Christmas 2013

Christmas for most people is correlated with childhood experiences. For most, memories are filled with love and happiness. As adults, they re-live some of the past as well as extend their experience to others, especially their own children.

My experience was one of pain associated with my father’s behavior (driven by alcohol). I was never a happy day and, in spite of his positive bias towards me, he never responded favorably to my pleas to not drink on that day.

Possibly, drinking only exacerbated an existing marital situation. I really cannot recall any time when my parents spent time together. In a sense, my father’s presence on Christmas (he did not drink at home) would not have made the day particularly a happy one.

So Christmas for me is a day made possible by Joan. It is through her that I have done as well with life as I have and surely, the great family celebrations we have at times, as on Christmas, are attributed to her.

Her attention to all the specific interests and needs of our grandchildren is incredible. I am virtually in awe of her drive to ensure that our celebration captures all the possible happiness that the day could bring.

Our adult children thus far have never missed celebrating Christmas at home. This year, six adults and their six children (with one dog) will come on Christmas day and remain most of the remainder of the week. Accommodating these many people requires some creativity and patience with the shortcomings.  One way or another, they will all find a place to sleep and there will never be a problem with food or drink. It will be happy time.

For me, I marvel that I can experience Christmas through the eyes of my family. Witnessing our adult children’s love of their children confirms my hope that we have made the world a little better for our presence.

And surely, I realize that the key to entire celebration is Joan who only wants her children and grandchildren to experience the joy of being alive and grateful that they are part of this family.

A View on Pope Francis

Pope Francis has received well-deserved praise of promoting the basic values of Christianity. As is often said, “Timing is everything.” If this message was voiced consistently at the time when the Vatican Council has issuing many documents that were addressing many long-standing beliefs, customs, and practices, there would have been a much more productive transition to the future. As it was, the forces of intransigence prevailed. The hopes of the Vatican Council were compromised. Not only was change not advanced, the Church became more conservative. One result was greater loss of participants.

The past cannot be undone. Pope Francis is on the right track. However, I do not think that he will be able to counteract the inherent problems of organized religion.

The hopes of many progressive Catholics is that the future will focus on the positive agenda of the Gospel, as voiced by Pope Francis and less on issues that divide and punish, e.g., not permitting divorced people receiving Communion. There will be progress in addressing long-standing problematic moral tenants, e.g., birth control, divorce. If the pope lives long enough, women will have a more visible role. Whether there will be a married clergy that will include females will have to wait for other less controversial items to be addressed.

However, regardless of the progress on such matters, it will not make that much of a difference in allegiance to the Catholic Church. Surely, the Catholic Church has a long way to go before adopting the many liberal practices and beliefs of the Anglican Church. And, in spite of their ability to address current needs and practices, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said recently, “We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We are one generation away from extinction, and if we do not invest in young people there is going to be no one in the future.” Liberal Christianity does not equate to more church-goers.

For those in western Europe and the United States, it is not so much a problem any longer in what is believed and practiced as it is belonging to an organization that is viewed as unnecessary. The majority of people still believe in a God, however unknown, but question the need to be organized to share a spiritual vision. Clearly, organized churches are not going to literally go out of existence, but their services will be provided to less and less people who feel the need for such support.

For Pope Francis, he has an additional problem. The more liberal views are not aligned with either the more conservative and established hierarchy or, more importantly, the views of the conservative populations where the majority of Catholics live, viz., the southern hemisphere. Were he ever to promote a liberal theological agenda, he would alienate far more than he would gain from gains in the liberal population.

Letter to the President

Mr. President,

I usually write to you rather regularly, but there has been a slight hiatus recently. I admittedly was confused and wanted to wait before expressing my thoughts to you.

I summarize my past comments as follows: you have been dealt a bad hand with a broken economy, two wars, and a totally dysfunctional congress. Given that, you did achieve much: a health care law, a recovering economy, the end of one war and the planned termination of the other. You have promise of a negotiated solution to problems in Iran and Israel and a solution to the chemical armament of Syria. Looking back can bring a smile in that you achieved much.

During the last few weeks, I have become concerned about your truthfulness. As I mentioned repeatedly, it is best to be honest. Even if the virtue is not the motive, self-interest should be. The public will eventually find out the truth and expose any deception or lie.

 I am not referring to your often-quoted remark that those who like their health care plan will be able to keep it. I believe that that was an error attributed to essentially sloppiness or stupidity. You essentially misspoke.

As I think back to my prior messages and consider the number of instances when you said one thing, only to have something else occur.

Again, I am not referencing the likes of Guantanamo. I do believe that you intended to close the detention center, but you were prevented by Congress.

I am referencing something more ominous. It is your vision that is belied by your action.

You promised that you would heal the political divide. It is not that you failed, it is that you did not show your effort to achieve the goal. You could have met with the leaders of Congress virtually every day for a review of your agenda and listen to their arguments. You may not have got any further, but no one would question your resolve.

You talked about ending the wars and, of course, technically you did. But, in my view, you have continued to implement drone warfare that is essentially generating another generation of angry young people who will hate the United States. I am an advocate of police action against those who have broken laws, whether ours or those sanctioned by the United Nations. I do agree with your general advocacy of laboring from behind, i.e., assisting other nations to use police action against those breaking their laws. But, I question your use of drones to kill targets that often is associated with the deaths of innocent people.

I am grateful that you spoke this past week about our problem with economic inequity. It is not a new problem, but one that has become increasingly more pronounced. You stated that you will use the remainder of your term in office to remedy this problem. I surely hope so, but again, I do not feel secure in your resolve.

The budget negotiations promise little. I have not read anything indicating your involvement, possibly because it is a congressional issue at this time. But, I am afraid  that your political instincts to get something rather than nothing will result in a further deterioration of a progressive nation, interested in the well-being of all.

I would think that you could strongly indicate that you want to increase, if not eliminate, the ceiling for deducting Social Security taxes. This will address any question of its fiscal integrity. In addition, I would consider limiting the benefits of those considered in the range of the 1%. To protect those who are in their senior years, Social Security must be aligned more with the needs of those in need.

I know that you often said that if you could start from scratch, you would advocate for a single-payor health system. I appreciate the complexity of changing our system that has been historically aligned with the principles of capitalism. Surely, the complexity of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a drag on efforts to make it successful. Health care is essentially thwarted by fee-for-service costs. Steven Brill well documented the inherent problems of the prices determined by providers. He clearly reported that extending Medicare would address the problems with the costs of our health care. It is not too late to advocate for changes would gradually extend Medicare to more and more, e.g., extended the coverage every five years to another ten years, i.e., 55 in the next five years, 45 in the next five years.

