Author Archives: tom

Tom's New Free Homily Service

Posted on by
1

As some of you know I’ve been writing this personal blog for almost 10 years now. It’s been fun, but lately I’ve been wanting to branch out into another area.

I left the world of Catholic priesthood 16 years ago, and there’s much I don’t miss, but I do miss preaching. Good preaching is hard work, but when it’s done well it’s a joy. Frankly I’ve lately been getting bored with what I’m hearing and I often found myself sitting in the pew thinking I could do better.

Challenge accepted. Last month I opened a blog post here; you can also access it by clicking on the link on the left titled “Tom’s Homilies.” I’d like to get a wider readership and that’s why I’m posting this. If you wish (and only if you wish) I can send you a copy of what I’ve written each week.

If this is something you’re interested in, please let me know. You can email me at thomas.allain@icloud.com and I’ll anonymously include you in this list.

Just a few things about this:

• This is just for my own creative need to get something out. I’m not pointing fingers at anyone and there’s no hidden agenda. Mostly I want to get back into a world I miss.
• If you don’t want to receive it, you honestly won’t hurt my feelings. Just delete this email and I promise I won’t be keeping score.
• I try to do this a week in advance. A friend of mine suggested this because people who belong to a bible study or small church community may want to use this material in their discussions.
• I follow the Catholic lectionary; I understand that other Christian faiths follow much the same calendar. If you wonder why I’m choosing the readings I choose, it’s because I’m not the one who chose.
• If you are writing a homily, please understand that none of this is copyrighted. Feel free to use what you read (though it would be nice to credit me).
• Catholic Sunday homilies generally run about 8 to 10 minutes and that translates for me to be about 1500 words. The homilies I’ve done so far are shorter than that as I retrain my “homily muscles.” I expect to get up to the 1500 word range.
• Finally, as I’ve gone through my list I’ve thought of a number of people for whom I don’t have email addresses. If you think of someone who might be interested, by all means forward this email. A preacher preaches to everyone who shows up, and I have no desire to control my audience.

Time to Move On Bob

Posted on by
Reply

Last month I wrote about San Diego’s current mayor, Bob Filner. He was elected last November and has been in office since December. Previous to that he served in the U.S. House of Representatives. Beginning last month a cascade of women have accused him of sexual harassment and abuse. One of them, Irene McCormack Jackson filed a civil suit against the mayor.

On July 26th he called a news conference; many of us expected he would resign. Instead he admitted that some of his actions were “wrong” but denied charges of sexual harassment. He also said he was going to seek treatment for this, while maintaining his role as mayor. On July 30th the city council voted a resolution that the city would not cover his legal bills; Filner responded by saying it was the city’s fault because he had not received training in sexual harassment (oddly he appeared to know enough about it to deny guilt).

The beginning of this month he left his office, purportedly for treatment; he returned after one week, and then took some vacation time. He has not acted in his official capacity since the July 26th news conference.

Shortly after that conference a recall campaign was started. It requires over 100,000 signatures to be gathered in 39 days, the San Diego city clerk estimates that a recall election would cost the city between $3 million and $6 million.

In the last few days word has come out there Bob is looking for a deal. Most of us assume he will resign in return for a negotiated settlement of any lawsuits that the city would pay for. Most of us find that pretty distasteful, but it may be cheaper than the cost of a recall.

Bob should man up and do the right thing: admit what he did, resign, and suffer the consequences. Of course, if he were a real man, he wouldn’t have abused the women around him.

Lions, Tiger, and Bears: If This Isn't On Your Bucket List You Have Only Yourself to Blame

Posted on by
Reply

Last year Nancy was at a charity auction and placed the highest bid for an overnight at an animal rescue facility called Lions, Tigers, and Bears. Because of schedules we were not able to plan the overnight until earlier this month. It was amazing.

