#morethanredandblue: Part 6

Here is Part 6, the last section, of my Theology on Tap talk, More Than Red and Blue.

You can read the explanation and Part 1 of the talk here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, Part 4 here, and Part 5 here.

* * *

To summarize the three issues we looked at, I’m gonna post small snapshots of these issues in context of CST right now.

Responding to social issues of PAS, health-care, and gun control and violence with CST #morethanredandblue pic.twitter.com/547S5UB9qY

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

Ok, so what do I do in November? ‡I’m going to tweet out some tips and suggestions, which I’ll talk you through now as you check it out.

Thoughts on discerning your vote... I challenge you to pray hard and take a stand! #morethanredandblue pic.twitter.com/RaRYHn1XyZ

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

First, I caution against any guidance or advice you may hear or see that connects the weight of mortal sin or grave error with any particular type of vote. I think this only applies in very rare cases when very narrow referenda are offered on particular social issues on which we are called to vote in a way that reflects Church teaching and our conscientious response to it. However, when it comes to general elections when we are typically only offered viable candidates from two main parties, there is not a way to completely avoid supporting some negative or evil policy.

With parties & politicians, vote is harder to discern; in specific referenda, vote is clearer #morethanredandblue https://t.co/4rhwAalkYY

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 18, 2016

So should I abstain or stay home? You could, and I personally wouldn’t fault you for that if you feel that is the best reflection of your conscientious decision. I would challenge you to more though. Look at the candidates and not necessarily just their party affiliations. Can you dig into the nuances of particular candidates via their public speeches, their websites, their voting records, and more? Can you then discern some kind of positive overarching pattern or personality that matches what you’re looking for? Can you synthesize your reactions to follow a gut feeling on who may bring stronger character or integrity to the office? By trying to engage with the details and discerning a best decision, you can share your process with others, hear about their processes in turn, and thus continue honing a way to maximize the closeness of your Catholic conscience to particular candidates for these important roles.

Well, then how do I pick someone? Remember that neither Republican nor Democrat (nor Libertarian, Green, or anyone else) totally matches the social teachings of the Church. Remember that both parties do have stances that align with the calls of the Gospel for our social action. Remember that both parties also have stances that contradict what we are called to do in society. Remember that some politicians are more moderate or go to the opposite wing of their party – like liberal/moderate Republicans or moderate/conservative Democrats – and these anomalies can sometimes offer a more unique and less one-size-fits-all version of our major parties’ platforms; I personally gravitate toward these candidates because their agitation of the status quo often reflects the nuances and issue-by-issue stances that I desire to see.

I’ll be paying close attention to the debates and to the public comments of the presidential candidates, and I want to know two main things:

1. Who will represent our country with more integrity and character? And I don’t mean just maximizing our political and economic interests; I mean cooperating, supporting, and building global solidarity in our world. 

2. Who will more thoroughly uphold the consistent ethic of life? And I don’t mean just in terms of abortion or death penalty but with education, health-care, and elderly care as well.

I will be voting in November, and I don’t know yet who I will vote for. But I know there are lots of Sundays and Eucharist between here and there, and plenty of opportunity to converse in faith with other faith-filled, conscientious people striving to discern some tough decisions. I’ll be looking for integrity in upholding the consistent ethic of life and global solidarity as much as I can find it. I’ll see you in November!

Thanks for reading the talk, and thanks again to the Ravenswood Young Adult community, led by St. Benedict and St. Andrew Parishes; to Old St. Mary's Parish; and to the Young Adult Ministry in the Northwest Suburbs, each of which hosted me to give this talk.

#morethanredandblue: Part 5

Here is Part 5 of my Theology on Tap talk, More Than Red and Blue.

You can read the explanation and Part 1 of the talk here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, and Part 4 here.

* * *

Let’s look at one last major issue as we continue: gun control and violence. I often like to start this discussion by asking people if they think the problem of violence is solved by having more guns or fewer guns. Often, more liberal people will support having fewer guns, wanting to keep guns out of civilians’ hands and to generally stem the flow of guns onto our streets in order to reduce gun violence. On the other hand, more conservative people will often support having more guns in the hands of private citizens so as to create a deterrent toward violent criminals and better enable citizens to protect themselves and one another against gun violence. If we take a step back and engage the issue from Catholic Social Teaching, we can ask, what are our rights? What are our responsibilities? What’s the best route to fostering community and participation? How can uphold a consistent ethic of life?