The problems with the big banks continue. It is remarkable that final regulations have yet to be implemented and serious economists, e.g., Simon Johnson, question those now proposed. The Department of Justice has addressed multiple serious problems by levying serious fiscal penalties which are relatively small in their operations. No one has suffered criminal penalties. It does seem that the current administration shares the views of the prior administration regarding the role of Wall Street.

I recognize that your role requires accommodation with reality, the reality of so little support. As it is, your legacy at the moment is diminishing. In itself, that is less an issue than the reasons. I share the view that is often expressed that you are no longer being trusted.

I disagreed quite clearly with the agendas of Presidents Regan and George W. Bush, especially the latter. But I had no doubts that they were carrying out their agenda. They had more support than you have, but I am starting to think that you are aligning yourself more with the agenda of President Bush than with your stated vision as a candidate in 2008 and 2012.

I write today with the hope that your recent statement of addressing economic inequality will be maintained and, in fact, extended to other aspects of the progressive vision that excited so many of us in your initial campaign. You may not succeed, but surely you will have achieved integrity.

Thanksgiving 2013

Thanksgiving brings out cliches that capture some of the significance of the holiday. We easily conjure memories of our family and friends. We think of what we have as possessions, our houses, and other material goods.  Health is a common gift that we acknowledge. All of these gifts become even more significant when we think of others who do not share such gifts.

Given that my life is similar to many others and better than many others, I want to focus on a specific aspect that will color my holiday.

To be loved and to love is a gift that I am particularly mindful of this Thanksgiving. I have family and  friends who love me. At times, I realize how alone and unloved are so many, including the homeless, some with mental illness that serves to distance them from love, and those who seem alienated from others. To be loved is special. Joan has loved me constantly in spite of my "idiosyncrasies". My children share their love and my grandchildren make me feel special, even I realize that it is reflection of their love for their grandmother. And surely, the animals in my life gave me great affection without any reservation. Patrick, my latest friend, could not make me feel more loved than he does (even if he loves Joan even more!).

I am aware that I am a positive and loving person. Somehow the negative and hostile environment of childhood seemed to strengthen my positive bias towards others, regardless of their circumstances. I never could understand anyone's hatred of others. It seemed self-defeating: the hater becomes as bad as the one hated. I could not understand why others should not be able to share what I considered something as good. Life is always too short for hatred. We were all brothers and sisters sharing a journey and it made sense that sharing the goods of this world would make all happier.

While I have been a positive person, I admit to feeling a form of love that is more striking for those who are close to me: my family and friends. I am one who does not hesitate sharing my feelings and treasure that my affection is accepted.

This Thanksgiving is a day when I will particularly focus on the gift of love.

Looking Forward to a Great Experience

I am by no means a music connoisseur. I love listening to classical music without any awareness of the name of the composition or its musical elements. I am literally ignorant and yet, I love listening to it. I listen to music all day regardless of what I am doing (except when doing some types of exercise). I have loved it for so long.

 In my youth, my mother made me take piano lessons. All I remember was the "ordeal". We never listened to music in our home. We never talked about music. Piano lessons were essentially a foreign territory compared with playing sports.

When I was 13, my mother died suddenly and not long after, I quit piano.

In my adult years, I took piano lessons for several years. I was clear that I really did not have talent. I never really was able to understand music with my right brain. I had to translate notes through my left brain and execute the translation into my fingers. I was not very good. Eventually, I have up a hopeless adventure.

I remain awed by those with such talents. Listening to Yo Yo Ma, Isaac Pearlman, and so  many others virtually brings me to my knees to think that such talent is present.

On Sunday, I am excited to look forward to listening to Joshua Bell at Symphony Hall. It will be awesome.

It is Not New!

My frustration with the ideologues on the political right (as though I was not much different, except on the left) was ameliorated by Rick Perlstein's article that put the present nightmare within the larger historical perspective. He traced the divisions within the Republican Party from the time of Barry Goldwater and folks. There have always been people on the far right who were focused more on ideology that focused on limiting government's interventions in the lives of Americans. Apparently, there was seldom any objection to being involved in other nations, thereby solidifying arguments to support the military. The major focus was achieving the vision of a form of freedom and liberty that was so vibrant in the days of our nation's infancy.

While the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has nourished visions of a more benign approach to the well being of its citizens, there has been little appetite for sacrificing the possible, the practical best, solutions to problems identified as obstacles to a prosperous citizenry, in order to achieve a more idealistic solution to the given issues.


In short, it seems that the Democratic Party has been more pragmatic politically. While differences are shared publicly, they are generally blended to achieve something positive, rather than nothing.

At the moment, it seems that the Republican Right Wing wants to abandon ACA  without an alternative plan. They are against something without supporting another plan of action.

As frustrating as this is, Rick Perlstein's article reminds me that this obstreperousness is not new and with any luck, we will survive this period as we have prior iterations.

Chasing Ice and Feeling Sad!

My dear Grandchildren, Joseph, Nora, Mika, Eve, Emi, and Kellen,

Some years ago, your Mom/Aunt first suggested my writing a blog, based on her conversations with others. I did eventually get into blog writing because I could never assume that I would live long enough to have conversations about significant issues that are meaningful to me and, hopefully, you. So, the blog was intended to serve as a mechanism for you to get to know what I felt and thought about a range of various issues.

Watching "Chasing Ice" represents a chance to share my grief, my tears about the horrendous damage my generation (I am aware the process may have started earlier and most likely will continue after my generation) has contributed to the damage to our beautiful home, Earth.

At your young age, you can anticipate living 75+ more years, i.e., 2088 and more. I am incredibly sad that this beautiful planet given to us to experience life is being ruined by our greed and selfishness. Our wanting to live according to our desires without regard to its impact on the environment resulted in such devastation to the planet.

You have reason to be angry at us who proceeded you. You will suffer the consequences of our greed and disregard of all sorts of warnings about our behavior's effect on the earth.

"Chasing Ice" was a monumental effort to time sequence the devastation to our glaciers in Iceland, Greenland and Alaska. To watch what has happened in the last ten years, compared to last 100, is overwhelmingly sad.

I cannot put in words any justification for our behavior. I am sorry that you will have to deal with a world so compromised by our disregard of its beauty.

You may wonder what would have possessed us to not change our ways when the opportunity presented itself. If I were alive, I would share your confusion about the resistance to adapt properly to the "laws of nature". We came from a time when we thought that the world was made for us to do as we wanted, instead of a jewel that required care and attention. We screwed up badly and you and your generation will be left with the consequences without a means to remedy the situation. A line will have been crossed that will signal that the damage is beyond repair.

For the moment, I share the awkwardness of reporting our resistance to adapt to ensure that we avoid crossing the "line of no return" while knowing that my generation will have died before the inevitable problems surface. It is not fair to you and your generation. There is nothing I can say that will ameliorate the situation.

I am truly sorry.