Nancy and I went with her sister Mary Kay and Mary Kay’s husband Chuck. The facility is located about 40 miles from us in Japatul Valley and we drove out there on Thursday afternoon. It’s a sanctuary for exotic animals who need a place to live. Sadly there is a demand in our country for ownership of animals who have no business being owned in substandard conditions. This facility was born in 2002: two Bengal Tigers in Texas were being neglected by their owner. He was persuaded to donate them to this facility. Once here, the female was found to be pregnant and she gave birth to two cubs on November 8, 2002.

Since then they have opened their doors to other exotic animals, and to us. They aren’t a zoo: they don’t buy, sell, trade, or breed animals. Their sole purpose is to rescue animals that have found their way to places where they can’t be cared for: roadside zoos, stupid rich people, and (let’s face it) stupid poor people. Also, some carnivores unwittingly intrude into suburban neighborhoods and would be killed. This facility will take them in and provide an excellent life for the rest of their lives.

We were there from Thursday night to Friday morning, and it was an enchanting experience. When we arrived we were greeted by Tina who enthusiastically showed us around the grounds and provided us the background and history of the exhibits. We knew we would be impressed by the animals, but we didn’t expect to be impressed with the place we were going to stay (Mary Kay asked us if we needed to bring sleeping bags). Our accommodations rivaled the best of any bed and breakfast. We were pampered well beyond our expectations.

Early Friday morning I woke up and walked around the exhibits. Conga, one of the leopards, saw me before I saw her and jumped in my direction. I wasn’t in any danger as there were two fences between us, but that was not my first thought. Advantage: Conga.

If you care about the plight of these magnificent animals, if you care about the welfare and future of lions, tigers, and bears, or if you just want to spend a night in a magical place, do not let this experience you by. Call now.

Rest in Peace Paul

Posted on by
Reply

I received word a few days ago that my friend and ordination classmate Paul Reynolds died suddenly of a heart attack. You can read his obituary here.

Paul was a rare person. He wasn’t flashy and never called attention to himself and was often so quiet you could forget he was there. But what you didn’t know is that Paul always knew you were there. He had an uncanny ability to evaluate a situation and know what needed to be done, and he did it. We were in seminary together from 1990 to 1993 and things didn’t always go smoothly. There were about 25 of us and we were all trying to figure this priesthood thing out. There were conflicts, friendships that developed and ended, hellos and goodbyes, and painful decisions made. All through it while the rest of us were raging against this belief or that comment, Paul would stay in the background watching and listening. Later, he would quietly make sure that the kind word or reassuring affirmation happened where it needed to happen.

The last time we saw him was May of 2012 in Boston. He was navigating his work at MIT and priesthood and the difficulty of that balance clearly weighed on him, but you would never know it to talk with him. His heart was always so kind and generous, it’s no wonder that’s what eventually gave out. Rest well Paul, and enjoy the banquet feast of Heaven.

Pay No Attention to the Little Man in the Mayor's Office

Posted on by
1

Yes, San Diego has once again made headlines, and not for a good reason. Earlier this year we elected Bob Filner as mayor of the city. He is a democrat and I tend to support his positions, but I was uneasy pulling the lever for him. Previous to this he served in Congress for nearly 20 years and he had a reputation as a hothead with a hair trigger temper. In 2007 he was charged with assault after an altercation in the baggage area. The woman who got in his way appeared in ads for Bob’s opponent during the election.

Now we are hearing about charges of sexual abuse. Allegations in the last few weeks paint a picture of a man who, for example, suggested that a female employee should come to work without panties. There are also charges of groping, kissing, etc. Last week he acknowledged that he has acted “inappropriately” and that he needs help. Shortly after this he answered specific charges by saying he is entitled to “due process of law.” When one of his employees came forth yesterday, Filner denied the charges.

OK, let’s sort this out. Mayor Filner states that he is entitled to “due process of law;” that phrase comes from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. It only applies to criminal proceedings; to the extent that nobody has seriously suggested the mayor be arrested, due process doesn’t apply.

The mayor needs to resign. The charges point to a pattern of behavior that is simply unacceptable and it makes day to day operations difficult. The women who work near him now need to worry about their own safety as a first priority, not the business of the city.

