCCB in June, and from the looks of their 88 page report, will go it alone. Not sure yet, if they will be puppets of the bishops, or friends, advisors, perhaps even equals in every respect. Unlike the National Lay Review Board, selected by the USCCB, it looks as if the Roundtable selected the USCCB.
Common sense suggests that there were a few bishops as pretty good client/investors, or moles within investment banking, With the number of people disclosed so far in Roundtable, the quality of their reputations in business, schools, professions, their obvious success and know how, it's easy to see how they have come so far in such a short time. They know how to operate in marble halls and the corridors of power.
The Knights are successful people, as America judges success: Their demeanor and vestments manifest wealth and power. They could be called, pardon the pun, Lay Bishops. They are definitely not from our common herd. You might see them after Mass on Sunday; they're the ones shaking hands with a beaming celebrant, deeply pleased they waited to say, "Nice homily, Father." Perhaps, they usually attend a bishop's Mass, in the Cathedral or private chapels.
One account did say that a bishop was pretty noncommittal about them, his reserve indicating that they may not be granted favored treatment by the USCCB, on the age old shibboleth of absolute power, which is absolutely never to be delegated to any inferior.
Almost every bishop is prickly about his authority, except when the Pope or a Curial Cardinal treats him like the altar boy he actually is, notwithstanding his grey hair and the paunch, accompanying him as time wends into eternity. Wonder whether any bishop ever thinks of that Judgment Day prior to eternity. Common folk do, and they call it Conscience.

Dialogue -- Dialogue -- Dialogue
More information from Roundtable is needed. We should always be leery of contempt without examination. Intuition, though, may whisper: Why not go straight to the Roundtable leaders and ask them, "What's up? Are you people going to go it alone. Do you have any interest in rounding up all the lay groups and bringing them into one tent? Would you prefer that we stay out of your way?"
We might, I suppose, ask the bishops, but that would probably engender more disdain, contempt, silence. Simon and Garfunkel could have written their immortal The Sounds of Silence, with us and the bishops in mind.

Hello darkness, my old friend, I've come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping, Left its seeds while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain,
Still remains, within the sound of silence.

In restless dreams I walked alone, Narrow streets of cobblestone,
'neath the halo of a street lamp, I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night, and touched the sound of silence.

And in the naked light I saw, Ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking, People hearing without listening,
People writing songs, that voices never share.
And no one dared, Disturb the sound of silence.

"Fools" said I, "You do not know, Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you, Take my arms that I might reach you."
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed, In the wells of silence

And the people bowed and prayed, To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning, In the words that it was forming.
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls." and whisper'd in the sounds of silence

The USCCP
That haunting song should be our hymn in The Stalemate of Silence, as we back off a bit from our relentless daily work, think, then pray, for a while, gather our collective breath, find a way to come together as one group for one People.
What would ever happen in and to the Catholic Church in America, were we to announce the formation of a new organization: The United States Conference of Catholic People?
The USCCP. With an office in trendy Washington, DC, an executive director or President, an educated and qualified staff. Funding is no problem. Just change the name of The Bishop's Appeal to The People's Appeal. There are 67 million of us, at $0.10 per person, for a total of $6,700,00. That's a start with clout. The kind that should awaken our American bishops to become aware of the simple reality that the days of absolute power are over.
For those concerned about underwriting the USCCP, ask just one question. Who underwrites the USCCB? The church does not earn money. It collects it. From us. Most Sundays now we have a series of Collections -- First, Second, Third. We support each of the 195 dioceses and each agency and parish and ministry within them. We do, in fact, pay for the entire Roman church in the United States, including the USCCB. When the money gets low, we are asked to donate more in Special Appeals. When that is gone, as it is now in three dioceses so far, they file for bankruptcy protection. It is exquisitely sad to hear the accusations that the blame for poor financial conditions is, believe it or not, due to the claims of the Survivors, the victims of ecclesiastical crimes. Jesus himself has promised to lay the blame on those who harmed the children, with a punishment far worse than a great millstone.
It's crazy that money talks, and bishops won't. And it seems like going down on their low level of silent disdain, when we threaten to withhold funds needed for the ministries of our church, particularly to the marginalized. We must never forget that our church does much good, truly helps those unable to help themselves, is based on and does live in the three great theological virtues: Faith, Hope, Love. How much better it would be to let the bishops become aware that that we will continue to support the church, provided funds are allocated to the establishment and maintenance of the USCCP.
If they refuse, or if the silence continues, then with the advice and consent of enough of the People to assure us we are on the correct way, we establish a National Trust Fund for a USCCP and donate our $0.10 per person there, while continuing to meet our obligations to the church, which is, of course, the People of God.
With the One Voice of the USCCP being heard, the dialogue can begin. Soon, the tyranny will end. No more brutality from: absolute power and its twin, absolute corruption; the feudal remnants of thralls in thralldom; authoritarian control of our lives and our minds and our hearts and our souls. Gone. All gone. It will be over. It will be all over. Inalienable rights and dignities will be honored not squelched. Together, we are the People of God and we are Church.

A Spiritual Guide On Splinters
Long ago in law school, we used to spend many afternoons with Father Tobin, officially the Spiritual Father for us students, actually a Jesuit elder allowed to relax a bit in pasture, well earned after years of managing the Science Department at B.C. and placing thousands of graduates in medical schools or doctorate programs in the sciences. As fledgling lawyers-to-be, we were blessed to have as our guide a humble Jesuit priest, who was also a genius and a saint.
One day we talked about Israel surrounded by Arab countries, with millions of men and boys ready to kill the heathen. We felt Israel was outnumbered and would be obliterated in the next all-out war. Fr. Tobin told us not to worry, explaining that the Israelites knew well that the hostile countries were little splinter groups, each one powerful and zealous, but so splintered there was no way they could ever come together and defeat Israel. That was 1957. It's 2005 now, and Israel is still here. It might even have a neighbor soon, a democracy exported mightily into the splinters.
The last few years have demonstrated that American bishops, as wise as Israelis, think the same way about us. We are so splintered. As the People, we do have a few standouts like Tom Doyle and friends; old-timers such as ARCC and CTA; a couple of strong, new groups in VOTF and SNAP; many skilled and moving writers in the new books coming out. But like the Arabs, we're splintered splinters. I don't even think we talk with each other, let alone with the bishops. We can, through a USCCP.

