Category Archives: Praying

And So the Counting Begins

Posted on by
Reply

This has become a tradition on my part, but I’m going to be here blogging until the election is set, or until I fall asleep in my seat. My primary concern is the Presidential election, but I’ll also be looking at other important local races, as well as returns in San Diego, where I live.

9:55 Pacific Time (1:55AM on the East Coast, 0555 GMT):
My thanks to Governor Romney for his gracious concession speech. It’s been a long night and I’m ready for bed and I’m grateful for his call to reach across the aisles and work for our future. And I’m grateful for his prayers.

9:30 Pacific Time (1:30AM on the East Coast, 0530 GMT):
Still waiting to hear from Governor Romney. I can’t go to bed until I hear his concession, but I have to work tomorrow.

9:00 Pacific Time (1:00AM on the East Coast, 0500 GMT):
We’re still waiting for the concession speech from Governor Romney. I’m not wishing for a repeat of the 2000 election.

8:25 Pacific Time (12:25 on the East Coast, 0425 GMT):
Even Faux News is projecting President Obama the winner. How cool is that?

8:15 Pacific Time (12:15 on the East Coast, 0415 GMT)
CNN is now projecting that President Obama the winner in Ohio. If it’s true, it puts the President over the 270 mark. I’m not going to stop watching (and blogging) until the concession speech, so stay tuned.

8:00PM Pacific Time (Midnight on the East Coast, 0400 GMT)
The polls just closed here in California. It’s no surprise, but it looks like President Obama carried it and our 55 electoral votes are a boost. PBS now projects that the President can claim 225 electoral votes. I’m pleased to see that in my home state of Virginia has elected Tim Kane (D) over George Allen (R).

7:00PM Pacific Time (10:00 East Coast, 0300 GMT)
The polls continue to close going west. The PBS web page is loading slowly and it’s making it harder to get fast results. The best news for me is the race for Senator in Missouri: Claire McCaskill has apparently beaten Todd Akin: he was the person who claimed that women can’t get pregnant from a “legitimate” rape. My complaint with him wasn’t just that he was wrong, it’s that he was stupid. If someone tells me something that unbelievably stupid, I’m not going to listen, and I’m certainly not going to repeat it. The fact that he was so willing to believe something that stupid because it was politically convenient tells me all I need to know about him. Congratulations Claire!

PBS is saying now that the President is leading the electoral college map 173 to 163.

6:30PM Pacific Time (9:30PM East Coast, 0230 GMT)
Governor Romney is still ahead in the projections, 153 to 123. It appears that President Obama should carry Pennsylvania with its 20 electoral votes, and Wisconsin with its 10 electoral votes. I appreciate PBS’s caution, but I’m also elated at the idea that Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan with both loose their states.

6:00PM Pacific Time (9PM East Coast, 2AM GMT)
As a Democrat, I’m getting a little concerned. At this point 4 years ago, Senator Obama was leading Senator McCain 175 electoral votes to 76. Right now Governor Romney leads President Obama 138 to 109. Here’s the optimistic part: Polls have closed in the Midwest, which is the Governor’s stronghold. It may be that he’s already gotten most of the electoral votes he’s going to get; Texas has already gone for him and at 38 electoral votes, it’s likely the largest state he’s going to get. California polls don’t close for another few hours and it will bring 55 votes for the President. As I look at the numbers there’s reason to be hopeful about Ohio. As I write this, 33% of the votes have been counted and President Obama leads 54% to 45%.

5:00PM Pacific Time (8PM East Coast, 1AM GMT)
I’m actually writing this at 5:10PM. Polls have already closed in several states and the votes are being counted. As I write this the projections on PBS are coming in. Right now President Obama leads the electoral vote race 64 to 40. The states line up like this: President Obama should win in Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, Delaware, and Illinois. Governor Romney is projected to win South Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, and Oklahoma. Other networks have made bolder predictions, but I’d rather be right than fast, and PBS clearly agrees.

The Election is Tomorrow: Do You Know Where Your Vote Is?

Posted on by
Reply

Everyone knows this, but tomorrow we go to the polls and cast our votes. I have strong political leanings but tonight is not the night to share them.

Let me just say this: If you are able to vote in this election and don’t, please don’t tell me. I won’t take it well.

A large percentage of people in our world don’t have this opportunity. It’s easy (though not pleasant or respectful) to live in a totalitarian regime: all you have to do is keep your mouth shut and hope things go well for you. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t.

It’s harder to live in a democracy because our leadership works for us, not the other way around. It means we have to listen, evaluate, judge, and ultimately vote. It means we have to take the time to read through platforms, have difficult and perhaps painful discussions with people we like and love, and show up on election day.

My parents gave me innumerable gifts, and voting was one of them. When they went to vote they took me with them. I watched them go into the voting booth, and they made the connection between what they were doing, field trips to Mount Vernon and Monticello, and my role. When I turned 18 I couldn’t wait to register to vote and I’ve never taken it for granted.

In the past 236 years countless men and women have sacrificed convenience, liberty, and their lives for your right to vote. Make them proud.

Rest in Peace Senator McGovern

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday we got the sad news that Senator George McGovern died at 90 years old. His was a voice of my generation: though he lost badly, he ran for President against Richard Nixon and his wisdom persists.

