Contraceptives, Cooperation with Evil, and the Supreme Court Decision

     I haven’t written here for a long time. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released on June 30, 2014 regarding the law suit which exempts closely held, for profit corporations from providing certain forms of birth control has inspired me though to consider some of these more complicated issues. I appreciate the tones of the discussions that I have had with people on Facebook, and hope that this civility and respect can continue. There are 3 things I want to consider in the following paragraphs. The first is the nature and function of medications that have been called contraceptive. The second is the philosophical idea of cooperation with evil. The last is the basis of the Supreme Court decision based on the opinion written by Chief Justice Alito and the addendum to his opinion written by Justice Kennedy.

 

Medication Is Not Evil, But It’s Not Good Either 

     Medication is medication. Medication, in and of itself, has no moral value. It is morally neutral. In that sense, medication is like a hammer. Medications and hammers derive their moral value based on the function to which they are used. A hammer can build a house, in which case the function of the hammer has positive moral value. A hammer wielded by a maniac can kill an innocent human being, in which case the function of the hammer has a negative moral value. Medications are the same. Medications can be used to make someone well, in which function they a valued morally good. Medications can be used to kill someone, in which function they are valued morally evil. This is true of medications that are so called contraceptives, too. Contraceptives have no moral value in and of themselves. They are neutral. To paraphrase  Freud, “Sometimes a pill is just a pill.”

     Then what’s the big deal? The medications that are often prescribed by doctors as birth control pills have no moral value in and of themselves, but attain moral value based on the function to which they are used. “The pill” can be used to treat Endometriosis and Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOV), which are painful and legitimate women’s health concerns (http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill). But to say in a blanket statement, “’The pill’ is evil,” is too much of an overstatement. First of all, there are many different forms of “the pill.” “The pill” is actually several different forms of medication that are prescribed at various levels of potency. This is important to remember with the word “contraceptive,” too. Just like there are many forms of “the pill,” there are many forms of “contraceptives.” The condom is a contraceptive. “The pill” is a contraceptive. RU-486 is a “contraceptive.” Plan B, also known as “the morning after pill,” is a “contraceptive.” Even abortion has been called a “contraceptive.” This is a HUGE part of the problem when we hear that the SCOTUS has exempted closely held, for profit companies from providing “contraception” for its employees. We lump all of these “contraceptives” together in that statement without bothering to find out what the SCOTUS actually did in this decision.

     The SCOTUS did not exempt the plaintiffs, Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel corporations, from providing “the pill” in its ruling. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit never sought to have “the pill” exempted. In the HHS mandate for the provision of “contraceptives,” there are 20 listed that a company must provide. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit sought to be exempted from 4 of those 20, Plan B (the morning after pill), Ella (which is a medication that works very similarly to Plan B), and 2 intrauterine devices (IUDs). The reason is because unlike the 16 other forms of contraception listed in the HHS rule, the plaintiffs believe that Plan B, Ella, and the IUDs do not work solely to prevent conception (thus being truly functionally “contraceptive”), but also work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine wall to grow into an embryo. The plaintiffs believe that a human life begins at the very second the sperm pierces the outer egg shell and the egg is fertilized, in other words, at the moment of conception. The plaintiffs believe that these forms of “contraception” are actually abortifacient, in that they work by causing an abortion of a conceived human being by stopping the fertilized egg from implanting into the uterine wall, rather than by preventing the conception in the first place.

     Plan B is an “emergency birth control pill” taken in one dose that works either by preventing ovulation, preventing the sperm from reaching the egg, or “prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining” (http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b). Ella is a non-hormonal “emergency birth control pill” taken in one dose. Ella’s formal medical name is Ulipristal. Ella works by “preventing or delaying ovulation” (http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ulipristal-for-emergency-contraception). “It also may work by changing the lining of the uterus (womb) to prevent  development of a pregnancy” (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a610020.html). In other words, one of its forms of action is to change the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg cannot implant into the womb, thus being abortifacient, rather than “contraceptive.” There are 2 types of IUDs. One works by releasing progesterone, which thickens the cervical mucus in an attempt to prevent fertilization. Failing that, “the hormone also changes the lining of the uterus, so implantation of a fertilized egg cannot occur” (http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/iud-intrauterine-device). The other type releases copper into the uterus creating a toxic environment within the uterus, thus working as a type of spermicide to destroy sperm before it is able to reach the egg to fertilize it. Failing that, the environment of the womb is toxic due to the copper, so normal implantation and development of an embryo in the uterine wall is interrupted. (http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/iud-intrauterine-device; http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/birth-control-methods.html#impdev). These four forms of “contraceptives” also have as a secondary “back up” action of interfering with the implantation of a fertilized egg, thus making them abortifacient. These four forms of birth control are not prescribed for any other reason than to prevent pregnancy. There is no benefit for a woman’s health that comes from these four forms of birth control. They are not used to treat in any medical condition. They are solely to prevent pregnancy.

     So we have these four forms of “contraceptives,” which also may work through abortifacient means, and that are prescribed for no physical health reason other than to prevent pregnancy. The HHS rule still requires Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel to provide “the pill” to women both as contraceptive and as treatment for physical health problems. Again, the plaintiffs never sought exemption from providing “the pill.”

     It is against the moral beliefs of the plaintiffs to cooperate with abortion in any way. These 2 medications and 2 IUDs do work occasionally by functioning as abortifacients. The plaintiffs believe that in paying for these medications through their insurance providers, they would be cooperating with abortions indirectly. This leads us to our second topic.

 

Cooperation With Evil, A Philosophical Conundrum 

     Every moral system that has ever been developed agrees that it is never right to do something that is morally evil. People of sincere thought and good faith have disagreed on what constitutes a morally evil act, but everyone would agree that it’s not ok to do one. This is such a huge topic, and there are many ways to discuss cooperation with evil. For this discussion, I am going to focus on 3 forms of cooperation with evil, immediate (also known as direct), mediate (also known as indirect), and remote.

     An immediate cooperation with moral evil would be, for example, driving a get –away car for a bank robbery. Now there are elements that could reduce one’s culpability for this direct cooperation with a moral evil. For example, I may not know that the person I’m picking up just robbed a bank. Or perhaps I’m waiting in my car at a stop light and the bank robber runs out, jumps in my car, puts a gun in my face and says, “Drive!” In one instance, my lack of knowledge diminishes my culpability. In the other, one could argue that my free will was impeded, and that lack of freedom would diminish my culpability. For the purpose of this argument, we are going to assume that the person acting has both full knowledge and full freedom of will to cooperate or to refuse to cooperate.

     The second form of cooperation, mediate, occurs when one is complicit with the immoral act, but does not directly assist in the act. For example, if I were to sell a gun to a person who I knew was going to use the gun for a robbery. I do not participate in the robbery at any level, but because I know the robbery is going to occur and that the person plans on using the gun in the robbery, I am cooperating with the act of the robbery. Another example, which becomes pertinent to the discussion here, is if my friend wants to sleep with a prostitute as a last “fling” the night before his wedding, so I pay for the prostitute. I do not sleep with the prostitute myself, nor am I even present when my friend has sex with the prostitute. I have paid for the prostitute, and therefore am indirectly cooperating with the immoral sexual act.

     The third form of cooperation with evil is remote. If I deposit my money into a bank, and then the bank provides a small business loan to a person who intends to start a pornography shop, I am remotely cooperating with that evil. The greatest real life example of this is in paying taxes. The government may be using my tax dollars to fund activities that I find morally reprehensible, funding for abortion facilities or funding for what I consider to be unjust wars. I am remotely cooperating with this evil by paying my taxes.