A common misconception with men like this is that they see this as a perk of being powerful. In reality these are men who are weak and want to be powerful and think this will do it. It’s inconceivable to the rest of us, but they honestly don’t think this kind of abuse is unwelcome or frightening. When confronted they downplay it, suggest they were “just kidding” or “just fooling around.”

It’s not playful or welcome. It’s unacceptable and does not serve the people of San Diego.

Can a Christian Celebrate Ramadan?

Posted on by
Reply

In the Muslim world this is the holy month of Ramadan where they celebrate gift of the Quran from Allah to the Prophet (Mohammed). As part of the celebration they fast from all food and drink from sunrise to sunset.

Our friend Lynn helped set up dinners where Christians like us share a meal with a Muslim couple. Last night after sunset we gathered at the home of a local Muslim couple (joined by another couple) and broke the fast.

On one level it was an ordinary dinner party. We talked about family and work, we were entertained by their daughters, and we ate terrific food. But on another level, it was extraordinary. I was thinking last night about all the people I wish were there: people who send me anti Muslim screeds, whose knowledge is dependent on exactly not sharing this meal. Whose “truth” is based on what they refuse to hear.

By being there we learned about how they came to the United States and want only to make a better life for themselves and their children (and grandchildren, and so on). We all benefit from them being here.

It was a good night and I’ll continue to pray for Ali, Emel, Ahmet, and Nur (and for Ali and Emel’s children who entertained us and officiated as food tasters).

The Justice Chronicles Volume 12: Marriage Gets More Inclusive

Posted on by
Reply

Last month the Supreme Court handed down decisions on United States v. Windsor (DOMA) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (Proposition 8). They covered different issues and made different claims, but both opened up marriage to gay couples.

This shouldn’t surprise readers of my writing, but I was disappointed with much of the news coverage. Most of what I saw from the major networks held up the decisions to “who won, who lost” and missed the reasoning behind the decisions. I was interested in this and also which justices landed on which side.

The DOMA case was 5-4; Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Alito wrote dissents; Justice Thomas joined the dissents of Justices Scalia and Alito.

DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. Basically it mandated that the federal government not recognize gay marriage even if the marriage is legal where it was performed. That meant gay couples who legally married were not eligible for such things as joint filing of income taxes, survivor benefits for Social Security, etc. The lawsuit was brought by the widow of a lesbian marriage; because their marriage was not recognized by the federal government the surviving member owed $363,053 in probate taxes. If not for DOMA she would not have owed anything (you automatically get all your spouse’s assets tax free when he or she dies). She claimed that the federal government must recognize all valid marriages, not just heterosexual ones. She was also able to show that DOMA caused her harm to the tune of $363,053.

The majority of the court (led by Justice Kennedy) argued that since states issue marriage licenses the federal government can’t decide which marriages are valid and which aren’t. Different states have different rules about who can marry (e.g. minimum age) and the federal government recognizes any marriage the state recognizes. DOMA puts homosexual marriages in a different case for no good reason

The dissents argue a few points. Justice Scalia argues that the court should never have taken the case (it’s a fairly technical point that he makes well). Most of the rest are what we’ve come to expect: that traditional (opposite sex) marriages are the norm because only they can produce children. They also decry the demonization they have suffered: opponents of same sex marriage are right only because they are demonized as homophobes and bigots.

In a sense they have a point: they are homophobes and bigots. The justices who dissented argue several points that make no sense and weak arguments: “this decision refutes the will of the majority,” “this decision goes beyond what everyone used to assume about marriage,” “this decision allows people to love one another in a way that offends me,” etc.

Simply put, this allows adults to marry each other. Granted, homosexual marriages cannot produce children but neither can marriages of heterosexual couples where the woman is post-menopausal or where one (or both) have been sterilized. We, who are heterosexual, cannot ban marriages that we find gross and icky. Marriages in the this country haven’t been homosexual, but in many states marriages weren’t biracial until 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).

The Proposition 8 case was more interesting in the lineup. The 5 person majority consisted of Justice Roberts (who wrote the opinion) and was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. Justice Kennedy wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayer.