He was an unabashed liberal in an era where it was often considered a dirty word. He was a gentleman who served in the House of Representatives from 1956 to 1960 and the Senate from 1962 to 1980. He ran for President in large part because he wanted an end to the war in Vietnam. He knew the dangers of war as he served in the USAAF during World War II. On December 15, 1944 while flying a mission over Austria he was struck by shrapnel and nearly killed. He was later awarded the Air Medal.

He came home and devoted himself to public service. He was an example of the best of the Greatest Generation. He opposed the war in Vietnam because, as he said, “I’m fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.”

OK, here’s my favorite:

Every program that ever helped working people — from rural electrification to Medicare — was enacted by liberals over the opposition of conservatives. When people tell me they don’t like liberals, I ask, ‘Do you like Social Security? If so, then shut up!

On that quotation: my thanks to John Sheirer. He writes a blog on Real American Liberal. I needed to make sure the quotation was real and he responded in a matter of hours.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 8: Maybe now DOMA is Doomed

Posted on by
Reply

With all the attention given to the Presidential campaign, an important story isn’t getting as much publicity as it should. On October 18, 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a ruling in the case of Windsor v. US that the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA is unconstitutional.

In 1996 the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, DOMA. Among other things DOMA prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from recognizing same sex marriages, even if the couple were legally married.

I’m taking the facts of the case from the opinion itself. Edith (Edie) Windsor and Thea Spyer were legally married in Canada in 2007 (though they had been a couple for 44 years). Thea died in 2009 in New York, and had they been a heterosexual couple, Edie would have been classified as the surviving spouse for tax purposes. Because of DOMA their marriage wasn’t recognized by the IRS and Edie owed $363,053 in taxes to inherit Thea’s estate. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes, but because of DOMA Edie was not considered Thea’s spouse and is responsible for those taxes. Edie sued in federal court to return the $363,053, arguing that she was Thea’s spouse; in 2011 New York began allowing same sex marriages and the state recognized their union.

There are many nuances to this case, but essentially the court found that DOMA is “an unprecedented intrusion into an area of traditional state regulation” as the states grant marriage licenses.

Clearly the issue of gay marriage is going to the Supreme Court in either this session or the next. But I have to confess a chuckle over this case as it’s decided on the basis of federal intrusion while the Republican Party consistently reminds us that they are the party to “get government off our backs.” I’m guessing they don’t want government off our backs on this one.

Personal note: DOMA claims to protect traditional marriage. As a heterosexual married man, can anyone tell me how gay marriage threatens my marriage? If so, I’m happy to support DOMA. In the meantime I’m on the side of opposing homophobia.

An Anniversary That Means a Great Deal to Me (if not anyone else)

Posted on by
Reply

On this date in 1980 I had an eventful day: I entered the seminary of the Stigmatine Fathers and Brothers. I moved from my home in Woodbridge, Va. to Watertown, MA; actually the Stigmatine House of Studies at 229 Watertown St. in Watertown. I transferred from George Mason University to Boston College and changed my major from Government to Philosophy. It was quite a change.

I write this because as I look over the grand sweep of my life (so far) this is a pretty big day. Previous to this I had visions of graduating from George Mason, going to University of Virginia Law School and spending my career as an attorney. By my sophomore year at George Mason I began to understand that this wasn’t going to fulfill me. The idea of switching to becoming a Catholic priest seemed unbelievable, but somehow attractive. I entered the Stigmatine seminary that day convinced that God would take care of me and prevent anything bad from happening.

He did (take care of me) and didn’t (prevent anything bad from happening). But from that day I’ve never seriously thought about becoming a lawyer, and I’ve never thought about a career away from being a public person of faith. Since that day I’ve been a seminarian (with both the Stigmatines and the Paulist Fathers), a priest with the Paulists, a Director of Religious Education (running a CCD or Sunday School program), a Youth Minister (working with teens), a resident manager in a home for teen mothers, and (finally) a hospice chaplain.

When I look back on the person I was 32 years ago I barely recognize myself. On the other hand I recognize I would not be the middle aged man I am today if my younger self hadn’t taken that step on that day, in that place.

I’m also grateful for all the brave men and women who have crossed my path. Not all of them would predict I’d be where I am now, but all of them had a part in who I am now. My thanks.

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 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!

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.

Now COPD is personal

Posted on by
Reply

As I write this my father is in Fairfax Hospital and I’m asking for prayers from everyone who reads this.

He’s been feeling badly for the last few weeks; he’s been diagnosed with COPD. This isn’t much of a surprise as he smoked a pack and half of cigarettes for about 40 years and the cough he developed earlier this month was thought to be a common cold.

Having a cough is more an irritant than anything else but he also developed swelling (edema) in his abdomen and left leg. The good news is that a doppler test (developed by my friend Lori’s father George Leopold) ruled out a blot clot.

The bad news is that he was having a hard time speaking and we didn’t know why. The hospital called at 3AM and told him to go to the Emergency Room. His sodium level was low (111) and we think it’s a bad combination of his hypertension medication Linisopril and Hydrochlorothiazide. That explained why he was so sluggish. The Lisinopril is a good idea but having Hydrochlorothiazide wasn’t. It’s a diuretic which is normally a good idea for hypertension but it lowers both potassium and sodium which messes with heartbeat. The doctors have changed the medication to stop the diuretic and we all hope it’s the beginning of good news.

I pray it is. My father is a good man, but he doesn’t enjoy being a patient; it’s hard for him to ask for help or be the center of attention. It will be good news for everyone when he gets to go home and I pray and hope he comes home soon to my mother (who he has been married to for nearly 54 years). They belong together.

I love them more than I can say.