When it comes to Church teaching, the bishops in the US have become increasingly more vocal on the issue of gun control and gun violence. Here are a few highlights from the bishops’ written statements following the Newtown shooting in 2012:

It is time for our nation to renew a culture of life in our society… With regard to the regulation of firearms, first, the intent to protect one's loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible. 

Our entertainers, especially film producers and video game creators, need to realize how their profit motives have allowed the proliferation of movies, television programs, video games and other entertainment that glorify violence and prey on the insecurities and immaturity of our young people. Such portrayals of violence have desensitized all of us.

In their remarks, the bishops have also publicly supported and called for sales controls, gun use safety legislation, handgun regulations, assault weapons restrictions, and addiction and mental health emphases in our approach. As we review the bishops’ stance, it is important to reaffirm here that legitimate defense is an integral principle of our moral theology; we understand lethal force to be a morally acceptable response when one is faced with an imminent, aggressive threat. On the whole, the bishops’ teaching and remarks on gun control have made this pursuit part of the holistic pro-life emphasis. During his visit to the US, Pope Francis even talked about gun violence to our Congress:

Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money - money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.

Jumping forward to last month, our bishops continued to advocate for gun control, with fresh calls in the wake of the Orlando shooting: Bishop Lynch of St. Petersburg affirmed the second amendment while insisting that reasonable gun control is part of being pro-life, starting with assault weapons bans for civilians; he also admitted the shortcomings of Catholicism and other faiths that somehow manage to breed hatred and violence in some of their adherents, even if these people are distant or radicalized members. Archbishop Cupich of Chicago has also done a tremendous job preaching our social values while addressing hate crimes and gun violence. Speaking directly to the Archdiocesan Gay-Lesbian Outreach, he said,

The Archdiocese of Chicago stands with you; I stand with you… We come together in this time of sorrow, this time of darkness. Yet we walk in the light of solidarity and peace.

He later added, while speaking on a radio program, a plea for us to look at root causes:

In the gunman, Omar Mateen, the archbishop sees “a very lethal combination of an unstable personality,” psychic conflict and homophobia, the incitement to violence offered by ISIS internet propaganda and “finally, the idealization of guns as the best means to take out one’s rage on others.” But it was “easy access to guns” that made possible the horrific attack.

As we think about our rights, the bishops have never really denounced the second amendment completely, but they are clearly for controls to shape our second-amendment rights. Our leaders have repeatedly called for stricter access to guns and a ban on extreme weapons while also commenting on the wrongful ease with which guns can be acquired and used for evil.

This teaching can fit squarely with our call to Rights and Responsibilities: we may have a right to own and operate a gun, but we have a responsibility to foster a culture that exercises gun safety, gun control, and reasonable gun limits. We can then extend this to the Call to Family, Community, and Participation: if we want to further a society in which participation and active involvement create an atmosphere of belonging, the gun rights culture must evolve such that it cannot be a foundation for terrorism or fear-mongering toward marginalized people, whether religious minorities, LGBT people, or otherwise. Access to guns that contributes to hate and terrorism is a sure sign that our current system is broken and needs reform. Finally, if we want to have a fuller respect for life, we certainly must honor one’s right to defend oneself but need to attempt to widen that cultural perspective beyond seeing gun ownership and use as the only way to do so.

Consider the chicken-and-egg here – do we need guns to defend ourselves because others are threats or are others threats because our need to defend ourselves proliferates guns? I think it’s a bit tougher to square a “more guns” solution with the social teachings here than it is to align a “less guns” solution with these teachings. Guns aren’t inherently evil, but the ease with which they become tools for evil is dangerous. I prefer a “less guns” solution, and here’s how I understand and apply our social teaching. Disarmament has to start with someone, and nothing is more powerful than humble, peaceful actions that are done freely. If a culture can begin to disarm itself and entrust protection and security to specifically designated authorities, the need that private citizens feel to carry guns could reduce. I think back to my time living in Ireland: there, their policemen are called Guardians of the Peace, and they do not even carry guns. They carry a nightstick but no firearm because the culture doesn’t necessitate such significant measures. So to be true to our call to Rights and Responsibilities, to uphold Solidarity and the Call to Family, Community, and Participation, and to strengthen the Dignity and Value of Human Life, I will choose continue to not own a gun, while supporting others’ rights to do so, but also to support measures that more actively restrict the types of guns sold, the screening of gun-buyers, and other sensible ways to put our rights in the context of our responsibilities.