     As you can see, my level of culpability diminishes with each step away from the evil act. I am directly culpable when I am immediately cooperating. I am culpable, but to a lesser degree, when I am indirectly complicit in the act. I bare little if any culpability at all when I am remotely connected to the act.

     This is the conundrum that was placed before the owners of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel. They believe that abortion is an evil act. I am not willing in this discussion to debate the morality of abortion. That is a conversation for a different time. They believe it is evil. The HHS mandate as it stands requires them to pay for the four types of birth control which do occasionally work as abortifacients. This is a similar situation to my friend who wishes to sleep with a prostitute. By paying for the abortifacient medications, they are indirectly cooperating with the use of those medications, which is the second level of cooperation, and therefore makes them culpable in part for any abortion of a pregnancy that may occur if those medications or devices were used by one of their employees. They are being asked to violate their deeply held religious conviction.

     Some of have brought up the fact that Hobby Lobby provides a 401k for its employees, and that the money of the 401k is invested in the very companies that produce the abortifacient medications and devices to which they so strongly objected. While I agree that from a PR perspective, this doesn’t look good, from a moral perspective, this falls into the third category of remote cooperation. I do not have all of the details regarding Hobby Lobby’s 401k, but I imagine it is not that much different than the 401ks that I have had offered by my employers throughout my work history. If this is the case, then Hobby Lobby’s investments into these companies would be a the same level as our third example of the person who puts his money into a savings account, while the bank invests in a pornography store. Hobby Lobby puts its money into an investment firm, who then invests the money into ventures and companies over which Hobby Lobby has no control. This level of cooperation carries with it no culpability on the part of Hobby Lobby for cooperation. Hobby Lobby invests its money with Edward Jones (for example), who then invests into a whole bunch of different companies, one of which is a pharmaceutical company, who among all of its different pharmaceutical products manufactures a drug that is abortifacient. This is very different than paying for an abortifacient drug for someone to use. I agree that it may be prudent for the sake of appearances that Hobby Lobby should look into an investment firm that avoids moral hot topics. Their level of cooperation, however, is so far removed in their 401k investments that they do not share culpability for the manufacture of these drugs.

     So the four forms of birth control do work through abortifacient means, and the plaintiffs in the case believe that paying for them through insurance is an indirect level of cooperation with abortion that would compromise their moral beliefs. Can the plaintiffs be forced to compromise their moral beliefs by the government?

 

The Supreme Court Decision 

     One of the primary arguments that has been made is that a corporation cannot have a set of moral beliefs or the right to religious liberty, because it is a corporation and not a person. People have even stated that the SCOTUS has now extended to corporations a right that we do not have as individuals. This simply is not the case.

     The first part of Chief Justice Alito’s majority opinion points out that according to law, corporations are considered persons under the law. Justice Alito points to an earlier decision by a court of appeals that ruled that corporations cannot hold religious beliefs, to emphasize that indeed they can:

 

In holding that Conestoga, as a “secular, for-profit corporation,” lacks RFRA protection, the Third Circuit wrote as follows:

“General business corporations do not, separate and apart from the actions or belief systems of their individual owners or employees, exercise religion. They do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously-motivated actions separate and apart from the intention and direction of their individual actors.” 724 F. 3d, at 385 (emphasis added).

All of this is true—but quite beside the point. Corporations, “separate and apart from” the human beings who own, run, and are employed by them, cannot do anything at all. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf; Opinion of the Court, pgs. 18-19).

 

     In other words, while corporations may not have the right to religious freedom, because they do not exercise a religion, the individuals who own those companies do have the right to religious liberty and are allowed to practice their right of religious freedom, i.e. not to be compelled to do something which violates their conscience, within their business practices. This is part of what this “closely held, for profit corporation” definition means. In some businesses, you cannot separate the owners of the business from the business that they run. The families that own Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel hold the businesses very closely. Indeed the founder of Hobby Lobby is the CEO, and his 3 children serve as Vice-CEO, President and Vice-President of the company. It is a family owned and ran business. They operate their business generally within their religiously beliefs, so they are not making an exception for the abortifacients in dispute. One cannot separate Hobby Lobby from the family who runs it, and therefore they are allowed to run their business according to the individual religious beliefs. The SCOTUS did not as some claim extend a right to a corporation that is not held by individuals, but rather upheld the rights of individuals to run their businesses according to their religious beliefs.

     Can owners of businesses be compelled by the government to do something that violates their religious beliefs? Believe it or not, this is not the first time that the SCOTUS has had to deal with this question. The question of whether the government can limit the exercise of religion has come up before in different circumstances. In the past, the SCOTUS has heard cases regarding the illegalization of hallucinogens and the effect this has on religious practice. The SCOTUS has heard cases in which the states interest in limiting marriage to monogamous relationships seems to violate religious sects’ beliefs regarding polygamous marriages. The court has also heard cases in which laws requiring businesses to be closed on Sundays were questioned by religious people whose Sabbath day of rest was celebrated on Saturday.  There is a history of the SCOTUS examining cases in which religious liberty and government interests seem to have come into conflict. Throughout this history, a test was developed. This test was later codified into law in the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (to which Chief Justice Alito refers as RFRA in the quote above), which was passed and signed into law in 1993. The test consists of 2 questions: 1. Does the government action which limits religious freedom further a compelling government interest? And 2. Is the government action the least restrictive way to secure the government’s compelling interest?

     When looked at objectively, I find it almost laughable that one could argue that the imposition placed on the plaintiffs serves a compelling government interest. The argument that is made is that limiting a woman’s access to contraception would be a public health risk. This is simply not the case. First of all, the four forms of abortifacient birth control under scrutiny in this case are never prescribed for women’s health reasons. They are only prescribed to prevent pregnancy. They serve no health benefit at all. Secondly, the medications that are normally prescribed to address women’s health issues like Endometriosis and PCOV are not exempted, and the plaintiffs never asked to be exempted from them. This, however, is not where the test failed according to the SCOTUS.

     The government action, forcing the plaintiffs to cover abortifacients against their religious beliefs, failed the test on the second question. Justice Kennedy in an addendum to Chief Justice Alito’s opinion states that the HHS, which created the mandate, has already in place a system by which women can access these abortifacient forms of birth control without their employer paying for it. The HHS provided an exemption in partnership with the insurance companies for religious, non-profit organizations. These groups already do not have to provide contraception to their employees as part of their benefits package. Female employees of these non-profit, religious organizations are provided any form of birth control that they request at no personal cost to them through this partnership with HHS and the insurance companies. In other words, the women still have access to these forms of birth control without having to pay for them, and the companies don’t have to pay for them either.

     Justice Kennedy stated that rather than force for-profit corporations into providing something that violates the religious beliefs of the owners, the same process that allows female employees of religious, non-profit organizations to access any form of birth control at no personal cost could be implemented for the for-profit companies.  There is another means by which women can access these forms of birth control without personal cost and without forcing the owners of companies to violate their religious beliefs.

     This is why the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The SCOTUS found that the individuals who own these companies have sincerely held religious beliefs regarding these four forms of birth control, and that there is another means by which the issue of women’s health concerns can be served without forcing these individuals to compromise their religious principles.

    

      I hope that this discussion sheds some light on the subject for you. Please feel free to share this with as many people as you want. My only requirement is for you to share what I have written in its entirety. No editing, no taking anything out of context.  I am always happy to dialogue respectfully with anyone about what I’ve written, and answer any questions that people may have.