The Court ruled that they weren’t going to rule on the merits of the Prop 8 case because the defendants had no standing (they had no right to bring the case). The case originated with several gay couples who wanted to marry but were prevented by Prop 8; they filed suit against the state of California. In the first round the court ruled for the plaintiffs, and the state of California decided not to appeal. Supporters of Prop 8 stepped in as defendants, claiming that they had standing because they were the ones who collected the signatures for the ballot initiative. The Court ruled that they may have had standing during the process of putting the measure on the ballot, but once it passed, only the state of California could defend the proposition.

This was a mixed result for supporters of gay marriage. While this will allow gay marriages in California once again, it does not affect laws in other states. Many of us wanted the Court to go further and rule that Prop 8 is unconstitutional because the states don’t have the right to ban gay marriage. They wanted a gay version of Loving v. Virginia.

What next? Proponents of gay marriage have 2 routes: they can bring suit in a state that currently bans gay marriage, or they can start working on the state legislature level to pass laws that allow gay marriage. I’m guessing that groups will try both, and I suspect that the days of homophobia in marriage are numbered.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 11: Thoughts on Edward Snowden, The NSA, and the 4th Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this month Edward Snowden, an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton leaked information that the National Security Agency has been collecting phone records of US citizens. It’s been a huge story and awakened a debate on privacy, security, and the 4th Amendment.

Unfortunately any story that hits the 24 hour news cycle loses all nuance and much its accuracy; we should begin with a few of the facts of the case. Here is what I’ve gleaned:

The NSA (National Security Agency) is tasked with protecting our nation and citizens from people and organizations who wish to harm us. They are secret by nature and work in the shadows; most of us don’t know what they do. The information age, global connectedness, and the internet has led to an explosion in both the ability to harm us and the ability of the agency to find out what they are doing. The NSA has worked hard to collect information, not only by people who mean us harm, but information that we might need later.

Earlier this month Edward Snowden leaked to the media the fact that the NSA is collecting phone records of nearly every call made here. If you think about all the calls you’ve made in the last month, multiplied by the 314,000,000 people who live here, it’s a large number. To be clear, they haven’t been listening in on every (or any) conversation. They’ve been collecting the data on the calls that we’ve made: not what we’ve said but who we’ve called and how long we’ve talked. They can’t access any of this information without a warrant from something called the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” (FISA).

Edward Snowden is in legal trouble because the Obama administration claims that by leaking this information he has committed espionage, normally defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In other words, by telling us that the NSA is collecting this information we are “tipping our hand” and allowing our enemies to find other ways to harm us. This is the part I’m finding troubling.

I have to confess a bias here: I look at the 4th Amendment the way the NRA looks at the 2nd Amendment. The 4th Amendment says this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When this amendment was written there was a limited ability to search and seize. That ability has dramatically changed with technology. For example, in the 19th Century the invention of the telegraph and telephone allowed for private communications to travel from one place to another. The courts could have easily found that the 4th Amendment applied only to the physical limits of houses, papers, and effects, but it didn’t. Law enforcement still needs a search warrant to tap telephone calls.

But what about now? What limits do we have on tracking our cell phone calls, emails, or social media platforms? Are we in the 19th Century where your telephone is part of your house or the 21st Century where even your trip to 7 Eleven is videotaped?

In my role as a hospice chaplain I am in public view a good part of the day. My 2006 Toyota Prius has an “event data recorder” that records (among other things) my speed, steering, and whether or not I’m wearing my seatbelt. Since I have a GPS my location is also recorded. Several of my patients live in gated communities or other places that have video surveillance. Most of the places where I stop for lunch or a soda also videotape. Anytime I get cash out of at ATM or use my credit card, that is recorded. During all this time I’m either alone or with people who don’t know me, and I carry with me the presumption of privacy.

But is that presumption is false? The government has the ability (though the court system) to look at all of this information. If all this tracking comes under the same eyes, my life would not be far off from Winston Smith in 1984 by George Orwell.

I think we can all agree that there needs to be limits on what can be revealed on us, but conversations about these limits needs to be public.