Coming up next in Part 6: concluding with summary of these positions and a challenge for voting conscientiously.

#morethanredandblue: Part 4

Here is Part 4 of my Theology on Tap talk, More Than Red and Blue.

You can read the explanation and Part 1 of the talk here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here.

* * *

Let’s try another issue: let’s tackle artificial birth control, the Health and Human Services Mandate, and the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare. A few years ago, following the passage of the ACA, the Department of Health and Human Services mandated that employer-based health-care plans had to provide artificial birth control free of charge. Directly religious institutions were exempted, but other institutions with a religious ethos, such as religious universities, and private businesses owned by people with faith-based conscientious objections, such as Hobby Lobby were not. HHS offered a compromise that instead had these groups employ a third party to provide free artificial birth control as a middle man, but these groups were largely unsatisfied, still feeling complicit. Currently, appeals against the mandate are pinballing in the courts, stalled due in part to the death of Justice Scalia and the nominee to replace him not being considered by the Senate.

So, let’s start with the ACA and health-care access. Health-care would be considered a thrival right, something which the theme of Rights and Responsibilities calls us to affirm as a necessary element of helping people become who God created them to be. Again, we face the challenge of choosing a path toward universal health-care, and this is where we must face up to the political landscape of the US. Foundationally, it isn’t a just option to simply not work toward universal health-care. If we are to heed the calls of Rights and Responsibilities, the Dignity and Value of Human Life, the Preferential Option for the Poor and Marginalized, and Solidarity, we must somehow pursue universal health-care.

So, we need to choose a path as to how we will work toward this goal. Democrats want to strengthen and develop ObamaCare toward universal coverage; Republicans want to repeal and replace ObamaCare, though the parameters of their substitute plan are unclear. Either way, or via a potential third way, we as Catholics are called to affirm access to what our brothers and sisters need to survive, thrive, and develop. Democrats need to articulate how ObamaCare can develop to ensure affordable access to health-care for all, and Republicans need to explain how exactly privatized health-care or a revised health-care law can accomplish that. We as voters must decide how conscientiously we can best honors our Rights and Responsibilities, the Dignity and Value of Human Life, and the Preferential Option as we work for universal health-care.

I personally feel ObamaCare is a step in the right direction, and being realistic, I was, am, and continue to be prepared for a rocky rollout as we work toward universal coverage. There is a steep learning curve in educating young people and healthy people that they must get coverage – it will support them in case their health deteriorates or is affected by unforeseen circumstance, and their buy-in will gradually increase the national health-care spending by consumers and gradually lower costs to consumers across the board. I know it will take time to work toward that critical mass, and I am fine being patient for a little while. I also believe that continuing to incorporate a free-market element can help ensure that health-care providers are competing to provide the best options and prices to consumers, who can decide the best plan for themselves, be it a standard HMO or PPO, an FSA or HSA with high deductible, or an ObamaCare marketplace plan with low, subsidized premiums.

Now, let’s focus more on the HHS Mandate and the implications for artificial birth control access and use. Foundationally as Catholics, we believe that sexual intercourse is the fullest expression of love, something that can only be fully expressed in marriage by a husband and wife. We also believe that their marital sexuality should be simultaneously procreative and unitive; spouses should be open to each sexual act resulting in pregnancy as they express their love to each other with the greatest intimacy and vulnerability. Responding to this, we believe that we should not intervene artificially in the sexual act to alter or change its natural end, so we believe artificial birth control is immoral.

To connect this back to CST themes, let’s first consider The Dignity and Value of Human Life; this theme calls us to respect the beginning of life at conception, such that we do not interfere with the potential for conception, where a new life could begin. Let’s consider the Call to Family, Community, and Participation; this theme calls us to enact the fullness of marital love without any artificial interference such that our sexuality reflects the commitment to the marriage, the spouse, and the family that will be lived out in our families’ lives.