The Generation Emerges from the Past!

When I was a young priest, I was mesmerized by other priests and ministers who seemed to embody my values and ideals. I can recall going to some sort of workshop with Phil Berrigan,  a Josephite priest who was totally committed to peace through many non-violent protests, most of which resulted in his being in prison. He was the primary leader of a house of persons committed to peace. His brother, a Jesuit, Dan Berrigan, was equally committed to peace but probably is more well known for his writing. There were many others at the time that confirmed by convictions, ultimately leading one step at a time to leaving the priesthood.

While Dan who still is living remained a priest, his brother married a nun, resulting in a change in his status but not his convictions. He remained involved with the house that still championed the peace movement.

I surely saw myself as followers of the Berrigan brothers.

With that as a background, I read with great interest one of his daughter's religious odyssey. It was the first time that I had information of how the next generation of one of my hero's worked out. While  her story is not unusual, at least from today's vantage point, it did make me think about my history with my children.

After my marriage and children, I changed from being rather indifferent to my personal well-being to one far more aware of my responsibilities for my children. I never changed my values, but my behavior was more constricted. No more protests, no more willingness to take risks. During their development at home, I remained a committed Catholic Christian, i.e., regular Sunday attendance, promoting a Christian outlook by sharing my belief system. It was only after their leaving home that I started to travel a different road.

Commitment to Christian worldview, including identifying with Jesus as one's Savior, would be a major effort by anyone in this day and age. When I was young, including my early years as a priest, my belief system was supported by a broad cultural and social support system, e.g., being a priest then was special, in contrast to current perceptions. I grew up with a belief system nurtured by regular church attendance, beyond Sundays, e.g., Stations of the Cross and daily Mass during Lent, as well as beliefs pounded in my "mandatory" catechism classes.  Once that system collapsed in the 1960's, one's commitment was personal to a high degree and passing on that commitment to the next generation, would require much more personal involvement  than was done in earlier times. The Baltimore Catechism was a disaster from a theological perspective, but it did give people words to relate to very complicated concepts. Now, most young people are theologically ignorant, independent of their convictions. Asking questions about the "nature" of Jesus, e.g., was he "God"?, would leave most tongue tied. Or one imagine what would be response to the question of the Trinity. The Baltimore Catechism gave a most simplistic answer to the question. One can contest even its validity, but it did serve as a reference to the questions about the "nature of God".  Often today, such questions are totally irrelevant, but it would be difficult to have an adult commitment to Christianity without some understanding of such questions.

I conclude these thoughts with another scenario that has disturbed me over time. Recalling that I served a priest from 1963 to 1969, I was committed to the progressive changes promoted by the Vatican Council. During my relatively brief career as a priest, I was involved in all sorts of controversy. I was in and out of meetings with the bishop and his representatives who saw me as a huge problem and headache. To give this picture is little more clarity, when I returned from Washington where I participated in the Clergy against Vietnam Protest, I found out that a large number of parishioners signed a petition to get rid of me, resulting in another petition supporting me. When I left in 1969, I then was aware of my involvement in essentially destroying much of the belief system that parishioners had absorbed in their younger days. For those who could see the benefits of a different theological perspective, they found support in the likes of me. They went out of their way to hear what I had to say, just as others made sure to avoid the liturgies I led. I am not sure how these adults that I influenced "positively" did over time, but I was always concerned that they would be unable to pass on a more mature version of Christianity if people like myself left the ministry. Those who remained tended to be more conservative and would likely not be inclined to foster their new insights. Their children, I often feared, would be even more unlikely to be committed to Christianity. It is one thing to abandon a belief system for good reasons, but it is another when one never knows enough about Christianity to either reject or endorse. Religious commitment is far more complicated than learning standardized responses cited in the Baltimore Catechism.

Tired of It All!

I know that I am old and getting older each day. I cannot say that I want life to end soon. I really would like to see how my grandchildren develop. I look forward to conversations about values and perspective. I would love to witness a grandchild graduate from high school, college being a real reach. One gets the picture that I am growing older by the minute.

While getting older, I read with excitement the developments in medicine, science, and technology. I love every bit of it. I am totally enthralled with the ease of accessing virtually an infinite amount of information so readily. I never get jaded by its ease of access. I am constantly in a state of wonder.

Having said this, I admit being just pooped by the mindlessness of our congressional leaders. I am admittedly biased. I am a very progressive Democrat. I would not deny being more a socialist than anything else. I see the world as a gift to be shared. I would surely enjoy living with less if there were virtually none with so little.What is going on today in Congress is deadly. I cannot bear to read anymore of the insanity that is being voiced by the zealous minority.

At the same time, I realize if the "shoes were on the other feet", i.e., if the Tea Party were in the majority, I would more than welcome the same shenanigans to prevent their imposing their position on the rest of us.

And so, death is not so bad after all!

Agreeing with Vladimir Putin

I am sharing thoughts about today's column by Vladimir Putin since I find it so unusual to find myself totally in agreement with someone I generally have disagreement. It is a special moment for me. I am actually very happy to find myself, at least for the moment, on the side of Putin.

The major points of agreement are: (1) rules for military intervention, and (2) no nation can claim being exceptional.

In a recent posting, I shared my attitude toward the military. I am not a pacifist but believe that the military is useful only in limited situations, e.g., defense of our homeland. I do agree with Putin that another justification for military is agreement by the UN that a situation is so threatening the well being of our world that there is a need for military might. Since neither of these were present in the case made by President Obama, I tended to disagree with his decision to intervene, even though I was admittedly confused about the proper response to the use of chemical warfare without UN support.

I have long been bothered by references to our nation as being exceptional, as I am with asking God to bless our nation as though God, however we were to understand God, would partial blessings to one nation rather than another, one person rather another. Viewing ourselves as exceptional is dangerous and unjustified.

A Perspective of the Military

A recent posting focused on Syria. I want now to share my thoughts on the use of our military.

From a personal background, I recall being involved in the consequences of WWII. I remember in primary grades completing a knitting project of making a blanket for a veteran. I also recall having food rationed. All of this was done with a respect for the people who were defending our nation, trying to defeat the German army. I have less memory of our involvement in Korea which may reflect our nation's general dismissal of Korea as a real war. From time-to-time, there is some attempt to resurrect the reality of our involvement in a terribly cruel conflict in Korea, but it has generally been forgotten. During the Vietnam Era, I was ineligible for the draft because I was in the seminary and then, was serving as a priest. There were times when I thought that I should volunteer to become a chaplain, but then I quickly realized that this would be a disaster since I would be sharing my perception that this war was wrong in so many ways, including from a morality perspective. From then on, I have observed our many episodes of using our military with a sense of passivity until the decision by G. W. Bush to invade Iraq. I then become a bitter opponent of everything that was occurring in Iraq, reinforced by authors who focused on the negative and unintended consequences of the war.

