Author Archives: tom

The Justice Chronicles Volume 7: Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday we learned that Governor Mitt Romney has chosen Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. There is lots to talk about, and I’ll be doing more talking in the next few months. Right now I want to focus on Paul Ryan’s views on the role of government.

When he was in college Paul read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (1905-1982) and was immediately taken by it. Much of his political philosophy comes from her views: what she calls “Objectivism.” She holds that:

  1. Reality exists as an objective absolute–facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes, or fears
  2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s sense) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
  3. Man–every man–is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
  4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but historically, had not yet been) a complete separations of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Religion composes the only true difference in their beliefs: Paul is Catholic and Ayn was a strong atheist. In an interview in 1964 she was asked: “Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?” This is her answer:

Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy.

Paul wishes us to believe that you can be a follower of Ayn Rand and a Christian, but can we? How do we square an entire philosophy based exclusively on self interest when Jesus gave his life to save all humanity? How does the pursuit of one’s own self interest find any common ground with a faith that demands that we be our brother’s keeper?

This is not just academic discussion. Paul has proposed a federal budget that is very much in agreement with Objectivist views. He calls it The Path to Prosperity and you can download a copy here. It is clearly a path to prosperity if you are already rich. It makes horrific cuts to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other programs that provide basic services to the poor while providing generous tax cuts to the richest among us.

If this budget plan aligns with Objectivist values, what does Christianity say? In 1986 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a document called Economic Justice for All: A Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy. This is their opening paragraph:

We are believers called to follow Our Lord Jesus Christ and proclaim his Gospel in the midst of a complex and powerful economy. This reality poses both opportunities and responsibilities for Catholics in the United States. Our faith calls us to measure this economy, not only by what it produces, but also by how it touches human life and whether it protects or undermines the dignity of the human person. Economic decisions have human consequences and moral content; they help or hurt people, strengthen or weaken family life, advance or diminish the quality of justice in our land.

In paragraph 8 they state: “As a community of believers, we know that our faith is tested by the quality of justice among us, that we can best measure our life together by how the poor and the vulnerable are treated.”

The election is 84 days from now and we have a clear choice to make. More later.

Happy Birthday Memere

Posted on by
Reply

For the uninitiated, “Memere” is the word my family uses for grandmother. My father’s mother, who died in 1988, was born 125 years ago today in Richibucto, New Brunswick, Canada. The area was beautiful but economically poor and as a young woman she emmigrated to Garder, Massachusetts where she spent the rest of her life. She got a job as a chambermaid at the Colonial Hotel, met a bellhop, and they married in 1918. They raised 2 daughters and 5 sons. Of the sons, 4 of them served in uniform in either World War II or Korea, or both.

I’m thinking of this against the background of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Arizona vs. United States. Almost everyone agrees that our immigration policy is a mess, but the battle of the soundbites is clearly being won by the anti immigration nutcases. Their argument begins and ends with the phrase: “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” The funny thing is that most of us are here because our ancestors came here from other countries.

The nutcases argue that our ancestors came legally and that makes all the difference. They argue that those who are current undocumented workers didn’t take the legal path. They, in a sense, cut in line. Well these are silly arguments. When my grandmother came to the US around 1915 there were no laws governing immigration from Canada. If you could get here (and were white) you could stay: you could find a place to live, get a job, meet someone, and begin the process of becoming an American. That didn’t change until 1921 and the Emergency Quota Act set limits on how many people could come here. Since then anyone who wants to come here has to compete for a spot. Frankly, if you’re an engineer from Bangalore (and Qualcomm wants to hire you) there is a line for you to get in. If you’re a farmworker from Mexico (or a chambermaid from Canada), there is no line. You can’t “cut in line” because there is no line to cut in.

I’m grateful my grandmother had the good fortune of coming here before her skills were evaluated and ranked. Her children were part of the generation who lifted the country out of the Great Depression and fought a world war that ensured a happy ending for the 20th Century.

When I look at men and women who are this generation’s immigrants I see my grandmother. Regardless of their legal status.

So should you.

Happy Loving Day!

Posted on by
Reply

Today marks the 45th anniversary of the day the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Virginia’s law prohibiting interracial marriage.