No Splinters When United In A Conference
The United States Conference of Catholic People -- USCCP -- will not only end the splintered weaknesses inherent in scattered groups, but it will also afford the People their proper place in the church as members. The USCCP will be equal to the USCCB, and People will be side by side with Priests and Hierarchy, without petty banning or barring, free from The Stalemate of Silence, all polarization abolished. We will all be living and breathing and walking and working together to engage the future of the American Catholic Church in the 21st century.
The groups -- ARCC, CORPUS, VOTF, just to name three -- will remain and grow in wisdom and grace, more easily dedicated to their precise missions. Those groups are like the numerous Orders and Congregations of Religious and Clergy -- Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans -- again a symbolic three, each with their unique missions.
The USCCP, as a counterpart to the USCCB, will speak for all of the 67,000,000 People. They now speak in a cacophony of splintered voices. They should have the timbre and clarity and resonance of One Voice. They have received the Faith That Dares To Speak. With the USCCP, they will find and claim the courage and humility to stand and speak. And be heard.
When that One Voice speaks, no bishop will dare to pout in A Stalemate of Silence. When that One Voice speaks, the process for accountability will begin for those bishops responsible for the cover-upping and criminal negligence and malfeasance in their overseeing duties. They will have to lay down their crooked Croziers and doff their two-faced Mitres. They will be called for an accounting. And they will be held accountable. When that One Voice speaks, the confessions will come, the amends will be made, and we will be the American Catholic Church.
Survivors and their families, friends and supporters will have hope that Justice will be rendered in this life, and their healing may continue in peace. Whether People or Bishop, we know well that another accounting is coming, the one reserved for each and every one of us, and in particular the one about the Great Millstones for those who have harmed a child. We cannot pass into the transition from this life to eternal life without standing for our personal Final Judgment. In that accounting, may we be judged with mercy. May we remember that mercy now, as we are judging others around us, particularly in their response to the Church's need for reformation and renewal in this 21st century.
In time, the USCCB and the USCCP will merge into the USCPG -- The United States Conference of the People of God. And we will be one, apostolic and holy.
May we imagine the Holy Spirit telling us,

"It could be done, you know, if you come together as equals, not as favored groups or prelatures. If you really become a Catholic Church. If you are the People of God."

Friday, June 13, 2008

You Can Go Home Again

Some readers know that Jean and I are going home tomorrow, despite Tom Wolfe's "You Can't Go Home Again." He also wrote, "Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died." And that one's not true, either. We lived in Manchester, NH, for almost forty years, raised our family of four sons there, and spent a good part of each year at Jean's family home, which her parents had bought in 1940. The Brown House on Sea Rose Lane, in Pine Point, Maine, where our front yard was Grand Beach, seven miles long.

We left New Hampshire in 1997 for our discovery of the West, settled in Fort Collins, Colorado, and worked for a company based at Lake Tahoe, California. It had offices in San Diego and Dover, NH, back where our roots were. We toured all the western states and criss-crossed America, from the Pacific to the Atlantic twelve times during the next four years. Indeed, our Great Adventure.

Retirement came in 2001. Our home in NH had been long sold. The one in Maine beckoned us full-time, and we stayed in sort of a gentile retirement, until taxes and our own wander-wonder-lust moved us on and out and back to – you guessed it, Colorado, that unique among states with three geologies. On the east, the High Plains, at 5,000 feet, nestled up against the foothills to the Rocky Mountains, known to Coloradans as The Front Range. This time we chose Longmont, about twenty miles south of Fort Collins where we had lived before. Longs Peak, 14,255 feet, is framed by our bedroom window. It is one of the 14-ers, those Rocky Mountains which exceed 14,000 feet. The Rockies are the second of the geologies, surging down through the middle of the state. The third is the Great Plateau, all the way west to the Sierras, through Utah and Nevada into California.

Easterners, particularly New Englanders, who do live in another of America's treasure lands, can never know the grandeur of the West, until they spend several years living here. It is magnificent. It is awesome. And it is hard to leave, even when going home.

In a blog recently, I wrote:

All the above sounds good, reads well. But, it is a close one. Like 9 - 7, in the bottom of the ninth, with two men on, two outs, and the slugger of the team at bat. The pitcher is tired. Or, it's 4th and 1 in the Super Bowl, the losing team on its own 45, 24 - 21, a few more yards for a field goal try, 30 seconds on the clock. But it could be what the ultras jeer it is: just pie in the sky, or Lucy in the sky with diamonds.

That eases the pain of leaving Colorado to be with our youngest grandchildren in Manchester, NH, ages 5 and 3, because the sports references show that we are going home to the sports capitol of the world. The Celtics came back last night from 20 points down to beat the Lakers 97 – 91. My home town of Boston hosts the Bruins and the Red Sox. All of New England claims the Patriots.

You Can Go Home Again.

As a farewell to one of the greatest of our 50, we spent a week with our oldest son in Dillon, smack square in the middle of Summit County in the heart of the Rockies. From there we went to the places which had taken our hearts: the Front Range, from Cheyenne, Wyoming, all the way down to Taos, New Mexico, and back up through the Sangre di Cristo mountains valley; a long awaited adventurous drive in our RAV4 on Trail Ridge Road, the highest paved road in the USA, around 12,000 feet – like Lake Tahoe, where we spent many working visits at the highest mountain lake in the USA, making our high points the highest on land and on water; to Leadville, an old mining town that looks like it used to be, though a bit touristy, not too much, at 10,150 feet; and the trip of trips yesterday due west out of Dillon and Frisco and Copper Mountain, west on I-70, to Glenwood Springs. The last part of that trip is through Glenwood Canyon, rivaling Emerald Bay in Lake Tahoe, as the most beautiful, inspiring places in this country of ours. When we get off the plane tomorrow, in Manchester,NH, at 4:22,pm, home after eleven years away, and back in the Merrimack Valley, we will always have our Great Adventure in the West deep in our remembery.

Imperial Impunity

It would seem in post-Nazism and post-coldwarism that a giant of democracy and a foremost proponent of the Rule of Law would show leadership to the world by how it protects and preserves humanity and decency and the fine art of jurisprudence, particularly in the way in which it deals with those accused and waiting for their day in court. The common folk call it "Due Process." Some in the legal profession, be they lawyer or judge, used to do so, too, but not now. No sham can be honored with the word "Due" in front of the word "Process."

Many of us who grew up as children in WWII, too young to be patriotic all the way and march in parades, sing songs of war and go off to Europe or Asia to defeat the enemy, as our older teenage brothers did, often heard stories of that enemy, hoping that their capture would be effected by American troops. Americans were kind, gave chocolate bars to kids, bartered cigarettes for silk stockings, laughed a lot, even though dirty, scummed with the mud of battle, weary, yet deadly in a firefight, awesome with power of machine and weapon that simply could not be beaten.

And, my God, they were brave, brave beyond the calculated assessment of the hardened, professional, battle-proven, best and bravest of Japan and Germany. They thought American kids off the streets and the farms were amateurs. And yet, and yet, as the war grew on and on, it became evident, even to us youngsters and our parents, awash as we were in daily propaganda Dr. Goebbels would have given his eye-teeth, both arms and eyes for, we poured out our instinctive respect and love for our troops.