So how can we engage this mandate in terms that translate? We need to approach our consideration of artificial birth control in terms of sexual liberty v. reproductive health. On the one hand, sexual liberty is the concept that we should be free to have sex as we wish, with whom we wish, consensually, and with control over the consequences of the actions, including pregnancy, STDs, etc. To this end, people often turn to various kinds of artificial birth control to facilitate their sexual liberty: contraceptive surgeries, or sterilizations; contraceptive devices, such as IUDs; contraceptive medications, such as “the pill”; and abortifacients, such as “Plan B” that end pregnancies very early. On the other hand, reproductive health is the field of health-care that pertains to fertility, pregnancy, and care for young children and mothers. This seeks to support the natural processes of the body that enable procreation and healthy conception, pregnancy, birth, and development. To this end, people often turn to various things to aid their reproductive health: hormone and fertility therapies; corrective surgeries, usually for women’s issues like tube blockage, scar tissue, uterine abnormalities, tumors, or cysts; diet, exercise, and lifestyle adjustments; and natural family planning consultations and counseling.

Sexual liberty involves our desire to gain control over the natural processes of our body and their consequences whereas reproductive health aims to support and facilitate the body’s natural processes. Fertility and pregnancy are not diseases but rather healthy functions of a healthy body. These should not be restrained or interfered with, so artificial birth control cannot be considered reproductive health. The one exception to these distinctions, which Paul VI explicitly declares in his encyclical Humanae vitae, is when women elect to use artificial birth control therapeutically to treat irregular or heavy menstrual periods. As long as this use of artificial birth control does not become doubly used for sexual liberty, it’s ok.

So since artificial birth control does not treat a disease or disorder, it should not be considered or mandated as part of health-care. Advocacy for artificial birth control cannot really fit within the cohesive calls of these social teachings, so those who choose to advocate for artificial birth control should do so recognizing it as a matter of sexual liberty rather than reproductive health.

Coming up next in Part 5: gun control and gun violence.

#morethanredandblue: Part 3

Here is Part 3 of my Theology on Tap talk, More Than Red and Blue.

You can read the explanation and Part 1 of the talk here and Part 2 here.

* * *

Let’s look first at physician-assisted suicide. This is one that is starting to get bigger and bigger. Recent movements in Canada and the UK pushed to legalize it, and in the US, California’s new law legalizing it has come into effect this summer, joining Oregon, Washington, and Vermont as states with laws that sanction physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is when a doctor prescribes a patient a lethal dose of a sedative, which the patient then self-administers at their own discretion to end their life. The legal protocols require multiple physicians’ assessments, oral and written requests from the patient, waiting periods, and the full independence and autonomy of patient to decide and self-administer the prescription, among other things. Oregon has had the law in place for the longest, and over 100 people utilize it each year in that state.

So thinking in terms of CST themes, let’s consider solidarity. As we try to be mindful of all people as our brothers and sisters, we can unite ourselves with our suffering brothers and sisters and with Christ on the cross, who suffered in human form. Suffering can remind us of our frailty and bring us to a humility that helps us realize our dependence on others and on God. This process invites us to re-understand not just how to give our love but especially how to receive it. In this, we can find the redemptive potential of suffering. Our efforts should be to eliminate the root causes of suffering, but should not necessarily treat suffering itself as an inherent evil.

Let’s consider the Dignity and Value of Human Life. In terms of medical ethics, this theme calls us to pursue ordinary means of medicine and health-care with complete commitment for improving and sustaining life. However, when it comes to extraordinary means, we can look at such care and consider the risk-reward and cost-benefit implications. If a life is only being sustained by artificial means, it is permissible to remove that support and allow the natural end to come; however, we cannot take an active step to end that life, such as physician-assisted suicide entails.

On the whole, it is not our place to decide on matters of life and death, so we must support life with full dignity and value until its natural end, upholding the consistent ethic of life. We can allow that end to come, if extraordinary means are all that delay it, but we cannot be actualizers of death. It is important that we leave room for God’s grace to flow in final conversations, encounters, lessons, and revelations that come between all involved at the end of life. These are difficult considerations, so pastorally, we must remain compassionate and understanding of the challenges of this cross when it comes to individuals and their families and friends as they engage with end-of-life decisions.

To synthesize these points, when it comes to physician-assisted suicide, the calls of Christ in our social teaching – especially Solidarity and the Dignity and Value of Human Life – add up to say that we can morally remove life-sustaining medicine to allow natural death to come, but we cannot take an active step to end life.