Virginia, like many of the southern states, prohibited people of different races from marrying. In 1958, Richard Loving (who was white) wished to marry Mildred Jeter (who was black). They lived in Richmond and couldn’t marry there; they traveled to Washington D.C. and married. They then went back to their home in Caroline County. They were arrested in October, plead guilty, and were sentenced to 1 year in jail. Section 258 of the Virginia code stated this:

If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in § 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage.

The judge suspended the sentence on the condition that they leave Virginia for a period of 25 years and said this:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The couple moved to Washington D.C. and Mr. Loving filed suit (ironically making this the case of Loving v. Virginia). The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 10, 1967 and the Court unanimously struck down the Virginia law 45 years ago.

I can’t resist, but the hot marriage issue of this decade is gay marriage. Opponents of gay marriage argue that marriage has always been heterosexual (much like it used to be between people of the same race), it is the will of God, and that the federal government has no right to determine how states decide marriage. Loving v. Virginia shows that the classic definition is always under review.

Happy Loving Day everyone!

Nomination Update

Posted on by
Reply

A few months ago I set up a grid to keep track of the Republican delegate count. It appears that tonight Mitt Romney wrapped up the necessary delegates. I have therefore removed the counter. I’ll no doubt resurrect something like that in 2016.

I Live For This!

Posted on by
1

I’m likely not alone in this, but from time to time I get emails claiming something that just doesn’t sound right. We all get the ones who promise riches if we’ll only help a Nigerian Prince get his money, but I also get ones that other people seem to believe.

I’ve gotten emails from family and friends claiming that President Obama is a secret Muslim, that he really was born in Kenya, that the 2010 census demanded that we list the number of guns we own, etc. What has always amazed me is that a quick search on Google or Snopes would show these banal claims to be false. My attempts to hit the “reply all” button with these suggestions has been a waste of time.

Today I read a CNN story that a blogger named Nate St.Pierre wrote a post claiming Abraham Lincoln filed a patent claim in 1845 for what we now know as Facebook.

Here is an excerpt from the blog post:

Lincoln was requesting a patent for “The Gazette,” a system to “keep People aware of Others in the Town.” He laid out a plan where every town would have its own Gazette, named after the town itself. He listed the Springfield Gazette as his Visual Appendix, an example of the system he was talking about. Lincoln was proposing that each town build a centrally located collection of documents where “every Man may have his own page, where he might discuss his Family, his Work, and his Various Endeavors.”

He went on to propose that “each Man may decide if he shall make his page Available to the entire Town, or only to those with whom he has established Family or Friendship.” Evidently there was to be someone overseeing this collection of documents, and he would somehow know which pages anyone could look at, and which ones only certain people could see (it wasn’t quite clear in the application). Lincoln stated that these documents could be updated “at any time deemed Fit or Necessary,” so that anyone in town could know what was going on in their friends’ lives “without being Present in Body.”

That was it. Pretty much just a simple one-page overview of how his system would work. After we read it, we both sat there quiet for a long time. It was so obvious what this was, guys.

A patent request for Facebook, filed by Abraham Lincoln in 1845.

The funny thing is that the whole thing was a complete fabrication, existing only in the mind of Mr. St. Pierre. My gripe with these hoaxes is the not the stupidity of the people who make them up, but in the stupidity in those who pass them along or publish them. It was published on the web page of Forbes magazine and ZNET.

This never ceases to amaze me. In the 1980s I heard about a hoax that (then) Vice President Dan Quayle was eager to go to Latin America so he could practice his Latin. I got a laugh but then asked if it was true (it wasn’t). Since then the question “Is it true?” is the question nobody else seems to ask.

Maybe this story will help give credibility to this question.

Umm…..She Has a Point

Posted on by
Reply

The latest synthetic outrage in the Presidential race is over a remark by Hilary Rosen. She appeared on Anderson Cooper 360 on April 11th. This is what she said: “What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life.”

You can imagine the outrage, and it caused President Obama to distance himself. Hilary herself later apologized.

The problem is that while she worded it poorly, she had a point. If Governor Romney depends on his wife for the length, depth, and breadth of “what women want,” we should all be concerned. I understand that while her role as a wife and mother gives her a great deal of credibility in some circles, her experience is far from complete. While she certainly has worked, she hasn’t had the experience of many women in America.