     I truly hope this essay has been helpful in furthering the dialogue regarding this decision.

The Splendor of Poverty

            I was struck by the seeming inconsistency in this Sunday’s readings. In the first reading, the prophet Malachi foretells the coming of the Lord of Hosts to His temple, “Yes, he is coming, says the Lord of Hosts. But who will endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears? For he is like the refiner’s fire, or like the fuller’s lye.” One gets the sense that he’s going to appear in a ‘blaze of glory.”

                This is repeated in the Responsorial Psalm, “Lift up, O gates, your lintels; reach up, you ancient portals, that the king of glory may come in! Who is this king of glory? The Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord, mighty in battle!” I don’t know what this king of glory looks like, but when he gets here, you’ll know it. He’s a king. He’s glorious. He’s powerful, with a strength so intense that we will not be able to stand in his presence.

                Then, we get the gospel.

                Jesus, a baby unable to walk, an infant unable to speak, carried into the temple by his mother and father, who had to offer the sacrifice designated for the poor. You see the rich, well, they had to offer in sacrifice at the birth of the first son a lamb or a young male calf. Since those who were very poor could not afford to purchase a lamb or a young bull, they got to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” They were poor. Not just a little bit poor. The Holy Family was very poor.

                How does this make sense? Why are we set up with readings that would be more suited to, oh, say, Jesus’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem and the purification of the temple? Those readings would fit great with that event of his life. Unless, there is a splendor in poverty that we cannot see. Maybe there was something there that, without God’s presence in our life, would be invisible to us.

                It was not invisible to Simeon. Here was a man who had spent his life in the temple. Simeon was used to the presence of God. I’ve often asked myself, “How did he know?” Of all the hundreds of children that would have been brought into the temple in a month or a week, of all the thousands of children that were brought into the temple during his lifetime, how did he know that Jesus was the one? I think it was because he saw the splendor of the king, the majesty and glory of the Lord of Hosts that was invisible to everyone else, hidden within the poverty of the Holy Family. Simeon had learned to see beyond nice clothes, large animals, bands of people in an entourage. Simeon learned to recognize the true presence of the Lord of Hosts in the splendor of poverty.

                What a lesson for us today, as we seek after the next biggest house, the next nicest car, the next fanciest gadget, the next prettiest fashion. There is a beauty in poverty that we can only see when we have drawn close to the Lord. Perhaps we should think of the purity of poverty. The prophet Malachi states that the Lord who comes is like the refiner’s fire. He goes on: “He will sit refining and purifying silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi, refining them like gold or like silver that they may offer due sacrifice to the Lord.”

                I think of the words of Jesus, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” That is from Matthew’s gospel. Many people use that little phrase, “in spirit,” as a way of justifying owning many possessions. “Yes, I have all of these things, but I’m not attached to them, so I’m actually living in poverty of spirit.” Ask them to sell their $50,000 car and buy an old, beat up mini-van, and they’ll give you all kinds of reasons why they can’t do that. Not attached to it, huh? Luke doesn’t make any such provision that could be interpreted as an excuse, “Blessed are you who are poor,” Luke’s gospel says. Not poor in spirit, but poor; Jesus in Luke’s gospel wants us to lack possessions, to be poor.

                Perhaps this poverty in which we see the Holy Family is the fire that refines and purifies us. The sacrifice that is acceptable to the Lord is the foregoing of earthly possessions. Perhaps, by letting go of our earthly possessions, our desire for God is purified and strengthened. Perhaps, in ridding ourselves of earthly measures of happiness, we find pure joy, holy peace, happiness beyond our wildest dreams.

That was Jesus’s challenge to the rich young man, “Go, sell what you have and give it to the poor, and come follow me, then you will be perfect.” In that story of the rich, young man, he approaches Jesus asking what he needs to do to be saved. Jesus tells him to follow the commandments. The rich, young man wants more than that. “I’ve done these things since my youth,” he says to Jesus. “What more do I lack?” That question has echoed within me for years. He’s not really asking about what he needs to do to get to heaven. Jesus answered that question. In all his riches, he still feels like he is lacking something. He isn’t happy, and he wants to know what will make him happy. “Poverty,” Jesus says in essence, “that is what you lack; poverty that will allow you the freedom to be with me.” The rich, young man goes away very sad, because he had many possessions.

                He goes away sad, because he had many possessions.

                We are called to be purified in poverty. This is radical. No doubt about it. But the more I hang out with Jesus, the more radical I believe Jesus actually is. Spiritual poverty, I think, doesn’t so much mean that we can afford to own riches, so we do, but “aren’t attached to them.” Spiritual poverty, it seems to me, means that we can afford to own riches, but we deliberately choose not to. We satisfy ourselves with simple things that meet our basic needs, and we give the rest to the poor. Spiritual poverty is a deliberate choice to live as the poor, with the poor, and in service to the poor, because Jesus was poor.

                A practical example of this is the recent event involving our van. Last year in March, we paid more than the van was worth to get it fixed. It’s been acting up the last few weeks, and last week, there was literally a stream of fluid running from underneath it. It was coolant. We hoped for a cheap fix. Nope, the estimate put it at over $650.00. Now we had a choice. Get it fixed and continue driving this beat up, old piece of junk that has a broken automatic door. Or, finance a new vehicle. The fact is, we can afford to finance a $25,000 or $30,000 dollar vehicle. We’ve chosen not to. It’s not because we can’t afford to get a new vehicle. We are making a deliberate choice to live out the gospel Beatitude of Poverty of Spirit, offering up driving a really, REALLY nice car to the Lord, so that our desire for Him may be purified.

                People may ask whether God wants us to have nice things. Doesn’t God, who loves us and wants us to be happy, want us to have things that will make us happy? Sure. But this is what we need to understand: the happiness that God wants for us does not depend on material goods. It’s deeper than that, more eternal than that. God wants to give us everything that is good. He is a loving Father who wants to provide for us everything that we need to be happy. At the same time, he as a loving Father may be asking us to give up those things that will lead us to unhappiness. This is a guarantee: what God wants to provide for you will make you infinitely happier than any material thing you can provide for yourself.

                As in all things, there is a balance. Virtue is found in the middle. This call to radical poverty that we find in the gospel is not meant to create a situation where our needs go unmet. Jesus isn’t telling us that we should go hungry, or that we should drive our children around in an unsafe or unreliable vehicle. Jesus isn’t telling us to live in a house in which we are in danger or that doesn’t meet our needs as a family. Not meeting the needs of my family is as much a violation of Poverty of Spirit as ignoring the needs of the poor. We meet our needs (not wants) first, and use the rest in service to the Lord and His poor.

                I have felt for years, that the Lord was calling my family to live a more radical understanding of this lifestyle. Is it easy? Absolutely not. Does it create discomfort? Absolutely yes. Does it mean that we grieve when we want something big and expensive? Yep, that too. Have we lived out this radical call to true poverty of spirit perfectly? Nope. But those painful moments of living out in a “rubber hits the road” kind of way this Beatitude of Poverty of Spirit remind us that really all we need to be happy is Jesus.

All we need to be happy is Jesus, and we can let everything else go.

                As we do this, we are “purified as gold and silver.” Our hunger for heaven gets deeper. Our joy in Jesus gets more profound. Our happiness gets holier. Unlike the rich, young man, who went away sad because he had many possessions, we will be filled with happiness and joy that can only be seen by those like Simeon, who have learned to see the invisible splendor of God, the splendor that is hidden within poverty.