Coming up next in Part 4: universal health-care with the Affordable Care Act, the Health & Human Services Mandate, and artificial birth control.

#morethanredandblue: Part 2

Here is Part 2 of my Theology on Tap talk, More Than Red and Blue.

You can read the explanation and Part 1 of the talk in my previous post.

* * *

So building on the foundation of these seven themes, let’s move to election issues and party politics in our country. We can then use the calls of these themes to refilter social issues and consider our response that way.

Historically, Catholics are a swing vote. We have split almost 50/50 in each of the last four elections, and we have actually sided in majority with the winner in every election since 1956. So, even if our states are fairly predictably “red” or “blue,” the larger popular vote is important for political trends, campaign strategies, and mandate arguments – our vote matters in many different ways.

Let’s start with a simple foundational issue and show one major fundamental reason why Catholics can’t really fall into line with either party totally: government spending, taxes, and welfare and charity. So, which side is right? Which fits Catholic social teaching? Think of rights and responsibilities – how can we protect access to the things needed to live, prosper, and develop? How can we best be responsible to our brothers and sisters? Think of solidarity – how can we best be mindful of all other people as our brothers and sisters? Think about the Preferential Option – how can we explicitly consider the poor and marginalized in our personal, communal, and social decisions?

Well, let’s consider the basic stance of each party. First, the Democrats… As liberals, Democrats typically favor robust taxes that create significant revenue for the government, which can then support public services and programs that help and support people. Let’s paint this picture using a scene from one of my all-time favorite shows, The West Wing: Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman is working on the administration’s response to a budget surplus – a true sign of the show’s being a fictional program! Josh’s secretary Donna wants to receive her share of the surplus back as a cash refund. Josh tells her he would rather combine her portion, which would be about $700, with everyone else’s cut to pay down some of the national debt and endow social security. However, Donna wants to buy a new DVD player, which she says will support the economy. Josh tells her she may buy a foreign item, which wouldn’t help the US. So Donna finally demands to know why she can’t have her money back. Josh says she can’t have it “because we’re Democrats." Check out the link on Twitter.

Clips from The West Wing on gov't spending and revenue - "because we're Democrats" https://t.co/hl9v5Ou4Uz #morethanredandblue

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

When it comes to living out the calls of Christ in social teaching, this approach by Democrats can be effective or can struggle. Taxes can help guarantee that a certain amount of money will come in to the government, which can then utilize it to ensure and sustain a certain amount of social programs. When it comes to people’s rights and our call to opt for the poor and marginalized, these programs in welfare, unemployment, food assistance, housing programs, and more can lay a foundational framework for aiding those in need. These realities ensure a steady flow of support. On the other hand, the government can at times be vulnerable to weaknesses such as bureaucratic complications, political leverages, and systemic inefficiency – look no further than the Illinois budget crisis for some evidence of these issues. All of this can lead one to doubt whether legally compelling tax money to go to government programs is the best way to live out these social calls.

So let’s consider the Republicans then… As conservatives, Republicans typically favor tax cuts that strive to cap the size of government and its revenue and thus limit it to only minimal, essential tasks. This keeps more money in the hands of citizens to spend, save, invest, donate, etc. as they choose. To see this principle in action, let’s flip to a few weeks ago: Speaker Paul Ryan, who is Catholic, said of a newly rolled-out poverty-fighting plan,

“No amount of government intervention can replace the great drivers of American life: our families, friends, neighbors, churches, and charities… And Americans do not need more one-size-fits-all, top-down government programs that limit their ability to get ahead. Instead, they need opportunities to help them escape poverty and earn success.” …

I’m tweeting a link to an article with Ryan’s comments.

Words from GOP @SpeakerRyan on his party's plan to fight poverty, a microcosm of Rep. philosophy https://t.co/NWSbekP1tG #morethanredandblue

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

When it comes to living out the calls of Christ, this strategy, too, can be effective or struggle. Lower taxes can keep more money in the hands of private citizens, who can then select the destinations for the money, whether investment, spending, or charity. Then the free market creates competition, ideally funneling funding to the most effective programs which then put it toward social justice. When it comes to people’s rights and our call to opt for the poor and marginalized, this allows people’s free will to respond to the realities of those in need in the ways their conscience feels is best rather than putting most of that money into the hands of government. This supports the social principle of subsidiarity that aims to keep social action at the most local level possible. On the other hand, if the economy struggles or people don’t take the initiative to invest, spend, and donate, then support for those in need could dwindle while there is also less of a foundational baseline of public programs from the government to hold it up. These problems can make one feel that more money should be allocated to compulsory programs that guarantee that more need is met.