I learned this after the war, in a scholastics' rec room in Tokyo, listening to Bob Arrowsmith tell stories of his paratrooper days in the Pacific theatre, and Franz Schaffenberger talk of Mass for the troops by a German Jesuit prior to the Battle of the Bulge. I sat there, 25 years old, staring at two men just a few years older than I, who had been there, done that, in the bloodiest war of history. I was touching courage and decency and honor in each of them. I knew, in the early years of my own adulthood, schooling done, that I would never understand "war."

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not glorifying war. War is hell. Period. But, down on the ground, up in the air, on the seas, it was not always fought by inhuman monsters. Nor were wars won by torture of captured enemies. Even in the slaughter of the innocents, as in modern warfare, with pattern bombing, submarine sinkings, Coventry, Nanking, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, there is something called human decency which forbids the torture and killing of those who fought against our troops and were captured when their side lost. I'm pretty sure it is accurate to say that America did not have Abu Ghraib prisons in WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Granada, the great wars in which we onlookers were no long kids too young to serve, but grown-ups, still swallowing the patent obfuscations of reality that our government sent out daily as the "gospel truth" about what is going on over there.

Today, our observations are those of the title in one of Thomas Merton's masterpieces – Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander. In our battle to squash Iraq, for a presidential emotive justification, or worse, a neoconical reason, and in those other skirmishes where we hope to wipe out the fanatics of Al Qaeda, we have "become accustomed to her face," the face of degrading, humiliating water boarding and plain, old-fashioned executions. Not by them. By us. And we Americans are demeaned. Democracy is but a buzz word. The Rule of Law was abrogated. We never noticed their passing.

All the above sounds good, reads well. But, it is a close one. Like 9 - 7, in the bottom of the ninth, with two men on, two outs, and the slugger of the team at bat. The pitcher is tired. Or, it's 4th and 1 in the Super Bowl, the losing team on its own 45, 24 - 21, a few more yards for a field goal try, 30 seconds on the clock. But it could be what the ultras jeer it is: just pie in the sky, or Lucy in the sky with diamonds. Because the United States Supreme Court's decision about the denial of Habeas Corpus to Guantanamo detainees was 5 – 4. The New York Times lead editorial on June 13, 2008 was "Justice 5, Brutality 4." That editorial is so insightful, that I copy it here below. The "Brutal Four" are Chief Justice Roberts, and his first team members, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito.

If you are concerned with my language, because you know I am a retired lawyer, know that I spoke this way when active in the practice of law. I do not like and fear Neocons, even if they wear judicial robes. Particularly, if they wear those robes in a court of last resort, which is the source of their Imperial Impunity. And I will so speak and write until I die, not even huffing that my opponents can then wrench the keyboard from my cold, dead hands, because I give it to one of my friends, who picks it up to go join the thousands of others whose keyboards tingle in tune together. We are being heard. We are being read. Time we should have been, but that's our own procrastination and apathy, isn't it? On which, they used to count and rely with Imperial Impunity.

May God preserve us from brutality, doing it rather than receiving it, for Jesus didn't duck the crucifixion at the high hands of Imperial Impunity and high priests who knew not what they were doing.

Also, and finally, a new phrase, you may have notice, has emerged to describe our country and its current administration: Imperial Impunity. That is why it's the title of this piece, thanks to its creator Tom Engelhardt, of TomDispatch at Truthout. The article in which it appeared is " 'E' for Expeditionary: One Man's Online Journey Through Bush's Alphabet Soup." At: http://www.truthout.org/article/one-mans-online-journey-through-bushs-alphabet-soup?print.

I think this acknowledgment is very important, because it is also a two-word description of the politics of the Vatican, its pope, its curia, and its cardinals, the top guns who are not accountable to anyone but God, so they say. We hope that is so, with great millstones biblically, but want basic responsibility from our leaders, based on tolerance, justice and accountability, now. Collegiality is no panacea, because the two Colleges – of Cardinals and of Bishops – have been selectively packed with look-alikes, walk-alikes, talk-alikes, one by one, since 1978, by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

That makes Bishop Geoffrey Robinson such a rarity that his own brothers must try to hush him up. So far, cardinalitial croziers and episcopal feet, dancing choreographically, are pounding sand.

Imperial Impunity is no Church.

++++++++++


June 13, 2008

Editorial

Justice 5, Brutality 4

For years, with the help of compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats in Congress, President Bush has denied the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency to the hundreds of men that he decided to label "unlawful enemy combatants" and throw into never-ending detention.

Twice the Supreme Court swatted back his imperial overreaching, and twice Congress helped Mr. Bush try to open a gaping loophole in the Constitution. On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge.

The court ruled that the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have that cherished right, and that the process for them to challenge their confinement is inadequate. It was a very good day for people who value freedom and abhor Mr. Bush's attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone.

The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Despite this, the Bush administration repeatedly tried to strip away habeas rights. First, it herded prisoners who were seized in Afghanistan, and in other foreign countries, into the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay and claimed that since the base is on foreign territory, the detainees' habeas cases could not be heard in the federal courts. In 2004, the court rejected that argument, ruling that Guantánamo, which is under American control, is effectively part of the United States.

In 2006, the court handed the administration another defeat, ruling that it had relied improperly on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to hold the detainees on Guantánamo without giving them habeas rights. Since then, Congress passed another law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that tried — and failed horribly — to fix the problems with the Detainee Treatment Act.

Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court has affirmed the detainees' habeas rights. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Military Commissions Act violates the Suspension Clause, by eliminating habeas corpus although the requirements of the Constitution — invasion or rebellion — do not exist.

The court ruled that the military tribunals that are hearing the detainees' cases — the administration's weak alternative to habeas proceedings in a federal court — are not an adequate substitute. The hearings cut back on basic due process protections, like the right to counsel and the right to present evidence of innocence.

It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as "most fundamentally a procedural right." Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such "generous" protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights.

There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year's presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.

[Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/opinion/13fri1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin]

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The Critical Issues To Save The Catholic Church Are Political Not Doctrinal

It has to be obvious that I am whelmed by the horror of the hierarch. It is obvious that I do not speak in the measured, detached tones of the appellate lawyer before the five justices of our New Hampshire Supreme Court, as was done so many times over 40 years of immersion in the river of jurisprudence. Professionals rarely emote. Jurisprudence itself is a discipline that cannot feel, but knows and finds clarity out of obfuscation.