A Turn in The Road

About 5 years ago, I and a friend had stopped riding with a Christian motorcycle ministry group. We were frustrated. The group met monthly, gathering in the basement of a local church and talking about all the ministry opportunities that were available. We were frustrated that it seemed like all they did was talk. We decided to form our own Christian motorcycle ministry, and designed a back patch to be worn whose centerpiece was the Chi-Rho symbol, an ancient symbol of Christ. The story goes that Constantine on the eve of a battle in which his troops were hopelessly outnumbered saw the Chi-Rho symbol in the sky and heard the words, “In this sign conquer.” He instructed his troops to paint the symbol on their shields. They did so, and won the battle the next day. According to the myth, this led to the conversion of Constantine and the legalization of Christianity.  I went so far as to get a tattoo of the Chi-Rho symbol on my arm, surrounded by the words, “IN HOC SIGNO VINCES” (“In this sign conquer”).

Needless to say, that fledgling attempt at forming my own motorcycle ministry didn’t work out.

Longing for fellowship and friendship with other bikers, I met New Breed Clean and Sober Motorcycle Club. I loved these guys. It was 2009, and in order to be a member, I had to have a full year of no alcohol consumption, so I gave up drinking any alcohol at all, and became a hang around. In 2010, I completed that first year of no alcohol use, and I was voted in as a prospect. In 2011, I received my full patch status. I love my New Breed Brothers.

About six months ago, I was trolling on the internet and found the website for Catholic Cross Bearers Motorcycle Ministry (CCBMM). Their back patch, called “the colors” in the motorcycling world, has as its centerpiece the Chi-Rho symbol. Coincidence number 1.

I read the website, and noticed they didn’t have any presence in Missouri. I briefly toyed with the idea of turning in my New Breed colors and asking to be a member of this Catholic motorcycle group, but I loved the bond of brotherhood I have with New Breed, and I love my New Breed brothers, so I quickly dismissed the idea.

Every-once-in-a-while, the thought would return, but I really wasn’t interested in leaving my brothers. I love my brothers in New Breed. The thought of turning in my New Breed colors and asking to join CCBMM kept getting stronger and stronger, so I stopped looking at the CCBMM Facebook page and put it out of my mind. I even changed my notification settings so that I wouldn’t get notifications when someone from CCBMM posted something. I did not want to leave New Breed and the Brothers I had found there, and I hated that feeling of having a split desire.

The thought would not leave me though. It became the kind of thought that was like a car alarm blaring outside my window. I was able to focus on other things, but I was always aware of it there in the background. Months went by like this, with that thought nagging at me. So a few weeks ago, I decided to take it into prayer.

I prayed pretty hard about it, and the thought just kept returning that this is what God wants me to do. I’ve been telling God that I don’t want to leave my brothers in New Breed. I went to Mass one Saturday morning. The gospel reading for that Saturday was about how some of John the Baptist’s disciples were getting upset that Jesus and his disciples were baptizing, and drawing larger crowds than John. John responded with that well-known response, “He must increase, while I must decrease.” The priest’s homily that day was about how ultimately our will must decrease to allow for the Lord’s work in our lives. We are called to total dedication to the mission of Christ and total submission to his will. Christ must increase, while we must decrease. Coincidence number 2.

I continued to take it to prayer. “Lord, I don’t want to turn in my colors. I love New Breed. But I want to do what you want me to do,” I prayed. One day, while at work, this was on my mind. When I had a brief break at work, I prayed, “Lord, what do you want me to do.” On my Facebook page was a notification that someone had posted from CCBMM. I don’t know why it was there, because, remember, I had turned off the notification settings so that I would stop receiving notifications when anyone from CCBMM posted something. I didn’t want to see what they were posting because I didn’t want to confront that feeling that God was probably asking me to give up New Breed. The notification was someone reposting the daily quote from Pope Francis, which was, “Put on Christ!” The quote went on, but repeated the words, “Put on Christ!” several times. Coincidence number 3.

I continued to pray, asking the Lord for guidance. The mission of Catholic Cross Bearers Motorcycle Ministry is “to bring the love of Jesus to the streets and those imprisoned.” On The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, the priest’s homily was on the universal call to holiness. He talked about our baptismal call to share in the work of Christ and the challenge to be totally dedicated to his mission on earth. He made special emphasis on the idea of the baptismal garment and being clothed in Christ, covered by Him. What’s more, the first reading from the prophet Isaiah said, “I (the Lord) formed you, and set you as a covenant of the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out prisoners from confinement, and from the dungeon, those who live in darkness.” Those words stood out in 3-D to me, and the words of the CCBMM mission were echoing in my head. Coincidence number 4.

I tried to explain to God that I was the chaplain of New Breed, which is a terrific ministry opportunity. I was happy being his servant in New Breed. “Why,” I asked God, “would You be asking me to give up being Your servant to my brothers? I am happy,” I said, “and able to bring Your presence to these guys.” During my Holy Hour each Tuesday morning, I pray over the Sunday scriptures. The scriptures for that upcoming Sunday were all about being a witness to Christ and his presence in the world. I was praying over them in the adoration chapel and the words from Isaiah in the first reading yelled at me, “It is too little, says the Lord, for you to be my servant.” Instead, Isaiah goes on, we are called in His Church to be a light to the nations. I am not called to be comfortable being his servant in my little surroundings, staying safely within my comfort zone. No, God wants me to reach out to those who don’t know Him, not just be comfortable with a bunch of guys who make it their purpose in recovery to submit themselves to His will. Coincidence number 5.

There in the early Tuesday morning quiet of my “prayer closet” in front of the Blessed Sacrament, I asked, exasperated, “God, are you REALLY calling me to do this?”

That same Tuesday evening, I was driving to the Pregnancy Help Center Board meeting. Who should pull up next to me at a stop light but Fr. Joe Corel, Vocation Director of the Diocese of Jefferson City. On the driver side door of his car was a magnetic sign that said, “God May Be Calling You.” Crap. Coincidence number 6.

I said, “Ok God, I want to be your servant and a servant of the Church. If this is truly what you want, I will do it. I don’t want to leave New Breed MC. I love those guys. So if you want me to be your servant by joining CCBMM, I will. It’s just hard for me.”

On Wednesday, the very next day, I attended the funeral of Joe Viet, long time parishioner and living saint of St. Andrew Parish in Holts Summit. Mnsgr. Higley’s homily was a beautiful reflection on the challenge that Joe presented to us in his life. He was a true servant of the Church, dedicating himself to loving his neighbor, everyone he met. He would go out of his way and consistently make personal sacrifices because he loved Jesus so much. If he wasn’t found in prayer, he was found in service, and this is what made him such a good leader within the community. Joe’s life challenges us all, Mnsgr. Higley preached, to be true servants of the Church in everything that we do, and in every situation in which we find ourselves. Joe’s life challenges us to put all that we have and all that we are to the service of Christ and His Holy Church. Coincidence number 7.

I started praying about the mission of the Catholic Cross Bearers, to take the message of Jesus to the streets and those imprisoned. I thought, God, I wouldn’t even know where to begin. After praying this, I went to Mass on Saturday morning, and saw an old friend that I hadn’t seen in years. He told me that he was in town because of a REC weekend. REC stands for Residents Encounter Christ, and is a prison ministry. I laughed out loud. Literally. I started laughing. My friend looked at me funny. I hugged him and told him I would be in touch. Coincidence number 8.