In more recent times, my views have been tailored by Andrew Bacevich who I have often referenced. As a former West Point graduate with a 23 year military career that included tours in Vietnam and receiving a Ph.D. from Princeton and, more recently, a person who suffered the loss of a son who volunteered for involvement in Iraq, he is a most credible person.

In general, my current perspective is that I am not a pacifist, but realize that the military is designed for  a very limited role in international affairs. It has become clear from the history of our last 50 years that our military has generally been ineffective in dealing with hostilities within a nation state. It is best designed to serve as a defense against any aggressor of our nation. To think that our military power will make a difference in a situation that is festered by internal conflict rather than external invasion, is a delusion. We may have the most powerful military ever developed, but we are ineffective in dealing with internal conflict or conflict between neighboring nations that historically were united demonstrated in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Syria: Just a Part of a Nightmare

So much is being written about the horrendous devastation occurring by relentless violence that now focuses on chemical weapons. I was a supporter of the President's decision to get congressional approval for any intervention. In principle, I do not think that the President should be able unilaterally to decide to use force on other nations. At the same time, I can clearly understand the range of opinions regarding the President's decision to use military force to address the unlawful use of chemical warfare. I can virtually agree with all pundits: "won't do any good", "could make things worse", "how can be sure that intervention will be limited".

My problem that seems to have no answer is the history of the Muslim world that was controlled by  caliphates, ending with the Ottoman Caliphate (1299–1923). The entire Arab world has historically been "ruled" by one caliphate or another since 632.  There has been no history of what could be interpreted as an independent nation under some form of government chosen by the people. The Mideast, as we know it today, was drawn up after WWI to address the ambitions of the "winners" of the war. Protectorates were established in lieu of the disbanded caliphate. In short, from my perspective, the nation states of the Mideast are pure artifacts with no logic for its existence. Lines were drawn somewhat arbitrarily from a world view that no longer exists. Most historians bemoan the decisions made at the time.

In addition to questionable boundaries of the nation states, there has been a history of dictatorships that have been generally supported by the United States and Europe, if for no other reason than there seemed to be no alternative that would stabilize the populations.

Since there is no history of people within the Arab world being able to live together in peace WITHOUT a dictator, there is a question about any type of intervention being productive. As I see it, the hatred among the various Muslim sects against each other (with no consideration of their feelings toward non-Muslims!) is a source of disaster for any arrangement. Considering the problems in Iraq after our ten years of intervention makes me cringe to think that anyone would think that we could intervene in Syria with any hope of making matters better. While it is true that it can be considered "good" that Sadam Hussein was removed from power, it is hard to conclude that Iraq itself is better.

I have not read any author who has a vision of how any form of reasonable self-government could develop in this part of the world. When people hate each other, even though they worship Allah and adhere to the general practice of prayer, it is a mystery how one could envision a pathway to nation states that adhered to any practical levels of benign tolerance for differences. Without such a pathway, I do not see how anyone can support an action plan that will make a difference for the people themselves. One may think that the terrible actions of Hussein were worse than what is going on today in Iraq where bombs are killing others, only because they are of a Muslim sect, but I cannot understand how that is possible.

My only conclusion is that peace will not come until the Arab world is literally divided in such a way that sects are separated, e.g., Kurds live here, Sunnis there, and Shiites some place else. And yet, I know that this is unrealistic, for all sorts of reasons not the least of which is that natural resources are not spread equally. People will only fight to get the needed resources that someone else has.

So, I am left without a scenario of how these people can live together in peace. How can military intervention make a real difference? And if not, why do it? This sounds horrible, but it seems unconscionable that force would be used only to make the perpetrator feel good for doing "something"rather than "nothing".

P.S. After writing this blog, I watched the prior night's Jon Stewart's Daily Show. His first segment essentially made the same point as I am trying to do, but in such a more humorous way.

P.S. Two of my favorite writers are at opposite ends of the decision to intervene in Syria. Nicholas Burns cites five good reasons for intervening; Andrew Bacevich identifies several reasons for not intervening. If I was forced to decide, I would opt for Bacevich's view (admittedly, I am very biased in his behalf. His writing, in general, is just great, pointing out all the negative reasons for military intervention without losing sight of reasons why the military is important and necessary at very specific instances),

Chagrined!

Over the past several years or, more accurately, most of my adult life, I have focused on injustice wherever I noticed it. My earliest experience was the struggle over racial equality that consumed so many during the 60's. Then, there was the Vietnam fiasco. To me, and others, it seemed so wrong for one nation to impose itself over another nation which was not directly at war with us. There seemed to be a period of "peace" after we left Vietnam. There were still many problems, including poverty throughout the world, often referenced as the Third World. With poverty, there were other stigmata: infant mortality, reduced life span, hunger, and various health problems, e.g., polio, malaria. However, since there were many organizations addressing these problems, I felt that I could satisfy my need by donating money to support their agendas.

During the past several years, there have been a number of problems that have caught my attention to the point of being angry. In the case of the Catholic Church and its stubborn refusal to be honest with the truth, I simply left it. Now, my concern is focused on the negative impact of any religion on the broader society. Adherence to religion generates myopic distortions amplified by bigotry and prejudice. While it is possible for progressive reworking of religious beliefs, I am convinced that religious beliefs inherently generate bigotry and prejudice. The intolerant right-wing Christian and the zealot Muslim share a common fidelity to a very literal understanding of their beliefs. They demonstrate the impact of such beliefs by advocating actions that are basically hateful to others. Christians and Muslims share a history of anti-Semitism, even though both religions share a view that Jesus was special, as though his Jewishness was irrelevant. Gays and women are often the object of their bigotry, but at other times, the entire world that does not share their beliefs is hated, as the Sunni's hatred of other Muslims that adhere to other branches of Islam. I observe this phenomenon and do nothing.

I am concerned about the implications of global warming. I am one that agrees with the number of scientific findings indicating that our world is warming at a rate that virtually guarantees disaster for future generations. Like others, I share confusion about what to do. Even if our nation could come to a consensus of a plan of action, it would be insufficient to offset the damage caused by the emerging nations, e.g., China and India. Developing a plan of action that will be adopted by all nations seems so futile that it becomes paralyzing. Why do anything if our efforts will be meaningless? I know that doing nothing is ridiculous. Those currently living may well be dead when disaster strikes, but what does it say about the living who care so little about their descendants? What does it say about me?