Not too long ago, though, jurisprudence began to feel, when it stared at the crime of sexual abuse in which the perpetrator was a 30 year old man wearing a Roman collar and the female victim was  a six year old child, wearing nothing, her First Communion dress crumpled by her side. I knew emotion then, racking, raging, enormous, whelming. Our only granddaughter, Alayna, was 12. During the ensuing six years, my knowledge grew as did my emotions. Alayna  is 18, saved,  perhaps, because her father became an Evangelical Christian. Our new grandchildren are Seanna,  5 ½ years old, and her brother Ryan, 3.  As modern Catholic parents, since January 2002, their vigilance is constant, steady – well what better word? -- vigilant.

Keith, their father, is still a parishioner at St. Catherine Church, Manchester, NH, where he was baptized in 1962. He does not approve of my being whelmed and would rather see his father as the detached, professional litigator he used to be.  But, he has never once said, "Look, Pop, I'm their father. You're just a grandfather." Others have. And wished they hadn't. One pastor in Maine said to me, "Why so angry? It's not just priests, not just clergymen from other religions. It's pedophilia and is widespread. You are way over the top. Stop beating up on the Church. Looks like you've lost the Faith and are trying to cover up your own fault." I wrestled with that one for a long time. Cannot agree with him. It's impossible to deny my traditions, without which I am nothing.

In January of 2002, the secrecy of sexual abuse of minors was rent like the curtain of the temple when Jesus was crucified. Those of us who knew about it for decades – I was abused by a parish priest in my mid-teens, fended off advances made by a theol during villa – came to realize in the glare of salacious publicity that the secret was now out and in the open. Stunned into a roaring, raging silence, men like me, celibate for years as a seminarian, married for far more years with four children as emblems of our love, saw with a clarity that could rival private revelation that the issue was not sex. It was power. And we rose to take on the leaders of our Church.

The issues we raised were not  biology, ephebophilia, pedophilia, a hankering for boys rather than girls, the curse of celibacy overwhelming its blessings,  the "official teachings of the Church" on sex,  not even the natural law and sexual morality. We saw, as the excrement of absolute power, three issues:

  1. Intolerance  
  2. Injustice 
  3. Absence of accountability

We spoke out. We were for the most part ignored by Cardinals and Bishops, who were themselves vowed as it were in sacred silence and quite content to hang onto the absolutism of their power. A few clobbered back: banning, barring, locking parish hall doors, denouncing from the pulpit, thundering with judgmental judgments of mortal sins of  disobedience,  lack of respect, dissidence, heresy, and the worst of them all, refusal to bow down before their authority. Some were aghast. Most were terrified. And still are. Make no mistake. They are not incompetent opponents, nor are they weak, frightened men. They are afraid, yes, but for the horror of losing their power and perks, and not for loss of the Church.

Roman Catholic Hierarchs, approximately 4,850 total,  do not really care whether they rule absolutely over 1,200,000,000 people of God all over the world. They do care that those they rule over are absolutely subservient silently unto them, even if there are only a couple of hundred thousand Roman Catholics, and could probably be satisfied with a few ten thousand or so.  I don't know the average size of a diocese, but Portland ME, our last diocese is listed at 198,296
The Boston Archdiocese lists its population as of 2004, at 2,079,730.  Denver, in which I sit at this moment, is 407,500, while the good, old USA ranges from 67,515,016 to 76,900,000.

I think there are 195 dioceses with either a cardinal, archbishop or bishop as the Ordinary. There are a lot  more retired, yes, but all they do is hang around. They have absolute power, but are powerless. It is safe to say that 193 Ordinaries claim absolute power over approximately 77,000,000 Catholic human beings in America.  It is the power that feeds the lust, not the numbers of people who bow down. As a college football fan – a son coaches – the numbers amaze me. There are only 193 hierarchs to confront in the good, old U.S. of A. A mere handful. If 50 of us oldtimers yelled "BOO!!" they'd scatter in a second. For a chancery or a basilica. Then again, maybe they wouldn't. They do seem impervious to insults, and Tom Engelhardt who prompted this piece uses a marvelous phrase for politicians,  which we could easily borrow for our own leaders, filled with an "unbounded sense of imperial impunity."

That "imperial impunity" was haughtily clear in the excommunications of late, that ancient relic  of a battle axe, which usually brought  entire empires to their knees rather quickly.  A few of us, who had been through the formation of the holiest of men – so they told us – as celibate seminarians, were waiting with eager anticipation for an Interdict,  a much wielded weapon of papal primacy, not as terminable as excommunication, but  as vicious and effective. And then we were ready for the Great Guffaw in honor of the finest laical triumph in ecclesiology. We imagined whole dioceses snubbing Rome with, "So what. Go away."

[Aside: my sainted mother – three Rosaries per day, Stations every Friday -- would have been aghast: "Could this monster be my son?" Her supreme joy: the day I left for the Jesuits. Her deepest tragedy: the day I left the Jesuits.]

Relations between those martinet Ordinaries and what had been a placable people looked like  the playground squabbles of elementary school years when the game was King of the Hill. A cardinal and a couple of bishops were pushed off the top  of the hill by us kids. After being toppled, some fled to the safety and sanctuary of Roman Basilicas, where they have an allowance for keeping the floors clean and conducting grand tours for tourists, who like them, believe the Church isn't now what it used to be then. Supreme.  Just a relic of the glory of the past. A museum of sorts. Architecture monstrous. Paintings magnificent. Sculpture statuesque. Gore, lots of it, heretics obliterated, crusades endless. Power is awesome. Absolute Power is the ultimate in corruption. 

Recently, a Cardinal turned on a Bishop. Roger Mahony of Los Angeles ordered Geoffrey Robinson of Sidney, Australia, not to set foot on his cardinalatial fiefdom, to shut up, stop writing books, go home and enter a monastic order, maybe, do  penance for life, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Some sycophant Bishops follow the Cardinal slavishly and issued similar orders of Coventry-like banishment, lamenting the sorry state of public affairs in this 21st century,  where they are denied the dungeon and the rack, the stake and the fire, not to mention disembowelment,  or the ultimate entertainment for the masses of a dissident  being drawn and quartered. 

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, a quiet, humble, learned man, a servant of the servants of God, is not cowed. No authentic man of God can be cowed by a dandy of a hierarch, particularly when he is a hierarch himself, without the dandy. His tour of America is quite successful. He speaks. People of God listen and say, "Yes." We feel sorry for the Mahonys and the Browns and the Chaputs and all the other little martinets who must have been bullies back in the first grade, too. More to be pitied after censured, as a new saying might go.