At one point during all of this, I called the president of my New Breed charter to talk to him about what I was thinking. He said 2 things. First, he wanted me to do what I think would make me happy. Second, he said, being the only member of CCBMM in Missouri, and trying to get a chapter started is incredibly hard, and he was concerned I would be disappointed if it failed. I took these things to prayer. That Sunday, again, the responsorial psalm proclaimed, “…to do Your will, o God, is my delight…” The interesting thing is, the version at mass that was used paraphrased these words, “Doing that (God’s will) is what has made me happy.” Then Mnsgr. Higley’s homily focused on a verse of the first reading that wasn’t included in the normal scriptures. The reading for that Sunday was about how we are to proclaim God to the nations, and be his witness to the world. The verse that was missing was this, “Though I thought I had toiled in vain, for nothing and for naught spent my strength, Yet my right is with the LORD, my recompense is with my God.” Mnsgr. Higley talked about how Isaiah, in this verse, felt like a complete failure. He focused on how, while Isaiah felt this way, Isaiah continued to be faithful to the mission he was given. Mnsgr. Higley talked about that famous quote from Mother Therese, “God doesn’t ask us to be successful. He asks us to be faithful.” Coincidence number 9.

A priest once said to me, “There are no coincidences. Only God-incidences.”

I believe that. The way the readings were aligned and the words that spoke to me from them, the events, like the similarity of the ministry patches, the Facebook notification I shouldn’t have gotten, Fr. Joe Corel with his car sign and saint Joe Viet’s funeral and Mnsgr. Higley’s beautiful reflection on that Man of the Church, and then him preaching on a verse of the reading that wasn't even supposed to be included, and it speaking directly to my questions...God is speaking to me His will. There are no coincidences, only God-incidences.

I knew what I had to do, but was loathe to do it, and delayed as much as I could. Then came the readings for the next Sunday. Jesus called Peter, Andrew, James and John, and “immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.” No more excuses, God said to me. So Sunday morning I took my colors to the president of my charter, and am no longer a member of New Breed Clean and Sober Motorcycle Club.

Turning in my New Breed colors is incredibly hard. I really love those guys. New Breed Motorcycle Club is a Clean and Sober club. The majority of the guys in the Club are working some sort of program for recovery. A fundamental principle of recovery is that our will has run riot, and so in order to be truly happy and healthy, we must submit our will to The Will of our Higher Power, as we understand it. The 3^rd Step Prayer from the Big Book of AA goes like this:

God, I offer myself to Thee-
To build with me
and to do with me as Thou wilt.
Relieve me of the bondage of self,
that I may better do Thy will.
Take away my difficulties,
that victory over them may bear witness
to those I would help of Thy Power,
Thy Love, and Thy Way of life.
May I do Thy will always!

It’s kind of ironic really, that to be true to one of the fundamental principles of recovery, principles upon which New Breed Clean and Sober MC are founded, I had to turn in my NBMC colors. I hope that my club brothers can understand this. I want to continue to support my New Breed brothers in everything they do. I love them. Nothing is going to change that. I want to be able still to ride with them when I can, attend and support their activities when I can, just be with them when I can, even if it’s just hanging out for coffee on a Saturday morning. I hope they will still accept me as a friend and supporter of the Club.

The bottom line is I believe with conviction that God is calling me to take up the ministry of CCBMM, to help it become a presence in Missouri.

So here I go on an adventure that I hope is led by the Lord. What attracts me most to riding my motorcycle is the sense of adventure on the open road, where anything could happen. People will say that the journey only makes sense if there is a destination. Those people aren’t real bikers. The destination for me is the road itself. Just to be out there, riding, and seeing what is next in store. I know that if I follow the map laid out for me by the Great Map Maker, I will eventually arrive where I am supposed to be. In faith, I don’t have to see the destination. In faith, all I have to do is follow the road that is before me, one turn at a time. Being a biker is a nearly perfect analogy for this pilgrimage we call life. That’s why I so love this prayer, written by Thomas Merton:

My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going.

I do not see the road ahead of me.

I cannot know for certain where it will end.

Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that

I think I am following Your will does not necessarily mean that I am

actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please You

does in fact please You.

And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing.

I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire.

And I know that if do this You will lead me by the right road

though I may know nothing about it.

Therefore I will trust You always though I may seem to be lost

And in the shadow of death.

I will not fear, for You are ever with me,

and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.

All In...

If you've ever played Poker or watched it on TV, there comes a time when the poker player has managed his chips and the cards he was dealt as well as he could, but needs to go "All In." He pushes everything he has into the middle of the table and waits to see how the cards fall. There is no second guessing how much to bet. There is no sense that he can sit back and take it easy. It's one of the few times in the game when you will see a poker player show emotion. He's "All In," not just with his chips and cards, but his heart and soul, too.

That's what Jesus's invitation to Peter, Andrew, James and John is in this weekend's readings. He's calling them to be "All In." They do it. There's all kinds of debate about whether they knew Jesus before the moment of this calling, or if this was their first encounter. Frankly, that doesn't matter to me. Jesus called them, and they left EVERYTHING, their livelihoods, their families, EVERYTHING. They went "All In."

Reminds me of what Jesus said, "No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the Kingdom of God." (Luke 9: 62).

Jesus looks at us, square in the eyes this week, and asks us if we are "All In."

There is nothing worse than doing anything with a divided heart. Indecision, stress, and worry beseige us. Sometimes, when we "look to what was left behind," we experience guilt or shame. Jesus doesn't care what was left behind us. He is calling us to be "All In" kinds of people. That means ALL in. Even the stuff of which we might be ashamed or feel guilty, the mistakes and the sins of our past. We bring it all.

Peter, Andrew, James and John were fishermen. This was a rough job. It was hard work, and these four guys were salt of the earth kind of people. I imagine them out there cussing, drinking, laughing, telling crude jokes. Jesus didn't care. He called them to be all in. They brought all that with them.

Peter, Andrew, James and John were fishermen. This is what they did for their livelihood. It was what they were good at. It's what they knew, and probably all they knew, as the four of them were probably uneducated and illiterate. Jesus didn't care. He called them to be all in. They brought that with them, too. As a matter of fact, that was one of the conditions for following him. "Come with me," Jesus says, "and I will make you fishers of men." He didn't call them to leave it all behind, but to bring it with them so that he could use it. He told them to put it all in, and then let Him deal the cards.

Believe me, when Jesus is dealing your cards, they are stacked in your favor.

Bring what you know, what you do, who you are, Jesus says to us. When we put it all in, He can take all of those things, what we know, what we do, and who we are, and make them useful to His purpose. Transforming things is something at which Jesus excels. Whether it's water from a well, a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, bread and wine, or our lives, Jesus can change it into something extraordinary. But we have to go all in.

One of my favorite prayers is the morning offering, because it captures that idea of going all in:

Oh Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary,

I offer you my prayers, works, joys and sufferings

of this day for all intentions of Your Sacred Heart

in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

throughout the world,

in reparation for my sins,

for the intentions of all our associates,

and in particular for the intentions

of our Holy Father for this month.

 

Can you go all in for Jesus? He is calling you to give Him everything, your work, your family life, your past, present and future...EVERYTHING.

 

I will guarantee that if you make this bet, and let Jesus deal the cards, you won't lose. Do you dare to go all in?



A Christmas Reflection

I prayed this week over the readings for Mass at Midnight, because I have always loved the midnight Mass. There is just something about it.

As I was listening to God's word in scripture and praying, the fact that Jesus is our Savior kept coming back to me over and over again. This is something I don't think we as Catholics think enough about. At least, we don't verbalize it as explicitly as our non-Catholic brothers and sisters do. I imagine many Catholics today hardly ever think about the fact that Jesus came to save us. Yet it is explicit in our readings.