 My concern about the inequities in wealth and opportunity for upward mobility has been an ongoing concern for years, as noted in many of my blogs.  From a justice perspective, I am outraged; from a self-interest view, I am very concerned. I share the insight of John Rawls that whatever good fortune any of us achieved, it is basically generated by "luck", i.e., our personal outcomes are more related to our genes, our parents' values and socio-economic conditions than our personal initiative. The chances of a person born in a urban project without an intact family achieving success measured by median income and wealth are relatively minimal, especially compared with chances of my children being successful. From a social justice perspective, I promote all efforts to create a more realistic chance for others to share in plusses of living in our world. In the short term, I see no other option than some form of redistribution of wealth. From a more selfish view, I am concerned about the potential for social unrest on either a national and international level. When the disparity between those who have and those who have not reaches a critical mass, social unrest has historically been the outcome. That should be a concern for anyone, especially when one considers the more potent, and somewhat cheap, weapons available, e.g., IEDs. Apart from writing to the President and some politicians, I have done nothing to protest this problem that festers our sense of justice.

I could not be more angry than I am about our national politics. I am now reading "My Town" which was featured in the latest edition of Bill Moyers and Company. It is such a sad commentary about the inbred, somewhat incestuous, structure of relationships built on power and money. As Mark Liebovich portrays the situation, no one leaves Washington. From Day 1, everyone's major agenda is focused on how to stay in Washington, first by staying in office, and then by building alliances so that if you leave office, you can get a great position in some lobbying firm. Money is a key component of the effort to remain in office and money is the reward when you leave. More disconcerting, if possible, if the negative effect of money on our democracy itself. As I wrote in reference to Lawrence Lessig's "Republic Lost", the need to continually raise money, taking on average fours hours each day while in office, is inherently detrimental to the sense of a democratic government. Rather than focusing on the needs of the "people", legislative activity is focused on how to serve the special interests which provide the majority of the funding. The situation is essentially outrageous and demands political action. And yet, I have not been involved in a protest movement, apart from my writing and donations to organizations promoting goals that I hold dear.

Since I am not visibly protesting against that which angers me, how can I expect anyone else to do so? And without grassroots' action, those in power will never change. There are organizations that are designed to promote the change I want. I "join" them by reading their web sites because I share their goals. In spite of their advocacy and their physical closeness to the seat of government, it does not seem that they are very effective, measured by change. If anything, our government is becoming more polarized daily. The advocacy groups promote specific legislation that would be helpful to address the issues of global warming, income inequality, and more bipartisan behavior in the halls of Congress. Their effort seems useless in the face of the avalanche of special interest monies pouring into the pockets of our political designees. If they cannot make a difference, what could one person in Scituate do? And yet, I know that this type of thinking only generates more inaction, resulting in no hope for change.

I am somewhat at a loss to develop a conclusion that makes sense. One could attribute inaction to age. Protesting belongs to to the young. Yet, I know many who have continued to protest for peace and against nuclear armaments into very advanced ages. Logistics would be a problem. There is a "science" to organizing protests. Marshall Ganz has spent a life time in the protest movement and acquired theoretical and practical knowledge about the steps required to be a successful organizer. I am no Ganz. In short, I can come up with excuses for my inaction but not any good reasons. I am left with "angst", the feelings of dread discussed so eloquently by Kierkegaard. I realize that I am caught between the awareness of what I should do and the realization that I have done nothing. It is the price of inaction in the face of the demand to address the injustice that confronts us each day

Unique and Unforgettable Moment!

There are moments that are priceless and never to be forgotten. I watch the grandchildren being so affectionate with Joan. It is most understandable. She is so good and caring.

However, we were all blown away when Brooke came yesterday with Nora and Kellen. To everyone’s surprise and, none more than I, Kellen would not let me go even with her good Grandmother was so close.

We may all recognize this as the irrational exuberance of an eighteen month old child. I know that I rationally merited no special attention or affection, but you can be assured that I soaked every bit of the moment that may be truly unique. 

"Two American Families"

Watching "Two American Families" must be one of the most depressing documentaries I ever have watched. Bill Moyers followed two families for twenty years to capture the trajectory of more and more people within the now proverbial "99%"of the population who have noted increased costs to live while generally finding less money in their pay checks with fewer (if any) benefits. In fact, Moyers dramatizes  with real people the plight of those struggling to find any job at all.

The economic inequality has been a constant concern to me. Moreover, I do not see any way into the future where full employment with full time jobs that pay a living wage will ever emerge.

I recognize that I enjoy the benefits of the old economy, the one where a person tended to work for life, enjoying security, decent wages, and benefits. I worked in an environment that valued its employees (US Government) with pay that was determined by ensuring that government employees made income comparable to their private sector peers and I  have the benefit of a pension (now no longer available, admittedly, although there is a federal 401K that is reportedly good). I am fortunate.  My concern about this problem is not personal. I am most grateful for my circumstances which exceed all expectations when I left the priesthood with $14. My education [8 years in the seminary, a Master's in Education at Northeastern University (seeking to address my perception that I needed an occupation were I to be expelled from the priesthood), five years of doctoral studies at the Graduate Theological Union (affiliated with the University of California where I took my psychology and sociology courses), and a Master's in Social Work at the University of Louisville] served me well. At the same time, the costs were "reasonable" compared to present rates and there was confidence that good employment was in the future. Today, education often leaves students heavily in debt without employment generating income commensurate with the student debt and ongoing expenses.

The problems associated with the costs of higher education and decreasing opportunities for good jobs would be bad enough to be concerned about the future. However, what has been my major source of concern is the plight of those many without the ability, desire or opportunity for higher education. My high school contemporaries graduating high school in 1955 (I know that it is virtually ancient history) with no interest or ability for further education had no fear that they would not be able to marry, buy a house and educate their children. In addition, they could foresee living "comfortably" in their retirement. Whether one worked for their local city or town, factories, or construction, they were able to do as well, if not better, than their parents. This was a general perception. Parents expected their children to do better than they did.

The economic world of my youth perdured generally until the 1970's. Middle Class jobs, starting from around $20,000, were able to provide a living that made life more than simply bearable. With time, most jobs earned more money. Union contracts were strong. People were entitled to benefits of health care and retirement.

From 1970 onward, there has been a relentless change where the top 1% started to prosper disproportionately to the remainder of the population, supported by many studies, e.g., http://www.currydemocrats.org/american_pie.html. The data clearly demonstrates the rise in wealth among the 1% with a progressive decline especially in the lower 70%.

The explanations are generally attributed to several causes. Globalization may have started the erosion of good jobs. To remain competitive with developing nations, especially China, businesses demanded concessions on wages and benefits. Unions did not have the power to negotiate more favorable terms since the manufacturing companies indicated that they would move their operations to another country if the company's demands were not met. Once the die was cast, there was a progressive onslaught to demand more and more from employees.

It became clear that businesses could expect more with less costs. Jobs could be structured so that there would be virtually all part-time employment with little or no benefits. Papers report on this phenomenon regularly, as in today's column by Harold Meyerson. Jobs are restructured through contracts with agencies providing temporary employment, even in major corporations, e.g., Walmart where contract employees stock shelves, getting paid little with no benefits.