And yet. And yet. I speak and write, taking my inspiration from commentators of our political scene, be they left, right or in the middle, avoiding the extremes of neocons and fascists.  One of them,  just one, there are others, is Tom Engelhardt, who appears in Truthout, a daily website of observations of our world:  http://www.truthout.org . His piece today is the best I've read over the years, because it is a history of what he has been about and what  his new book will be about. He writes sentences I wish I could imitate but know I cannot. For example:

In these last years, the Bush administration's unbounded sense of imperial impunity, and an older American belief that this country possesses a moral code exceptional among nations, have proven a lethal geopolitical cocktail. This curious perspective has led our administration to commit acts of horror in our name, while absolving us from thinking about how others might look on those acts -- and by extension, how they think about us.

Listen up  now. Go  back to that quote and

  1. Substitute "the Vatican administration" for "the Bush Administration."
  2. Turn "an older American belief" into "an older Roman Catholic  belief." 

And you will see as clearly as do I, that the issues some of us old men are raising to the Roman Church are political not dogmatic, disciplinary not doctrinal. We, and I, believe that there is indeed a Catholic Church. We, and I, do not believe that it is a Roman Catholic Church. No need for qualifying adjectives of limitation, when the word "Catholic" means "Universal." The Roman Catholic Church is limited, narrow, reserved for hierarchs and their toadies, and can never ever be Catholic, unless it changes, or we change, its governmental structure.

And that, as far and as clearly as I can see, is politics, pure and simple, though brutal and possibly lethal,  as far and as clearly as Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI – include, please, George W. Bush -- have demonstrated. Such men are followed obediently, without question, by Cardinal Roger Mahony, Bishop Todd Brown and eight others who demand that Bishop Geoffrey Robinson shut up and go home to Australia.

He won't. Neither will we. Why do we persist against such absolutely powerful odds? Go to Tom Engelhardt again, where he wrote:

 Because, for years, so little on these, and similar, subjects made it into print or onto the TV news, there has been a special need and place for online political websites. We started - and maintained - discussions that only slowly seeped into the mainstream, even as readers from that world increasingly fled on-line. At the height of the Bush administration's power and narcissism, what TomDispatch and other sites like it represented was perhaps a simple urge not to let them set an agenda for all of America, and for the planet. This, it turns out, they were incapable of doing - and for that, perhaps, we should be modestly thankful. When the first histories of our desperate times are finally written, historians will have to turn to the record created by the world of the Internet, or their histories will be as incomplete, the dots as unconnected as they were in the mainstream in these sorry years.

Intuition tells me that you readers are ahead of me, but being a doubting Thomas most of my life – he's my favorite Apostle – I have to make sure.

  1. Change "the Bush administration's power and narcissism" to – you know what – "the Vatican administration's power and narcissism."
  2. Change the black font  to red for "We started – and maintained – discussions that only slowly seeped into the mainstream ,. . . "
  3. Do the same for "it represented was perhaps a simple urge not to let them set an agenda for all of Catholicism, and for the planet."

Bullets have a way of making the point.  These are ours, not lethal, but filled with faith and hope and love.

  • We do what we do now, to stop the tyranny.
  • We seek tolerance, justice, accountability.
  • If we do not succeed now, those who come after us will, simply and only because we began this opposition to absolute power.
  • We will never go away.
  • Nor will we fall back into the servitude that the Roman Catholic Church demands.
  • We are the Catholic Church. 
  • We are taking back our Church.

++++++++++

 The entire article, which prompted this piece is a long one, entitled: " 'E' for Expeditionary: One Man's Online Journey Through Bush's Alphabet Soup." Written by: Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch.com, on Tuesday 10 June 2008. This article should be read by those whose eyes are open, ears are open,  and minds are, therefore, just as open, to see the similarity between institutions, which lust for absolute power, with "an unbounded sense of imperial impunity." And which cause such irremediable harm. 

Go to it now at: http://www.truthout.org/article/one-mans-online-journey-through-bushs-alphabet-soup?print

Please note the editor's explanation at the end of the article:

  Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), a collection of some of the best pieces from his site, has just been published. Focusing on what the mainstream media didn't cover, it is functionally an alternative history of the mad Bush years. This essay is adapted from that book's introduction. A brief video in which Engelhardt discusses the book and the American mega-bases in Iraq can be viewed by clicking here.

If clicking here didn't work from here, it would  have been: http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/tdvideo/engelhardt06092008


 

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

The Current Campaign

On a List I joined, some are posting deep thoughts and opinions on the current contenders. I'm out it. As many have seen, my political views – for state or for church – are all bollixed up in my loathing for and fear of neocons. To me they are not conservatives, whom I like and respect. Nor do I claim the term "liberal" for myself, and refuse "L" for "Left." Rejecting all pigeon-holed charismas of those on the left and those on the right, I refuse to use those terms. But "neocons" to me is an intransigent, deadly, implacable term that evokes loathing and fear in me. So, my opinions are worthless, because emotional, immature, not worthy of distinguished, professional discussion. A lot of pros on this List, you know.

You may remember an earlier piece in which I displayed my instinctive – I prefer intuitive – dislike of Barrack Obama. Vox et praeterea nihil. Hoping, against hope as it turned out, that you would readily see that it takes one to know one, for I am such a vox myself. I would never ever run for office and see too many of my selves wielding such power. Thus, my dismissal of Obama. Pretty simple: I just don't like him, and could spin out justifications, but that isn't necessary. There are a whole bunch of people I just don't like – without the need to rattle off a long line of reasons – just as there are another whole bunch – much, much larger, by the way – whom I do like and don't need reasons to justify their attraction for me.

As for McCain, he has terrified me ever since he became a walking POW on the public political stage. (I was graced by two students at Sophia: Major Tracy and Captain Evans, ( each, US Army ret.). Both were POWs of the Japanese during WWII. They never waved it as their medal of honor. They took almost all my courses, one each semester over the three years. I called them "My Uncles." We loved each other.) From the first time I saw and heard McCain on TV, I felt fear. He is a neocon, always was, always will be, and that's before we knew what neocons were, cloaked as they were back then in Goldwater Arizonaism, catchy, nice for those retired. Spiffy eyeglasses. Never thought Barry was a neocon. Sort of admired him for his conservatism. Not so with Reagan, I have to confess, for he was just on stage all the time, a fake, always in need of a script. Good delivery of another's lines.

Today's neocons are Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Cheney, and they terrify me. They are destroying America, unless they have already finished the job. There are several neocons splattered throughout the RCC Hierarchy, and they terrify me, too. Neocons are comfortable with Absolute Power, enjoy the thrill of the yield before its wield. Bush is not one; neocons are smart, intelligent.

With all that, avoiding the campaign of the Democrat Vox et praeterea with the Republican neocon, I have no vote. Just fear. The people will choose, but there isn't much choice.