This is the point where I find myself in agreement with Mr. Snowden. We cannot have a dialogue about the limits of the 4th Amendment if we don’t know what the rules are. President Obama wants to prosecute him, claiming that revealing this information tips off our enemies about what kind of information they gather.

This type of argument is not new. When the Bush administration was trying to convince us that we needed to go to war against Iraq, they claimed we knew the location and existence of weapons of mass destruction. How did the administration know this? They couldn’t tell us because that information would tip the hand. Later, when we all learned that these weapons didn’t exist, many of us believed that they didn’t show us the evidence because they simply didn’t have it. Had we known the evidence either didn’t exist, or was unreliable, we would not have favored going to war.

Most people don’t feel as strongly about the 4th Amendment as I do. There is often the presumption that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, and government surveillance in the interest of catching bad guys is always allowed. I disagree, and I believe the framers of the Constitution did too. They knew this amendment would make prosecution of criminals more difficult (as do jury trials and the prohibition to compel someone to testify against himself), but they thought it was worth it. So do I.

It's Good To Be the King

Posted on by
Reply

I live in La Jolla, California; it’s a neighborhood on the northern edge of San Diego and it’s a nice place to live. It’s also fairly affluent (Mitt Romney has a house about 3 miles away) and I’m amused by the number of people who assume we’re rich because we live here. We regularly get mailings from financial planners and investment firms who want to manage our portfolios “over $1,000,000.” Yeah, right.

On the plus side we also get letters promising gifts if we do simple things. A few years ago we were promised a $150 gift certificate to Smith and Wollensky Restaurant if I test drove a Maserati at a local dealership. It was completely worth it, but $150.00 almost covered lunch.

In April I got a letter that said if I test drove a Lincoln I could get a free pair of Maui Jim sunglasses. These things always sound too good to be true, but I took the form down to the local dealership and got the form signed. I sent it in and today I got my free pair of glasses.

They retail for $269.00. Yeah, no kidding. To be fair they are much better than my bargain basement glasses that I don’t wear much because I have a hard time reading my car dashboard. I’m not sure they’re worth a month’s wages at WalMart but I’m keeping them for now. I only hope I don’t get addicted to them and break them in a few months. We’ll see.

My Field Trip to Washington DC

Posted on by
Reply

Each year Nancy and I travel to her Pedriatic Convention the first week of May. She goes to meetings while I get to play and explore. It works for me. This year the convention was in our Nation’s Capital.

Going to Washington is always a return trip for me as I grew up just south of there in Woodbridge, Virginia. I didn’t fully appreciate this at the time, but school field trips to the Smithsonian Institution, the Capitol, and the National Zoo (which is part of the Smithsonian) were things I could take for granted. Only as an adult did I realize that most people paid to enter museums.

We stayed at a hotel that was close to several landmarks. Not only the Capitol and National Mall, but also Ford’s Theatre. It’s not an exaggeration to say that I walked my shoes off.

No matter how many times I walk these streets, I am moved. The role of governing this country is not for the feint of heart but it is honest. Nancy and I were able to get into the Senate gallery to watch the debate on taxing internet purchases. It wasn’t what most Americans expect: most of the Senators walked by the counter and gave a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” while everyone else was congregated in small group discussions. It’s not exactly Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

But it’s transparent. Any one of us can find out how our senator voted and we can vote against him (or her) in the next election. They can’t do this in Cuba or North Korea.

In the last few decades it’s become fashionable to see our government as the enemy and the taxes we pay as extortion but it’s not true. We pay our taxes to take for granted the freedoms we don’t think about. As I walked around Washington I was struck by the buildings I passed: the Department of Agriculture makes sure the food I eat is safe. The Justice Department ensures that my rights are as protected as the wealthiest of us. And the Library of Congress and National Archives makes sure the most valuable our most valuable documents will be preserved. It’s worth it.

I’m grateful to our Founders and I’m also proud of all the men and women who have worked as government employees since. They have preserved and protected our history and values; ironically they have also preserved the right of malcontents to criticize their existence.

I know they don’t recognize this, but I do. Thank you.