In addition, technology is achieving the desired goals of higher productivity with less personnel costs. Robots can produce 24/7 work at a third of cost of humans. Who would not want that type of business model?

Finally, the general population does not want to pay any more than they have to. If products produced by jobs paying proportionately what they cost in 1970, buyers would virtually boycott the stores. People want good products without having to pay full price.

As Bill Moyers clearly portrayed, there are so many people who want to survive in this economy but can't. Full time jobs, sometimes any jobs, are unavailable, and when jobs, often part time, are available, they pay virtually no more than minimal wages which are insufficient to pay a mortgage, provide for children, and have some meaningful ways to relax.

To review, we have witnessed a real change in the global economy. Other nations are gaining wealth and the United States has had to adjust to serious competition. In the process, jobs have been lost and for jobs now present, they do not pay as much and often have no benefits.

My ultimate problem is that our national economy suffers when there is such a degree of wealth inequities. While the few do well, in fact very well, and can accommodate changes as they occur, the many are left in the dust and for those, like those interviewed by Bill Moyers, there is virtually no hope.

We will never go back to where we were in 1970. That's over and done with. But, if we do not restructure our economy, there will be pain and the pain will result in great social unrest. It is not fair and eventually, those treated unfairly have nothing to lose by resisting the status quo.

As I have expressed somewhat often in the past, I share the view of the Bill Moyers' interviewees, i.e., there is no reason to believe that we will have full employment (with full time work), paying sufficiently to cope with the demands of today's economy. Full time employment will be reserved for fewer and fewer people and more and more people will be paid relatively little with no benefits. It is impossible for me to imagine our economy expanding with the demand for people that would inflate wages. Technology will obviate any need to expand the workforce to meet the objectives of capitalistic profit goals. If there is no hope for meaningful jobs for those unable to compete in a highly technical and skilled economy, there has to be some form to redistribution of wealth.

First, if we disconnected health care benefits from employment through a national insurance, everyone would have these benefits and their personal costs could be adjusted by the level of their income. People, as interviewed by Bill Moyers, would need contribute nothing for their health care. Contributions would be adjusted by the level of income.

Secondly, people who have jobs paying less than a living wage, adjusted by the size of their families, would be subsidized by revenues generated by taxes. Those able to work, but unable to find employment due to the structures of the economy, would be subsidized accordingly. Those unable to work would receive benefits commensurate with their local economy, e.g., those living in New York City would receive more than those living in DesMoines, IW.

I would promote this type of action by advocating for the common good. We all share our world and have a relationship with each other that demands sharing the wealth of some to those unable to generate sufficient wealth to live in some degree of respect and integrity associated with our common humanity.

However, if the demands of the common good are not sufficient to motivate meaningful policy changes, I suggest that people think through the implications of major social unrest. There are no winners in a nation at war with itself. Toleration of inequities is limited and when the unfairness extends beyond those limitation, anger becomes a violent tool with no good end.

Egypt, Now Another Disaster

Egypt presents any president with all sorts of problems.  Surely, I do not envy President Obama.

Egypt, like virtually all the Mideast nations, was created out of whole cloth. The Islam world has always functioned without a democracy. From the times of Caliph to WWII when the present configuration was created, there never was anything close to a democracy. Now that things are breaking apart, there is virtually no basis for planning another configuration. Even if it were possible to create separate nations for each Muslim ethnic or religious group, e.g., Shiites, Sunnis, Persians, Kurds, there is no reason that their enmity would not urge conflict. They hate each other in the most strident fashion.

We are seeing conflict emerging in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan based on religious ideology. The idea of living in peace with people who hold fundamentally different belief systems seems impossible.

I, and apparently, most people have no real answer to the fundamental problem generated by religious differences.

What I do think is that we share in the current problems with many other nations who exploited the Mideast for our ends without first considering how best to help those people. In order for us, and others, to satisfy our need for oil, we tolerated and, at times, helped autocratic governments to control their populations. We (and always like others) never treated other nations, as we would want to be treated. With money and weapons, we supported dictators and authoritarian rulers to maintain total control over their people. We never promoted democracy in any real way. We never provided the appropriate environment from which democratic rule is possible.

We may be no worse than other nations, but surely, we were no better. Now, we all share the pain involved in the disintegration of their nations who have no longer the tools of authoritarianism or of a free government. Intervening at this point is really a nightmare.

Hard to Believe that Congress could Blow a Chance!

It is almost axiomatic to say that Congress is a dysfunctional mess. There seems to be a sense that they can achieve nothing worth while. And then, hope seemed to rise from the dust. There seemingly was a chance for major legislation addressing immigration reform. And, there were reports that there may be another opportunity to address gun control.

And, then, reports started to emerge that the immigration bill may be in trouble. And with that, all hope for any meaningful legislation during this session of congress would dwindle even further.

The congressional malaise is so depressing. I feel so badly for President Obama who must be frustrated beyond any reasonable measure and also has to depress an implosion of the Middle East where there are no clear options. All those who write on foreign affairs are splintered from major intervention, without knowing its effects, to those advocating measured responses based on an assessment that there is no reasonable option available. Based on our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is difficult to form any positive scenario resulting from our intervention. In fact, apart from the invasions of small nations, e.g., Grendada, we have had no major military outcomes since WWII. Nothing has worked out "right". I now, with others,  advocate for minimal military intervention, with major diplomatic effort building coalitions advocating for genuine tolerance of differences among the various religious groups.

Security versus Invasion of Privacy

Snowden's revelation about NSA's data collection has resulted in a plethora of responses, including a surprising concurrence between liberals and conservatives on both sides of issue, viz., those who support such efforts to enhance our security and those who consider the present efforts as a massive intrusion of personal privacy.

I side with those who advocate efforts to provide security WITH safeguards for our personal liberty and I don't think that swe have such protections now.

From my perspective, the basic problem is a lack of transparency, an issue that I have focused on many times. Transparency spares the government many problems, not the least of which is that there would be no whistle blowing since everything would be out in the open. If we knew that the government was conducting specific surveillance and the program had gone through public review through an open court, there could be no need to be concerned.

Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law Professor who wrote a great book on the threats to our democratic government that I raved about, was interviewed by Bill Moyers this week. His long standing interest in ensuring that our personal privacy is protected dates back to 2000 when he published Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. His point, which I agree with, is that surveillance measures are appropriate to protect our security but the technology itself has to be coded so that no one person, e.g., Snowden, could take advantage of anyone personal privacy which is essential to our constitutional privileges.