In the fist reading from the prophet Isaiah, Isaiah describes how the Lord has come to remove the yoke under which we have been enslaved, the rod of the taskmaster that beats us down. This child that is born has come to set us free.

The responsorial pslam, which is called "responsorial" because it is a response to the first reading, rejoices, "Today is born our Savior, Christ the Lord."

The second reading, St. Paul knocks us right between the eyes with it, "The grace of God has appeared, saving all..."

The angels rejoice in the Gospel according to St. Luke as they proclaim to the Shepherds, "For today in the city of David a Savior has been born for you who is Christ and Lord."

Savior. In the Gospel according to Matthew, the angel told Joseph that Mary had conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and to name the child, "Jesus, because God has saved his people from their sins." Even his name literally means, "God saves." So why don't many Catholics, and indeed many Christians, think more about the fact that Jesus has come as Savior? I would wager that most, when presented with the idea that Jesus has come to save us, would respond, "Save us from what?"

Sin, my friends. Seems like a weird message for Christmas, but we can't get around it. I think that we in our culture have lost sight of our sinfulness. The whole broo-ha-ha over Phil Robertson's comments these past couple of weeks...I believe the real reason that so many people were offended is because Phil Robertson dared to express his belief that there is sin. He called homosexuality sinful. Whether it is or it isn't is irrelevant to this reflection. The bottom line is, we don't like being told that we are sinners. Alcoholics and addicts could have just as easily been offended because he pointed out that drunkenness is listed. He also mentioned heterosexual promiscuity, which is a large number of Americans in these "sexually liberated" times. He talked about the swindlers, adulterers, and slanderers, which should have offended most folks in politics these days.

Nobody likes to be called a sinner.

Let's take a moment to look at what sin is in its essence. To do this, let's go all the way back to Genesis, chapter 3, in which we see that first sin.

Sin, first and worst, seperates us from the God who created us and has given us all good things. This is symbolized in the story of the original sin by Adam and Eve hiding from God when they heard Him walking in the garden. God must have walked with them in the garden before, because they were familiar with the sound of His movement. This time, rather than going out to greet Him, they hid. They were now separated from the God who lovingly created them.

Sin also separates us from each other. We were created to be one with all humanity, to share in each others' burdens and joys. This unity is expressed in the creation story by the sharing of the rib in the creation of the woman from the side of the man. It is also expressed in Adam's and Eve's nudity. They were able to be with each other, and though they were both naked, they felt no shame. The first thing they did after sin was create clothes for themselves. Sin caused them to be separated from one another, a division between them that would create strife. Rather than living in equality as a harmony and melody are equal in a song, the woman's desire would be for her husband, but he would rule over her.

Sin also separates us from all of nature. We were created to live in perfect harmony with creation, to care for and cultivate the garden in which God placed us. Instead, all of creation is touched, so that to bring forth food is a toilsome activity, and the earth often rejects us. Instead of living in harmony with nature, we are expelled from that perfect garden, and must get bread through the sweat of our brow.

Lastly, sin creates a disunity within the person, a lack of integrity, which is most explicitly experienced in death, when the soul leaves the body. In a much less obvious way, this lack of integrity is experienced through sickness and suffering.

Jesus is our Savior, having come into the world to save us from our sins. His birth, life, death and resurrection is the cure for the disease of sin that we bring into the world through our disobedience of God's holy will. We no longer need fear death, because of Jesus. Death has simply become our pathway to eternal life, where we will be reunited with a glorified body that can never become sick and never die again.

Jesus calmed the storms and brought forth fish from the sea for food. Jesus came to restore that relationship with nature that we have broken.

Jesus came to restore us to one another, too. During the time of Jesus, sickness wasn't just something for which you went to an urgent care clinic. Sickness often meant ostracization from the community. The death of a loved one meant isolation and poverty for many. When Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead, it wasn't just to restore the integrity that sin has so damaged in us. Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead to restore these people (and their loved) ones to the community. He saved the person from death, and saved the community in the process.

We also know that Jesus is our Emmanuel, a name that literally means, "God with us." We are no longer separated from God. The veil to the Holy of Holies has been torn down. All people can come to the Lord God of Hosts now. No one who wants Jesus is rejected, condemned or abandoned by Him. No one.

No one.

Jesus has brought us back to God. Jesus has saved us from our sins.

The birth of that baby in that manger 2,000 years ago are not just nice stories that give us warm fuzzies in the dead of winter. That birth has cosmic implications. What God wanted originally, and we rejected in sin, that birth in that manger 2,000 years ago has restored. The pain of life, the pain of death, the pain of isolation and ostracization, the pain loneliness and sadness and sickness and grief...Jesus saves us from it all.

This Christmas and Christmas season, when you look on that manger scene, I challenge you to look a little beyond that quaint little creche. See instead your salvation. See the cosmic meaning of that baby's birth.

That baby's birth changed THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and if you open your heart and mind to HIM, it can change you, too.

Thoughts on This Sunday's Readings

      I've been looking at this coming Sunday's readings for Mass, and something has struck me enough to finally write a post reflecting on them.

    What struck me is the juxtaposition of Ahaz in the first reading from Isaiah to Joseph in the gospel according to Matthew. Some context might help this be more apparent.

     Ahaz was King of Judah, and was beginning to feel the pressure of being between two growing superpower nations, Egypt and Assyria. Israel and Judah were centers of trade and commerce, so they were actually quite wealthy. Think of it this way, any trade activity, whether it was from North to South (Assyria to Egypt and back again) or from West to East (the Arab world to the Helenized world and back again) would have passed through Israel and Judah at some point. King Ahaz feared Egypt and their intentions, and so had decided to make an alliance with Assyria.

     The alliance, however, would have subjugated Judah to Assyria, making Judah a vassal nation. Judah would have had to pay dues and taxes to Assyria, and in return Assyria would offer its protection from Egypt.

     The problem, however, is that God did not want His nation to be subject to anyone but Himself. God did not want Ahaz putting his faith in any superpower but the Power of the God of the Hosts. Isaiah the prophet comes to Ahaz and tells him this, and says that God wants Ahaz to ask for a sign as proof that the Lord is willing to protect His people, "Ask for anything," Isaiah says, "Let it be deep as the netherworld or high as the sky!"

     At first glance, Ahaz's response seems to be a good one, "I will not ask. I will not tempt the Lord." We all know that we're not supposed "to tempt the Lord." I mean, even Jesus said this, right. The reason, though, that Ahaz did not want to tempt the Lord, is because he had already made up his mind about what he wanted to do, and didn't want a sign that would cause him to change his mind. He didn't care anymore about what God wanted.

     It reminds me of that Simpson's episode where Homer goes to prayer about something. I don't remember what, but basically he tells God what he wants, and then says if it's ok, that God should give him "no sign whatsoever." Homer waits about 2 seconds, and then says, "Thy will be done." Then he offers God a plate of cookies as a thanksgiving sacrifice and says, "If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign whatsover." Again, he waits about 2 seconds, and ends his prayer with, "Thy will be done." He scarfs the cookies.

     Ahaz didn't want to know God's will. He didn't want a sign that would make him change his mind from what he had already decided to do. Then, in the gospel, we get Joseph.

    Jewish law stated that Joseph had the right to have Mary stoned to death, because she was pregnant with a child that was not his prior to their wedding date. Joseph, however, did not want Mary to die, so he made up his mind to go through with the marriage, and then divorce her quietly. That way, people would think the child she carried was his, conceived on the wedding night. Her life would be spared.