For state, I'll wait four years for a good and decent Republican candidate to duel with a good and decent Democrat to risk his/her life and reputation and offer themselves. For church, I'll wait out another lifetime, until another Bishop Geoffrey Robinson comes along to give the current Geoffrey a little support and companionship, with a goodly bunch of us people-people of God stepping pertly along beside them. Not all hierarchs are neocons. But, then again, neo-conservatism doesn't need many, just a few. That's why they are so terrifying. Those with nothing but a Vox don't stand a chance. Whenever I concoct a "composition of place" – thanks to Ignatian meditation techniques – of Barrack Obama in debate with Douglas Feith, I don't snicker at the godawfulness of it all. I cringe.

Speaking of such "compositions of places," my innocent way of looking at left and right and in between is not, definitely not, the linear way of picturing "L" on one far end and "R" way down at the other end. That's stupid. Adults do that, the easier to get rid of irksome ones by pushing them farther and further away. My "composition" of politicalness in people is a circle, the political leanings being dots on the circumference, where "L" and "R" are never as far apart as in the false, fake linear projection pundits favor. If some think of me as "L", so be it, that's their opinion, but I stand right next to an "R," holding her hand. Touch is the most important of the senses, you know. Easy on a circumference, impossible on a straight line stretching through the universe. Ever stop to think that in outer space, the path is always an orbit. It's only down here on Earth, once known as Gaia -- a personification of Earth actually from Greek mythology -- that we think we think linearly. And that's the bollix.


 

From today's Truthout:


 

Make No Mistake: McCain's a Neocon

Sunday 08 June 2008

»

by: Robert Parry, Consortium News


John McCain may fancy himself a maverick, but according to Robert Parry, he's a Neocon through and through.


 


 

    Since clinching the Republican presidential nomination, John McCain has sought to hide the forest of his neoconservative alignment with George W. Bush amid the trees of details, such as stressing differences over military tactics used in Iraq.

    But the larger reality should be clear: McCain is a hard-line neoconservative who buys into Bush's "preemptive war" theories abroad and his concept of an all-powerful "unitary executive" at home.

     From McCain's pre-Iraq invasion speeches to his campaign's recent embrace of Bush's imperial presidency, American voters should realize that if they choose John McCain, they will be locking in at least four more years of war with much of the Islamic world while selling out the Founders' vision of a democratic Republic where no one is above the law.

    Take, for instance, an address that McCain gave to the Munich Conference on Security Policy on Feb. 2, 2002. In the speech - with the ambitious title, "From Crisis to Opportunity: American Internationalism and the New Atlantic Order" - the Arizona senator laid out the "full monte" of a neocon agenda.

    In those heady days after the U.S. ouster of Afghanistan's Taliban regime, McCain hailed "a new American internationalism" designed "to end safe harbor for terrorists anywhere, to aggressively target rogue regimes that threaten us with weapons of mass destruction, and to consolidate freedom's gains through institutions that reflect our values."

    To McCain, this meant that the United States had a fundamental right to invade any country on earth that was viewed as an actual or potential threat, a theory of American exceptionalism to international law that was at the heart of Bush's strategy of "preemptive war."

    "Americans believe we have a mandate to defeat and dismantle the global terrorist network that threatens both Europe and America," McCain said. "As our President has said, this network includes not just the terrorists but the states that make possible their continued operation.

    "Many of these are rogue regimes that possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction which threaten Europeans and Americans alike. We in America learned the hard way that we can never again wait for our enemies to choose their moment. The initiative is now ours, and we are seizing it."

    Neocon Forerunner

    McCain even presented himself as a forerunner to Bush's neoconservative policies.

    "Several years ago, I and many others argued that the United States, in concert with willing allies, should work to undermine from within and without outlaw regimes that disdain the rules of international conduct and whose internal dysfunction threatened other nations," McCain said.

    "Just this week, the American people heard our President articulate a policy to defeat the 'axis of evil' that threatens us with its support for terror and development of weapons of mass destruction," McCain said in reference to Bush's warning to Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

    "Dictators that harbor terrorists and build these weapons are now on notice that such behavior is, in itself, a casus belli. Nowhere is such an ultimatum more applicable than in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

    McCain then reprised what turned out to be the bogus case for invading Iraq.

    "Almost everyone familiar with Saddam's record of biological weapons development over the past two decades agrees that he surely possesses such weapons. He also possesses vast stocks of chemical weapons and is known to have aggressively pursued, with some success, the development of nuclear weapons," McCain said.

    "Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with al-Qaeda. These were probably not courtesy calls," McCain added in the smug, sarcastic tone common to that period.

    As it turned out, the "vast stocks" of chemical weapons and the prospect of nuclear weapons were non-existent. The "terrorist training camps" on Iraqi soil were hostile to Hussein's secular regime and were located outside Baghdad's control in areas protected by the U.S.-British-enforced "no-fly zone."

    Evidence collected after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 revealed that Saddam Hussein rebuffed overtures from al-Qaeda, which he regarded as an enemy in the Arab world. Those contacts were not even "courtesy calls."

    Rush to War

    However, in February 2002, McCain was a leading voice in the neocon rush for war in Iraq, as an extension of Bush's "war on terror."

    "The next front is apparent, and we should not shirk from acknowledging it," McCain said. "A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

    "A day of reckoning is approaching. Not simply for Saddam Hussein, but for all members of the Atlantic community, whose governments face the choice of ending the threat we face every day from this rogue regime or carrying on as if such behavior, in the wake of September 11th, were somehow still tolerable.

    "The Afghan campaign set a precedent, and provided a model: the success of air power, combined with Special Operations forces working together with indigenous opposition forces, in waging modern war.

    "The next phase of the war on terror can build on this model, but we also must learn from its limitations. More American boots on the ground may be required to prevent the escape of terrorists we target in the future, and we should all be mindful that such a commitment might entail higher casualties than we have suffered in Afghanistan," McCain continued.

    "The most compelling defense of war is the moral claim that it allows the victors to define a stronger and more enduring basis for peace. Just as September 11th revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand freedom."

    McCain's full embrace of this neocon global theory - both in its grandiose substance and its grandiloquent rhetoric - marked the over-the-top hubris that contributed to the suppression of any serious pre-Iraq War debate in the United States and then to the ill-considered rush to invade Iraq.

    As the war in Iraq turned sour and anti-Americanism swept the Middle East, McCain began criticizing the Bush administration not for its imperial overreach but for not reaching even farther. McCain began advocating a larger U.S. expeditionary force to pacify Iraq, a policy that gave rise to the "surge."

    "League of Democracies"

    Despite these tactical differences, McCain has shown no sign of rethinking his vision of an alliance of "willing" nations going around the world challenging and replacing disfavored governments. Indeed, he has made this neocon concept a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

    The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has proposed a "League of Democracies," which would apply economic and military pressure on "rogue states" when the United Nations Security Council refuses to do so.