There is a way to protect ourselves as well as our privacy. We have to do it and Congress has the ability to enable legislation to do it, if they so want to. And that is the problem. Congress only listens to the special interests and that is the problem. There is so much money involved in the surveillance mechanisms, e.g., contracts with Booz and Allen, that our personal interests become secondary.

Work: Necessary for Economic Reasons and More

It is always comforting when I read an article that resembles what I have previously expressed. Megan McArdle is an educated economist who makes her living by writing. Her most recent column about work could have been penned by myself.

Her point, albeit without any more of a solution that I proposed, i.e., none, is that the future for full employment looks dismal. She foresees numbers of people being unemployed essentially for life. Regardless of what economic supports society designs for such people, she is concerned about their well being in general. In short, jobs are a source of vitality of personal growth, human interchange, stimulation, and at least occasionally, fun. What will happen to people who have no hope for work because there is nothing that can qualify for or, if qualified, do not meet criteria.

When I read End of Work many years ago, I thought that the author was onto an inevitable outcome of our societies march into complex technology. Even with relatively few working, the author could foresee all sorts of positive outcomes with increased leisure for most, e.g., volunteerism, increased attention to the arts, etc. At the time (1995), Jeremy Rifkin's vision seemed plausible. Now, I am concerned that so many people have not evolved into a state where there they can utilize leisure creatively as a steady state of existence.

Both McArdle and I share no answer to the problem. "Make Work" society will not work for most. Even we direct resources to address our infrastructure needs, only relatively strong, physically fit people could be utilized. Make Work, as in the days of the CCC, will neither be productive nor ego-enhancing.

Our best thinkers have many problems to address. A future without full employment as a "normal" state has to be analyzed until we develop scenarios that feasibly could work.

When a "Good Idea" looks Bad!

It was not until I read Walter Mead's take on David Brooks' column that I recognized how a good idea can take a turn out bad.

When I first read Brooks' column, I was not too impressed. While I thought that he was reflecting a truth that the loss of religious practice in this country has had a negative effect on one's status in life, I interpreted it as an explanation of how we have changed. And surely, the loss of adherence to religions has had an effect on society. In the past, a past that I can identify with, one's status as a believer and a practicing one at that, was more important than one's economic status. One could feel good about life because the important element was in tack, viz., one's standing with God. In fact, it bonded us with all believers regardless of their economic status. There was an aspect of togetherness that bonded people in spite of their relative wealth. Brooks somewhat laments that relying, as we today, more on our economic status leaves us more alone. The measure of oneself seems today to rely almost totally on our economic success and this success has become increasingly more difficult to achieve. As I mentioned, my initial reading of the column was interpreted as interesting but somewhat irrelevant since we are not going to see a revival of religious identity in the near future, if ever.

I had to take a second look at Brooks' column when Walter Mead drew the conclusion that he hoped more people would realize the need to promote religious identity. Walter Mead is a conservative, but I read his blog regularly because he is very, very intelligent and even if I disagree, his arguments are very thought provoking and I realize that he may be right and I, wrong!

In short, Walter Mead wants us to see the benefit of attending church and identifying with religious truths since it promotes "togetherness". We may be economic aliens, but we can be brothers and sisters in the religious family.

I agree with both Brooks and Mead that adherence to religions promoted solidarity and I agree with both that solidarity is needed. I have lamented the loss of the value of the common good and religions often promote this value.

However to promote adherence to religion, independent of its own merits, is a fallacy. I want people to promote the common good, but I can see no reason to promote religions that I have concluded are inherently divisive and hateful. One can look back at much good that our religious identity provided, but we have to recall the bigotry it also promoted.

I have no answer to the problem of how we can now promote the common good. We are, in fact, living in the world where 1% have the most and the rest struggle, especially those with 50% or less of the wealth. I hope that the constant effort of many organizations and interest groups promoting a just society will eventually be convincing enough to sway those with wealth that it is in their self-interest, if not for a more noble motive of the common good, to ensure that all have enough to become active consumers, as Nick Hanauer clearly explains.

Individualism versus the Common Good

Reading David Brooks’ column on our society’s bent toward increased individualism, rather than good of all, was most thought provoking. I believe that he has an important perspective on the trend that started with increased technology that enabled communication without being present to the other person.

I clearly recognize the problem in myself. Before the availability of personal computers and the subsequent technology noted in smart phones, there were only two ways to communicate with another person: in person or by old fashioned land phone. Growing up in days long gone, neighborhoods in urban areas were bonded together because people walked more often (we never had an auto in our family until I was a sophomore in high school). When my mother died suddenly when my sister and I were young, neighbors only slightly known to us before, came to offer their help. One provided after school care for my sister and gave her supper for many years. Another family often gave me supper occasionally and took me on their summer vacation, luxuries at the time.

There were some wealthy people in Brockton, but most were wage earners, happy with Roosevelt’s legacy of supporting a middle class. Those wealthier were not isolated and surely were not proportionately as rich as the 1% is today. When I graduated from high school (1955), everyone felt positive about the future whether they planned on higher education or not.  There was a feeling that we were about to share a future that was similar but better than our parents had.

Since 1970’s, the trend has been increased wealth to a few with the remaining noting a decrease in income and total wealth. With unions disbanded, fewer could bargain and negotiate terms of employment.

What was strange is that the erosion of the middle class has occurred with few protests. Even Occupy Wall Street eventually fizzled out. Often I have written about the economic divide that has left more and more less wealthy with prospects of economic security in their older years less possible.

Whenever I have written or discussed the matter, it has been in the context of the loss of the value of the common good. What has seemed so clear to me, seemingly forever, is that everyone, including the rich, does better when everyone is secure with sufficient wealth. Providing assistance to others, whether in our nation or internationally, is good for others, but it is also good for us as individuals. It is in our self-interest that others are doing reasonably well. Social unrest and other civil or criminal matters rise when there is a threat to one’s well being. It just seems to be common sense to protect the common good since each of us is technically part of the whole.

At any rate, the loss of valuing the common good appears evident. David Brooks zeros in on the possible reason why the common good is no longer a vital ingredient in our public or political discourse. We have become more invested in ourselves as individuals because of the technology that allows constant awareness of others without being personally involved. There is no investment of our humanity is our joining the community fostered by media.

Sitting where I am makes this assertion real. I love Facebook, I love internet, I love knowing what others are doing and thinking. Yet, I never have to leave my chair! I am angry at the immobilization of Congress resulting from special interests and extreme ideology. But, I am not organizing protests. I am not joining protests. I write to the President, knowing full well that my message, at best, represents a click in the database of inquiries that make virtually no impact in reality. I may still support programs and policies that will benefit the common good, but my support is virtually meaningless. Unless people are mobilized to alter the parameters of the discussion, change does not occur.