By way of illustration, I remember an incident as a seminarian with the Stigmatine Fathers and Brothers. We were told that we would spend a day working at the small print shop they ran as a way of “achieving solidarity with the working man.” It was actually kind of a fun day and I enjoyed talking with the employees of the press, but I have to say that it did nothing to achieve solidarity with anyone. If I had the chance to speak with the priest in charge, I’d say this to him: If you wanted me to achieve solidarity with the working man, don’t have me work. That’s the easy part. If you wanted me to achieve solidarity, have me pay bills. Have me keep a budget. Have me understand the worry about being laid off or injured. Have me wonder how I would be able to manage if a member of my family had a catastrophic accident or a serious illness.

I appreciate that Mrs. Romney has done well in her role as a wife and mother, but she has never experienced the worry, and even fear, that women all over the country feel every day. I hope Governor Romney finds a way to hear those voices.

What Happens to Rick's Delegates?

Posted on by
Reply

The long primary season several candidates gain delegates, but not enough to secure the nomination, and they drop out. Rick Santorum is the latest. OK so what happens to his 250 to 280 delegates? Well, that depends. States pick their delegates differently and have varying rules about them.

The clearest article I’ve read on this is from the Washington Post. It starts with Rick having 281 delegates. Of these, 84 are from states with nonbinding delegates: delegates from Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, and North Dakota have always been free to vote for whomever they want. You can imagine they have been contacted by other campaigns by now.

The remaining 197 delegates are bound to vote for Santorum at the convention unless Santorum releases them, and of this writing he has not. He did not end his campaign but only suspended it; had he ended his campaign that would have released his delegates.

His decision to suspend his campaign essentially gives the nomination to Mitt Romney. To the extent that Rick did not have enough delegates to block Romney’s election, Rick’s bound delegates will likely go through the motions of voting for him in the convention.

Thoughts on Rick Santorum's Departure

Posted on by
Reply

We got word today that Rick Santorum has suspended his campaign. I’ve been thinking for several weeks that I wanted to post something on his campaign and why this Catholic won’t vote for that Catholic. Now it seems it doesn’t matter.

He suspended his campaign for several reasons: he was well behind in the delegate count, he was in danger of losing the primary of his home state of Pennsylvania, his daughter’s health continues to weigh on him, and he’s realizing that he can’t assume the Catholic vote.

Before saying anything else I have to say that I respect his decision to stay close to his daughter. She is living with Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder. It’s normally fatal fairly soon after birth and the fact that Bella is still alive at age 3 is a testament to her strength, her family’s support, and (frankly) her access to the health care that Rick Santorum would continue to deny to 15% of our population.

As a Catholic I’m most interested in his assumption that he had the Catholic vote in his back pocket. He has made some public stances that he assumed would garner my support, but in fact had the opposite effect. I proudly declare myself Catholic, think of myself as faithful to the True Faith, attend Mass, participate in the life of my parish, and think the nut case far right is out to lunch on the issue of birth control and other Catholic issues.

I’ve written recently about the fact that the Vatican, the American Bishops, and Timothy Cardinal Dolan have opposed President Obama’s directive that some Catholic institutions provide birth control as part of their health coverage. They have framed this as an assault on the Catholic Church and religious freedom. Married Catholics like me frame this as the ongoing war on married couples. We applaud women like Sandra Fluke who speak from a place of truth and integrity. We pray for the day the Catholic prohibition on birth control goes in a direction that makes sense beyond the celibate male clergy.

Additionally, I’m astounded by his attack on President Kennedy. For many of use who grew up in the 20th Century, John Kennedy was our Catholic icon. Among other things he was able to articulate to the United States a Catholic belief that was true to our traditions without claiming that a Catholic President is an agent to the Pope. As a candidate in 1960 John Kennedy was perceived by many as just this: the Pope would call and the President would follow orders. Catholics like myself have always found this preposterous, but many non Catholics of that time needed reassurance.

On September 12, 1960, Senator Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association and said this:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

Frankly, I find this articulate and accurate, and enough non Catholics thought so in 1960 to elect him president. Mr. Santorum (who was 2 years old at the time) said this to George Stephanopolous on February 26th:

To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

This is troubling on a few levels. First and most obvious, how can a man running for President be so unable understand another person’s speech? At no time did Kennedy claim that he wasn’t a man of faith, only that he would not take orders from the Pope on how to run the county. Second, does he equate faith with the inability to think independently? In other words can I, as a Catholic, discern my own views, or do I have to lockstep with the Pope on all issues.