    Though McCain has dressed up his League of Democracies in pretty language about respecting international law and spreading freedom, its essence is to make permanent Bush's "coalition of the willing" concept used in Iraq.

    McCain insists his League won't supplant the Security Council, but it would do just that, fulfilling a long-held neocon dream of voiding the international system that U.S. leaders fashioned after World War II to enforce the Nuremberg principle that aggressive war was the "supreme" international crime.

    McCain's League would create for the U.S. President a standing organization for engaging in aggressive war against "rogue regimes" whether they are an immediate, potential - or imaginary - threat.

    The irony is that when McCain and Bush talk about the danger of "rogue regimes" operating outside international law and threatening other nations, that is exactly what their neocon theories have made the United States: a country that - along with a few allies - becomes a law onto itself.

    Similarly, McCain and Bush share the view that the President of the United States should embody and personify these new imperial powers. Just as the U.S. government can act in any way it sees fit under these neocon theories, its Commander in Chief also can do whatever he wants without legal constraints.

    That was spelled out by a top McCain adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, declaring in a letter to the right-wing National Review that McCain agreed with Bush's assertion that the President may override laws that he deems an impediment to fighting the "war on terror."

    Holtz-Eakin said McCain supports Bush's program of warrantless wiretaps despite the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and a 1978 law requiring the Executive to gain approval from a special court for intelligence-related wiretaps inside the United States.

    "Neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001," Holtz-Eakin wrote in describing McCain's position.

    Article II Powers

    Holtz-Eakin further cited Article II powers of the Constitution in explaining how McCain would act as President, suggesting that McCain - like Bush - would exercise virtually unlimited executive powers for the duration of the indefinite "war on terror."

    McCain also has announced that he would appoint Supreme Court justices like Samuel Alito and John Roberts who - along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - represent four votes in favor of reinterpreting the Constitution to grant the President the broad powers claimed by Bush and McCain.

    If a President McCain gets to replace one of the five other justices with another Alito or Roberts, the new court majority could, in effect, rewrite the rules of the American Republic to declare the imperial presidency "constitutional."

    If that happens, the American people would no longer possess "unalienable rights," as promised by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President would possess what the neocons call "plenary" - or total - power.

    That means the President would have the authority to arrest anyone as an "unlawful enemy combatant," deny the person the right to a lawyer or a trial by jury, and subject the individual to any treatment that the President sees fit, from indefinite imprisonment up to torture and death.

    This neocon vision also holds that the President - on his own authority - could take the nation to war anywhere in the world for whatever reason.

    In essence, the United States would cease to be a democratic Republic with citizens guaranteed fundamental liberties and with an Executive possessing limited authority constrained by the Legislature. All meaningful power would be invested in the President as a modern-day monarch.

    John McCain may criticize President Bush on the edges of neoconservative policies, such as failing to prosecute the Iraq War more aggressively, and he may differ with Bush on the efficacy of torture, given McCain's own mistreatment as a Vietnam prisoner of war.

    But there should be no doubt that a McCain victory would give the neocons another four-year lease on the White House. And, after those four years, there might be no feasible way back for the great American Republic.

    --------

    Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, "Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush," can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, "Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the

Monday, June 9, 2008

Church And/Or State --- Religion And/Or the Rule of Law


 

I think that the issue today for Catholics in America is Church or State, Religion or the Rule of Law. Not Church and State. Not Religion and the Rule of Law. But "or." That pesky word which separates bishops and archbishops and cardinals and surely the present pope and his predecessor from those of their colleagues who speak with "and." Or/ & And/High Priests.

Today,two extremely prominent Catholic lay persons, an Or/College Chaplain Priest, and an Or/High Priest won cherished publicity: www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.communion09jun09,0,7586458.story in The Baltimore Sun.

Don't Play Politics with Communion

By David O'Brien and Lisa Sowle Cahill

June 9, 2008

What do a former legal counsel for Ronald Reagan and a Democratic governor have in common? As you might expect, it's not the same politics. Douglas W. Kmiec, an esteemed constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, is a pro-life Republican. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is a moderate known for consensus-building. But these prominent Catholics are both the most recent targets of clergy who use Communion as a political weapon and effectively blacklist respected Catholic leaders. It's time for Catholics and all Americans to speak out against this spiritual McCarthyism.

When Mr. Kmiec endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, conservative Catholic blogs buzzed with outrage. How could a conservative known for his public opposition to abortion rights support a pro-choice liberal? In a recent Catholic Online column, Mr. Kmiec describes how he was declared "self-ex-communicated" by many fellow Catholics. He writes that at a recent Mass, an angry college chaplain denounced his "Obama heresy" from the pulpit and denied him Communion.

In Kansas City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has ordered Ms. Sebelius, also an Obama supporter, not to receive Communion after she vetoed abortion legislation riddled with constitutional red flags. The bill in question made it easier for prosecutors to search private medical records, allowed family members to seek court orders to stop abortions and failed to include exceptions to save the life of the mother. Along with many public officials, Ms. Sebelius recognizes the profound moral gravity of abortion. She has supported prudent public policies that have reduced abortions in Kansas by investing in adoption services, prenatal health care and social safety nets for families. But in his diocesan newspaper, the archbishop blasted the governor over her "spiritually lethal" message and her obligation to recognize the "legitimate authority within the Church."

The archbishop has a right and indeed an obligation to speak out against abortion. But he is on dangerous ground telling a democratically elected official - accountable to federal laws and a diverse citizenry - how to govern when it comes to the particulars of specific legislation. The proper application of moral principles in a pluralistic society rarely allows for absolutes.

Using a holy sacrament to punish Catholics has troubling political implications during an election year. St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke warned Sen. John Kerry - a Catholic whose record reflects his faith's commitment to economic justice, universal health care and concern for the poor - not to receive Communion during the 2004 presidential race because of his support for abortion rights. In a New York Times interview just a month before the election, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver gave signals that Catholics who voted for a pro-choice candidate were cooperating in evil. Mr. Kerry narrowly lost the Catholic vote to President Bush.

Catholics make up a quarter of the American electorate and are swing voters in key battleground states that will play a decisive role in electing our next president. It's essential that these voters recognize Catholicism defies easy partisan labels and is not a single-issue faith.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops warns in an election-year guide that particular issues must not be misused as a way of ignoring "other serious threats to human life and dignity." These threats identified by the bishops include racism, the death penalty, war, torture, lack of health care and an unjust immigration policy. These broad Catholic values challenge Democrats and Republicans alike to put the common good before narrow partisan agendas.