     The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and confirmed what Mary had told him, that the child she carried was in fact conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that Mary remained pure. Unlike Ahaz, Joseph was not so set in his ways that he would not consider the will of God. Joseph changed his mind, and obeyed.

     This message of the need for obedience is repeated in the 2nd reading. Paul describes himself as "a slave of Jesus Christ," which brings the images of an obedient servant. Paul also says that his mission as an apostle is to bring us, the Church of Christ, into "the obedience of the faith."

    The message of obedience to the will of God is a wonderful Christmas message. Zachariah and Elizabeth obeyed God, and John the Baptist was born and named. Mary obeyed God, and Jesus was conceived. Joseph obeyed God, and provided Mary and Jesus with a home. Even Jesus's incarnation was an act of obedience "in fulfillment of scriptures."

     The bottom line is that we are called to obey, too. I don't mean in some non-committal way that tries to explain away the harder things we may be called to do. "Obedience means to listen." That's true etymologically, but just listening to God is not enough. My kids listen to me all the time, and occasionally, they actually turn off the Wii or the DVD and DO WHAT I ASK THEM TO DO. We are called to obey the will of God, in heart, mind and action. We are called to do what God asks us to do.

     "But how do we know what God is asking us to do?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

     The first answer is through the Church, and more specifically, through the office of the Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops. We may not like them, shoot, we might have outright disdain for some of them, but they are the Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, who have been given Authority by Jesus Christ himself to help us discern the will of God. If we're not listening and acting on the teachings of the Apostolic Office, we're not obeying Jesus. Jesus said to the Apostles, "Whoever hears you, hears me." That authority has been passed down for 2,000 years now.

     The second answer is through personal prayer. God wants to speak to you, just as He spoke to Ahaz through Isaiah, and just as He spoke to Joseph in a dream. God wants to make His will known to you in your heart. In order to do that, we must return to the etymological definition of obedience, "to hear." We must spend time listening to God in prayer. God wants to speak to our very hearts. The only time I find myself loathe to listen is when I am more like Ahaz than Joseph.

     I know this, though: the times in my life when I have listened most closely and acted on the promptings of God that I feel stir in my heart, I have known only peace, strength, goodness in my life. The times when I have been headstrong, not listening to God, are the times that I have hurt those around me, and deeply hurt them.

     Advent is a wonderful time for listening. Even in all the hussle and bussle of Christmas time preparations, the earth seems to be a little quieter this time of year. But don't "just listen," do the will of God. I promise you that whatever He has in store for you is more wonderful than anything you could plan for yourself.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

I read an op-ed piece on Pope Francis recently that was very interesting. It centered around the writer's concept of Pope Francis's "practical theology." It suggested and got me to thinking about how theology is so often debated on an ethereal level, and that this theoretical theology is so often what has been the source of divisions within the Church. The first real division in the 11th and 12th centuries between the Catholic and Orthodox rites of the Church was a debate about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or proceeds from the Father through the Son. The theology of the Protestant Reformation and the split that occurred among Christianity then, and continues to occur today, has a lot to do with people's understanding of the nature of salvation. This article reflected on how Pope Francis has put all of this theoretical theology to the side to show the practical nature of our faith. Pope Francis greets the people in the street. Pope Francis washes the feet of the prisoners, even women and non-Christians. Pope Francies kissed the feet of people dieing of HIV-AIDS. Pope Francis refuses to live in the Papal Palace, but instead chooses a 2 suite hotel room with nothing but a bed and a desk.

I've also been re-reading Henry David Thoreau's Walden and Civil Disobedience. In the midst of my reflection on the article named above, HDT makes a remark right at the beginning of Walden in which he reflects on the necessity of having a "practical philosophy." What good is it, he rhetorically asks (and I paraphrase), to have a philosophy of life that one can not or perhaps does not live?

Practical theology.

Practical philosophy.

Mnsgr. Greg Higley is the pastor at St. Andrew Parish in Holts Summit, where my wife and I attend Church. His homilies throughout the Easter Season have been reflecting this same theme. It's nice for us to say we love Jesus. It's important to go to Mass on Sundays. But at some point, our Christian faith has to be put into practice. We have to love that co-worker that is so grating to our nerves with that philial, Christian love. We have to show charity in thought and deed to our own family members. We have to live Christian, not just say we are one.

So while all this has been going on, a good friend, Pastor Ron Zamkus of Southridge Baptist Church, has been faithfully sending out what he calls his "Daily Power Pills." Pastor Zamkus sends these emails out, which often are quotes from spiritual reading that he does. One of the texts he has been quoting lately is a book entitled Not a Fan. I have not read this book, but the jist of it that I get from the exerpts that Pastor Zamkus sends out makes the distinction between Christians who are "fans" of Jesus, and Christians who are true disciples. A fan is someone who listens to the words of Jesus, hangs out in the stands, and cheers whenever something good happens. A disciple is someone who lives the teachings of Jesus, who makes the self-sacrifice to follow him. I am challenged by these not to be just a fan, but to be a disciple.

So you probably get where I am going with this.

It occurred to me tonight when we were at Mass, "I don't want to be a 'practicing' Catholic Christian. I want to be a 'practical' Catholic Christian." I want to be someone who actually lives out my faith in my actions. And, man, do I have a long way to go. A looooonnnnnnnnngggggggg way to go. But I'm on my way.

At least, if I can quote St. Joan of Arc, "If I am not, I pray God make me so; if I am, I pray God keep me so."

Our faith is not a set of ideas. Our faith is not a canon of ethereal, philosophical truths. Our faith is not a set of traditions and fancy clothes and art.

Our faith is, first and foremost, a living relationship with God that is actualized in how we treat each other. For me to control my anger and not say a harsh word out of charity (true caritas) is my faith. For me to be patient with my children is my faith. For me to let someone in front of me in line is my faith. For me to give time, talent and treasure to charity and organizations is my faith.

In this perspective, the whole "faith vs. works" debate (another ethereal, philosophical twisting of words that has divided the One Church of Christ) becomes moot. In this perspective, there is no difference between faith and works. Maybe this is what St. James (listen up now, it's JAMES we're listening to) was talking about when he said,

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

"Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,' and he was called 'the friend of God.' See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2: 14-26)

I got a little carried away there quoting this, but I couldn't help it. As I read it, it sums up what my thoughts have been for several weeks. "You believe that God is one. You do well." An ethereal truth, a statement of belief, but then James really socks it to us, "Even the demons believe that and tremble." Knowing that God is one is not enough. We must live out our faith. Our faith and our works must be one and the same.

Maybe this is where we can begin experiencing the unity of the Church again; not in trying to resolve our theological differences on the nature of God, but in standing side by side regardless of denomination at a soup kitchen. Maybe instead of debating over the succession of the Apostles in the ordained ministry, we can pray with each other for the success of a Pregnancy Help Center to offer an alternative to abortion in our community. Maybe instead of endless debates on the nature of salvation, we can work with each other to provide shelter, clothing and food to the strung out addict or the prisoner who is released after years of incarceration with nothing but the shirt on his back and a train ticket away from prison.

Maybe we can DO our faith on Monday through Saturday, and not just profess it on Sunday.

This idea has crystalized for me, and captured my imagination. I have begun asking myself, "How might I better live out my faith?" This is not an ethereal question that ends in "pray more and be nicer." This is practical.