I guess that means Mr. Santorum and I are very different Catholics.

And I’m praying for his daughter.

Is This What St. Patrick Had in Mind?

Posted on by
Reply

Nancy and I were blessed to be in Chicago this past weekend. It was a fun weekend as the celebration of St. Patrick happened while we were there.

My grandfather, Thomas J. Cazeault (1902-1995) was born of Irish parents and that gives me claim to 25% Irish heritage, even though he was orphaned and raised by a French family.

I’ve always knows that Chicago was a city that knows how to party, but this was beyond all expectations. I’m sure this will be known as the best St. Pat’s celebration in a long time because it was on a Saturday (allowing for all day partying that can go deep into the night). It was also amazingly warm, in the mid 80s F. We started seeing the streets filling with drunk people in green about early afternoon; a few hours after that the sidewalks were so crowded it was hard to manage. Our hotel was only 2 blocks from the Chicago River (that is dyed green for the day) and by evening the hotel needed security to make sure only registered guests came into the hotel. There is an Irish bar next door and I’m assuming their restrooms were overwhelmed. They actually had portable toilets (called, interestingly enough, “LepriCANS”).

The Latest Catholic Assault on Its Faithful

Posted on by
Reply

Last month Loetta Johnson died and her funeral was scheduled for February 25th at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland. She had been a lifelong faithful Catholic and her funeral mass went as expected until her daughter Barbara went to receive Communion. The priest, Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, put his hand over the communion plate and told her (and everyone else) that he was denying her Communion because she is a lesbian and the Catholic Church does not support her lifestyle.

Like many Catholics this story enraged me and I’m completely supportive of the decision of the Archdiocese of Washington to remove Fr. Guarnizo from his post.

Here are the facts of the case (most of the information here is from the Washington Post article this morning): Before the mass, Fr. Guarnizo met with Ms. Johnson and her partner. He asked Ms. Johnson who the other woman was, and Ms. Johnson identified her as her partner (in Fr. Guarnizo’s account Ms. Johnson made unsolicited announcement that the other woman was her partner, or lover, depending on the account). When Ms. Johnson came for Communion, Fr. Guarnizo refused. He also did not preside at the graveside service; Fr. Guarnizo claims he was suffering from a migrane.

In fairness, after being refused Communion, another Eucharistic Minister (who is not a priest) gave her Communion, and another priest stepped forward and presided at the graveside service. I’m grateful for that.

Longterm readers of this blog know that I was a seminarian with the Stigmatine Fathers and Brothers from 1980 to 1985, a seminarian with the Paulist Fathers from 1989 to 1994 and a Paulist Priest from 1994 to 1997. All Eucharistic Ministers (priests, deacons, and laypersons) know that there may be a point where you have to make a split second choice. The person in front of you may be married outside the church, a thief, scoundrel, pedophile, or (God forbid) a non Catholic. In that situation most of us choose to not make a public spectacle and hope that God will sort it out.

That’s what happened to me. I was ordained at St. Paul’s in New York on May 14, 1994. Minutes after I was ordained I was giving Communion and I was presented with the mother of my sister’s husband. I knew she wasn’t Catholic and technically shouldn’t be able to receive Communion. I decided to be generous with the Sacrament and let God sweat the details.

Fr. Guanizo should have done the same. I don’t know if Barbara Johnson thinks of herself as Catholic or was in church only for her mother’s funeral. But then again, I don’t know that she and her partner are sexually active (and are therefore living a lifestyle Fr. Guarnizo finds offensive). I don’t know where she is in her faith journey. I’m grateful that she has found someone to share her life with (and I pray she is as happy in her relationship as I am in my marriage).

I also know that whatever the circumstances, if Fr. Guanzino had given her Communion, it would have given her a generous view of the Catholic Church. I always believed that weddings and funerals were opportunities to present ourselves to people of other faiths, or people who had left us, in our best light. He presented us in our worst light.

I also believe that someday I may need to account to God for my actions. On that day I would rather explain that I was too generous with Communion than too stingy.

Ms. Johnson, please do not let this one priest give you your only face of the Catholic Church. We have many other faces.