If we remain silent when respected Catholic leaders are publicly attacked and denied Communion, the proper role of faith in our public square is grossly distorted. This election year, let's have a better debate about faith and political responsibility that reclaims the vital role religion has often played in renewing our most cherished democratic values.

+++++
David O'Brien, the Loyola professor of Catholic studies at the College of the Holy Cross, has written books about the history of American Catholicism. Lisa Sowle Cahill is a professor of theology at Boston College and a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. This article is distributed by Religion News Service.

Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun

+++++

The Or/High Priest might well have proclaimed:

"Choose! Me or the Governor  of the State of Kansas, whom I publicly condemn for her political maneuvering on abortion, and I order her not to receive Communion."



The Or/Chaplain might well have joined in:

"As priest of this parish I denounce our most honored conservative member, a law professor at Pepperdine, because he likes Obama, and Obama is pro choice. No communion for the evil professor."

These public condemnations are not Christ like, because Jesus' stern criticism was directed at high priests and not  at people-people. These Or/High Priests duck accountability, dodge Jesus himself, abandon the kingdom of his father, and condemn people-people for not giving them, them, them, obeisance and obedience. These few and powerful hierarchs claim  they speak with infallibility on moral issues like  abortion, and they want a Roman Catholic totalitarian government in which they and they alone are executive, legislative and judicial authority. The members of their parish or diocese must obey the pronouncements. Otherwise, no Communion for those who disagree, refuse to accept such authority.

A legal aphorism states that silence may be construed as consent.  And consent means acceptance. If we accept the high priest's "or," then either America must be overthrown or Roman Catholicism must be expunged from civilization. That is what "or" means.  "Give me liberty  or give me death." "My way or the highway." "Love me or I will kill you."

"And" means something else. It means being human together, with others, a community, receiving Communion though sinful, even a sinner,  no saint, with freedom of and from religion, to be Buddhist, Catholic, Evangelical, Protestant, Muslim,  Jew, Hindu, or none at all. It means being American, African, European, Asian, also. "And" includes; "or" excludes.

Now, because of the Kansas Governor and the Pepperdine Professor, I think  we Catholics in America have come to the point of no return. Be we left, middle or right, we must now stand and declare ourselves. We cannot  duck the issue of "and" versus "or" any longer, lest we drown in our own despicable cowardice and schizophrenia. We must declare ourselves now. Quietly. With conviction. Inspired or expired. Choose either - or.

So, choose:

1 -- High Priests who command and condemn.

2 -- Bishops who serve servants of God.



So, choose:

1 -- Knowing the ramifications, the consequences.
2 -- Do not choose blindly, without thought.


So, choose:

1 -- Roman Catholicism, old, very old and hanging in there, onto absolute power, using the New Testament only for quotes, commanding, condemning, excommunicating, denying the sacraments to the people of God.

2 -- Catholicism, whether old or new, and based on Jesus of the New Testament.



So, choose:

1 -- Remaining silent is not a choice.
2 -- Silent ones are unwilling to take sides, afraid to confront a bishop, be he a strong one who withholds Communion, or a weak one who urges us not to rock the boat.

So, choose:

1 -- If the Or/High Priests, then we choose treason eventually and have to overthrow American Democracy.
2 -- If the And/High Priests, we choose the abandonment of Roman Catholicism, which will vanish, consumed by its own lust for power, but we will save our country and our church, our Catholicism. Our God may save us. If our choice is correct.


So, choose:

1 -- The Or/High Priests do not want us to choose, nor to question, just to obey and, "Please, feel free to receive Our Lord in Communion." They do want us to keep the boat steady, don't rock it, obey.
2 -- The And/High Priests do not want us to choose either, because our questions are irksome and expose their hypocrisy in giving obeisance to the institution of Romanism and not to the Catholicism of us. They are more afraid than we are.


So, choose.

1 -- Which do we wish to follow.
2 -- If neither, then drop the charade, the masquerade, and admit that we believe and know there is not much of a church, not much of a country, both peopled with peasants bowed down before their lords.

So, choose:

1 -- Same. More of the same until we die and are judged.
2 -- Change. Renewal of country and church, as we live with integrity, die gratefully, and are judged by a merciful God.


So, choose:

Why do we let some bishops act the way they do, without accountability?

Why do we silently accept intolerance?

Why do we stay silent before injustice?

Why do we let them get away with it?

Why? Oh! God! Why?

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Join CTA

The mail delivered an invitation from Call To Action, CTA,  to become a formal member. Strange, for I am not a joiner of acronymic groups. After a bold-faced "I've had enough!" the CTA flyer used just three phrases to describe the Church. They caught my attention, made me listen up, read on.

  1. Intolerance.
  2. Injustice.
  3. Lack of accountability.

I would never belong willingly to any organization that so emblazoned its essence on all its members and commanded those three attributes as requisites for claiming to belong as a member. Of course not. Imagine what my response would be to this invitation: "Say! Hey! You. We're looking for some good and reliable men, practiced in and devoted to intolerance, injustice and lack of accountability. Come, join us and dominate the world."

I may be pig-headed, shallow, ignorant, but I am not intolerant, unjust, unaccountable. Never-the-less, how-some-ever, and-yet-and-yet, I used to fill in the form asking "Religious Preference?" with "Roman Catholic." That did a job on integrity, so much so, that I began to decline to answer, realizing that writing just "Catholic" is a cop-out blazing in shame. Then, I simply left that line blank. As blank as I was without a Church to call Church. I was flushed with anger at high priests who made the Church their own elite club, and confounded with shame for being a Catholic.

I am intolerant of the intolerant.

I seek justice. I chose to become a lawyer, shortly after leaving the Jesuits in 1957. That was my life's work until retirement in 2001.

I am accountable. In retirement, the two portions of my life became one, when the Jesuit years and the lawyer years merged, and I began to study the history and ecclesiology of the Church, in order to stand and speak and write truth to power. Both my Jesuit formation and legal training showed me with simple clarity that the issue for renewal of our Church is power and the abuse of power. From 2002 to date I have been writing on Religion and the Rule of Law, Church and State, the use and the abuse of Power. For that I am accountable.

CTA's invitation is timely. CTA looks more like Church than RCC, without claiming to be a new Church, because it is a part of the Church reaching out to those gasping in a dysfunctional Church. Family just doesn't walk away to found a new family. A friend had helped found Take Back Our Church, TBOC,  not too long ago, and I joined. Why not, I thought, link them?

Time to stop fretting in "conjectures of a guilty bystander." Time for integrity, as well as faith, hope and love. Time to be Catholic rather than talk about it, write about it. Time to be active, within a group dedicated to tolerance, justice and accountability.

Today, I join CTA. Its invitation and my response are proof that the Holy Spirit is breathing.

.