When I focus on the unemployment issues, I cannot see how we will have “full employment”. Our GNP increases with increased productivity since fewer people are needed to do the work. Technology, including now robots, is transforming the work places of many, including those often thought to be immune from the invasion of computers. When startup companies are initiated, they most often envision growth without many employees. Needed expertise is contracted out rather than add personal. GM made news that they were bringing back manufacturing of small vehicles to the United States. This was made possible because the robots reduced the need of humans! Manufacturing without humans is competitive with China!

Modern communication enables us to focus on ourselves as individuals. The notion of the common good seems foreign to many. Surely, it is not evident in public policy. As long as our world is personally satisfying, it seems that we can forget the needs of others. The technology is not going away. In fact, it will become easier and easier with time to stay involved with others without expending personal effort and resources. If I recall that the personal computer became available to me as a VA employee in the early in 1970’s, I realize how far we have come in 40+ years and progress advances, according to Moore’s Law, every 18 months.

There is nothing promising about the future with less meaningful work for most in a world where people care less for others in need.

Life's Journey can be Unexpected but Great!

Last evening served to highlight the differences among peoples’ life journeys. The ordination class of 1963 was coming together to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of a special day. There were 21 men present; others either could not come (some through death) or did not want to come. There was a mix of people. Most were those who spent their lives as priests. There were, however, seven of us who left the priesthood at some point.

Conversations between those who remained priests and those who left were cordial, if somewhat disjointed. It was hard to quickly relate to one another.

For me and others who married, the experience of marriage, children and grandchildren differed radically from those who remained in the priesthood. Our lives become somewhat normalized, i.e., we were like most people. In contrast, priests ordained in 1963 generally lived with multiple priests in a parish and enjoyed high regard within the community. Today’s situation is different. Priests are essentially alone and are often a source of chagrin, not necessarily personally, but as a member of a collective body festered with allegations of sexual abuse. There was a feeling of relief that I did not remain.

When the opportunity was present for each person to share a few words of his life’s present circumstances, the dichotomy was more evident.  And so it should be, given the differences in life circumstances.

From a more personal perspective, I was aware that my life trajectory was dramatic. Recalling my commitment to the priesthood 50 years ago, I have gone from not only a person with a recognized religious identity to becoming essentially a living contradiction to everything I was.

Rather than a personal God, identified as three persons, now my God is an unknown force somehow sustaining an ever-expanding universe, larger than ever known to humans. Then, I was a person who considered my identity as a Christian as a remarkable gift, even made more special for being a Catholic. Now, rather than seeing these signs of uniqueness as special, they are sources of division. As a religion, Christianity (and, so Catholicism) enjoys the same distinction as other religions as the basis of bigotry, hatred, division, and, unfortunately at times, death.

It amazes me that my life has traversed such a journey. Every step was incremental. Never did I think that I would end up where I did, albeit the story is yet unfinished. When I think of all that I have read or known, people do not often change such basic core beliefs as radically as I have. For those who share a similar story, and there was at least one present, it all seems so normal. There was no trauma prompting transitions from one stage to another. It was like opening a book with several chapters, each subsequent one prepared by the evolution of the previous. What would have seemed incredible at one moment becomes self-evident at another.

Through it all, my life has been essentially stable, measured by family life and work. Married now 44 years with three adult and successful children and 6 grandchildren, I marvel at the normalness of my life.  It is only in this most sacred portion of my humanity that answers to the core questions of life and death that prompts much, if not all, of religions to surface, that I see the huge change that occurred incrementally but steadily over these 44 years.

I am a fortunate person to have left the past and walked into the future with a sense that nothing could have been worse than to remain indebted to a commitment initiated in a twisted moment in time.

"When Elephants Weep" and Pierre Theilard de Chardin

Following a friend's recommendation, I read "When Elephants Weep", a book that strongly captures the emotional qualities of animals. Since I was so positively biased in favor of animals, the author's ability to capture the emotional aspects of animals was most supportive of my preconceptions. I love animals.

One may wonder what this would have to do with Pierre Theihard de Chardin. To understand the connection requires my going back over 50 years when I was first exposed to his writing. Recalling that  I was transitioning as a seminarian from the constraints of a theology based on the post-Reformation. In the process of being liberated by the Vatican Council, I started reading de Chardin's works. It was such a great experience.

Pierre Theilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit priest who died in 1955 when he was 74. During his life as a paleontologist, he was both a highly esteemed scientist and a theologian whose works were discredited by church authorities. The gist of his work was his focus on evolution which was in itself not so revolutionary. When his writing started to see evolution as a process in which God is working out a somewhat novel approach to how Christ would become "all in all". One can imagine my reading of his poetic insights into the godly process of evolution. It was extraordinarily liberating. The process transcended religion. It superseded all religions as evolution became the vehicle moving toward the Omega (the End) when all would be glorified in union with Christ.

Relating Theihard de Chardin to "When Elephants Weep" is the notion that his conception that all things were "living", not just humans, animals, and insects, etc., but also what is usual referenced as non-living, e.g., stones. He did not suggest that the living dimensions of what we reference as non-animate are equal to the living dimensions of animals and  humans, but there was a continuum. If you get the implications of his thought, then you would see the need to consider all of creation as "living" with a corresponding need to be reverent of creation. Nothing is to be abused.

I can recall reading some of his poems to a patient at Emerson Hospital. His "Hymn of the Universe" brought tears to my eyes. When I was celebrating the Eucharist, I often saw myself as part of the entire universe, almost imaging myself dissolving into the universe.

At any rate, getting back to "When Elephants Weep", it becomes relatively easy to see how one can appreciate the emotional lives of animals if you start to envision the glorious and living dimensions of all things, including non-animate creations. The universe, now so much bigger than anyone could have imagined during the life of Pierre Theilhard de Chardin, has become more meaningful than ever for my understanding of God. While admitting my incapability of understanding God, I am in awe of creation. It is important for me to live my life as best I can to praise God by my respect of, and care of, Mother Earth and all her inhabitants, including animals.

While I am not a vegan, I do not eat much meat. I think being a vegan would be a honest response to my personal views. However, I still am not comfortable without that source of protein. It surely bothers me that the industry providing meat to the public ends up killing, sometimes in horrible ways, animals. In addition, the methods used to fatten animals is a problem for the environment and requires use of materials and land that would be otherwise better used. The costs of food for the animals are themselves problems for the environment. The problems of raising animals for food will only get worse. The populations of other nations are increasingly becoming more prosperous and one consequence is that they now have funds to use for meat. We can anticipate

I am glad that the research industry is now moving away from the use of animals. Sometimes, this decision has been precipitated by findings of horrendous conditions, e.g., the recent findings about Harvard University's animal lab.



Hopefully, it is somewhat clear how I was able to relate "When Elephants Weep" to one of my heroes, Pierre Theilhard de Chardin.