I need to get rid of my cell phone plan. There is no reason for me to be spending that much money on something that I don't need. Get rid of cable television in the house. What do we do with it that we can't do with regular television anyway? Look in my closet. How many pairs of pants do I actually need? Might someone less fortunate benefit from those clothes that have been hanging my closet for years now and never get worn? I'm constantly looking at iPads and other fancy gadgetry that would lead to nothing more than wasted time and distractions. Stop looking at those things. All that does is create a desire for something that is completely unnecessary.

It goes back to those simple questions meant to get at my priorities. On what do I spend my time? On what do I spend my energy? On what do I spend my money? The answers to those questions tells me a lot about my priorities. And I'll admit that some of my priorities are way out of whack. It's time to get serious about doing my faith.

Will you join me?

"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

Let's be practical Christians, not just practicing ones.

Freedom, Responsibility, Civil Disobedience and Pacifism

Some conversations I've had recently have got me thinking about the various topics I've put in the title of this post.

If you've read my blog at all before now, you will know that a consistent refrain of mine is that we cannot have freedom without personal responsibility. We simply cannot have one without the other. Period. Bottom line. To give up one is to lose the other.

This is why when I entered my new employment, I chose the Health Savings Account rather than a more traditional insurance "plan." With a high deductable health savings account, I pay for everything until I have met that high deductible. EVERYTHING. I pay for the entire doctor's visit. I pay for whatever lab tests the doctors may need to run. I pay for whatever prescription medications I may need to get well. I pay for everything. I set aside money each paycheck into the health savings account to cover the medical costs. When I chose this, I was betting on not getting sick for about 9 months, until I had enough in the account to cover the costs of getting healthcare.

I'm not going to lie, it's a huge gamble. The reason I did this, though, was because we cannot have freedom without responsibility. A traditional insurance plan has limitations on what they will pay for, who they will pay it to, and what I can do to get well. With the HSA, I don't have to follow a prescription plan. I can choose any medication I want based on my doctor's recommendation. I don't need to seek approval for lab tests or other procedures. If I want it done, I get it done. I'm paying for it. By increasing my financial responsibility for my healthcare, I have increased my freedom.

Another example of this is the recent situation with our vehicles. The 12 year old hunk of junk minivan I drive around blew up. We needed to get it fixed, and the amount was SIGNIFICANT. The decision was: Do we pay more than the van is actually worth to get it fixed, but not have to get it financed? or Do we go get a "new" vehicle, and take out a loan? We chose to get it fixed. The deciding factor? Getting a vehicle financed would have meant that someone else, most likely the bank, would tell us what minimum insurance coverage we would need. Getting it financed meant that the loan holder would be telling us how much out of every paycheck we need to give away as a payment. Getting a vehicle financed meant that if something were to happen and we could no longer make those payments, they could come and take "my" car away from me. By keeping the responsibility of paying for the vehicle (as opposed to having a bank pay for it), we kept our freedom to decide how much insurance coverage to carry. We get to decide the size of our "payments" back into our savings accounts. We don't have to worry if one of us is out of work whether we lose "our" vehicle or not.

Freedom and Responsibility...two sides of the same coin.

So what does this have to do with Civil Disobedience and Pacifism?

Let me start by saying something that I think everyone, conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Rustafarian, Mediterranean, or whatever other label you like, can agree on: The political, financial, and taxation system in our country is broken. Whether you believe more government intervention is neccessary to fix it, or if you believe government has broken it to begin with so government should get out of the way, we can at least agree that the system as it exists today is broken.

Hendry David Thoreau, the grandfather of Civil Disobedience, believed that the system of his era was broken. Mahatma Ghandi recognized the injustices of the British colonial system, and saw it as broken. Martin Luther King, Jr. saw the racial inequity in the United States and recognized it was broken. The original labor unions saw the unfair and unjust labor system as broken. All of these systems were broken.

Here's the kicker.

These individuals or groups never demanded that others change. They did not attempt to exert control over any other person to force their agenda on them.

What Thoreau, Ghandi, King, and the original labor unions did was to express their freedom and take personal responsibility not to participate in these broken systems anymore. Thoreau purchased a small piece of property on Walden Pond and practiced total self-sufficiency in order to separate himself from what he perceived to be a broken system. He did not do this to change the taxation policies of his era. If that were his purpose, he was wildly unsuccessful. He freely chose not to participate in what he perceived to be a broken system. He also took responsibility for his choices, spending months at a time in jail for not paying his taxes. He exercised freedom to resist what he saw as unjust taxation by not participating in it, and he took responsibility, getting irritated with his friend Longfellow, who would come in, pay Thoreau's back taxes for him so that Thoreau could get out.

Ghandi never demanded that the British change their policies and practices towards governance of their colonies in India and Africa. He simply made a free choice not to participate in an unjust system. He also accepted responsibility for his choice, spending much of his time incarcerated for not carrying the proper documentation, receiving brutal beatings, and eventually giving his life. One of my favorite images of this concept is from the movie Ghandi. The scene shows the pomp and circumstance of celebrations at the partition of India and Pakistan, something with which Ghandi disagreed. Juxtaposed to those images of the divided nations raising their flags in celebration is the image of Ghandi sitting in his home with no flag at all raised on the flagpole. Ghandi did not attempt to enforce his will on others, but he would not participate in what he saw was a broken system.

Rosa Parks did not demand that the bus company change the practice of blacks giving up their seats to whites. She simply decided that day not to participate in that system anymore. By doing this, she sparked a revolution. Of course, she went to jail for it. She knew that was the consequence of her decision. She was willing accept responsibility for her refusal to participate in a broken system.

Martin Luther King, Jr. did so much to bring social justice to the minorities, and particularly blacks in the United States. He never demanded that others subject themselves to his will. He simply chose not to participate in what was a broken system. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent a significant amount of time incarcerated due to his refusal to participate in the institutional racism.

That's what civil disobedience and pacifism have to do with freedom and personal responsibility. One sees that a system in broken. Then this one makes a free choice not to participate in that system anymore. This one is not taking from others their free choice, or forcing others to subject themselves to this one's will. This one is simply stating, "I will not participate in this anymore." This refusal to participate in a broken system becomes an act of Civil Disobedience.

Pacifism, as it was practiced by Ghandi and King, refuses to enforce the pacifist's will on another. To force you to subject yourself to my will is not an act of pacifism, but aggression. I am attempting to wrestle control and power over you. The Pacifist recognizes that the pacifist has no power over another, and does not attempt to gain control over another, even through non-violent means. The pacifist does not demand that others change. The pacifist simply establishes what the pacifist will do and will not do. The pacifist leaves the other free to do whatever he or she chooses to do. Personal responsibility, eschewing control and power over another, and exercising the freedom not to participate in something that I don't believe in is the pacifist's means.

Those means can be perverted. This is what I believe happened to the labor unions, that at one time did so much to advance the dignity of the American worker. When the labor unions realized that strikes were effective means of change, the labor union leaders began using the tools of civil disobedience to impose their will on others. This happened to their own detriment. Hostess had to shut down because they could no longer meet the demands of the labor unions. The car industry in the United States has gone bankrupt only to be bailed out by the government, because they could no longer meet the demands of the labor unions.

I see this as an important key in understanding why the "Occupy" movement is doomed to fail. The "Occupy" movement is made of those who are demanding change from others using the tools of civil disobedience, like picket lines and sit-ins. This never works. Never.

You cannot create change in the world and expect that you will stay the same.

The great men and women who used pacifism and civil disobedience were not out to change the world. They looked within themselves, and changed what they were doing. By changing themselves, they changed the world. They did it by exercising their freedom and by taking responsibility for their exercise of freedom.

We cannot change the world and expect that we will stay the same. If we start by changing ourselves, the world around us begins to change with us.