So, foundationally, both approaches have strengths and weaknesses that have the potential to effectively respond to the social realities we face. Neither one is perfect, and both can be enactments of the calls of social teaching. This is why we as Catholics are often split in terms of ideology and partisan affiliation, because there are pros and cons to the character of each stance. So let’s try to look at some key issues in terms of the Catholic Social Teaching elements at play and provide a refreshed starting point to our stances.

Coming up next in Part 3: Examining Physician-Assisted Suicide.

#morethanredandblue: Part 1

This summer, I had the chance to give a talk for the Theology on Tap series through the Archdiocese of Chicago Young Adult Ministry. I'm grateful to the parishes and young adult communities of the Ravenswood neighborhood, led by St. Benedict and St. Andrew Parishes, of Old St. Mary's, and of the northwest suburbs, led by its lay committee; their support and invitation gave me the opportunity to have some great interaction with other young adult Catholics.

At each of these sites, I gave the talk More Than Red and Blue: Engaging Issues from Catholic Social Teaching. Building on the themes of Catholic Social Teaching, I tried to engage a few key social issues using the terminology and coherence of CST and create a framework that Catholics could take with them as they make their election decisions.

I am going to post the full text of my talk here in installments, and I invite you to consider these thoughts on Catholic Social Teaching, social issues, and conscientious Catholic voting. #morethanredandblue

Jump to next parts of the talk here, or at the end of each part:
Part 2     Part 3     Part 4     Part 5     Part 6

* * *

So let’s start here: in early 2009, I was a sophomore at the University of Notre Dame. On a lazy Sunday afternoon in the section common room, I got a text from my brother, a Notre Dame alum, that President Obama would be our commencement speaker later the year. Initially, I was really excited and delighted that Notre Dame would have such a noteworthy speaker coming to campus. However, my initial excitement was quickly overshadowed by furor. In this day and age, we love to rally behind populist anger, and one of my first memories of such internet-fueled rage came in the following days and weeks. Critics raged against the university, asking, “how could we invite someone who supports abortion rights?!” Some people came out in complete and total opposition. Others were ok with his coming to campus and speaking to the graduates but took issue with his receiving an honorary degree. Still others were happy that he accepted the invitation to speak and were excited for the dialogue that could ensure. There were also those who were 100% supportive of the whole thing.

The exciting and sometimes scary thing was that it turned Notre Dame into a zoo. On a semidaily basis, students, faculty, alumni, and others had letters to the editor published in the campus newspaper, which made for good dining hall fodder and spurred fascinating conversations around campus. Family members and friends were checking in with us, asking how things were on campus and giving their thoughts on the situation. The scary part came from the strong opposition. Frequently, a small plane would fly over campus, making laps with various banners towed behind it, sending messages of disapproval to our university leadership and displaying images of aborted fetuses. Additionally, a nationally known anti-abortion protester came to South Bend and took up residence in town to personally spearhead demonstrations. At one point, people following his lead pushed bloody strollers on to campus that had gory dolls graphically displayed; these folks were removed from campus for breaking campus policy that limits demonstrations to approved student groups.

Now as a sophomore, I didn’t have a ticket to commencement in our basketball arena, but I was excited to follow along on TV. University-wide events such as this put our university president, Fr. John Jenkins, on display. Now Fr. John has settled in to a nice groove at Notre Dame and has done a solid if not terribly exciting job as president. Fr. John is a fairly diminutive, skinny little man, and at that time, he had only been president for a few years. The only thing that many knew abut him from brief encounters was that he had an infamously limp hand shake (Dan: At this point, I would demonstrate on someone). So I was quite delighted when, in an excellently crafted speech, Fr. Jenkins hit eloquently on the realities of politics and polarization in America and blew me away. He said,

Differences must be acknowledged, and in some cases cherished. But too often differences lead to pride in self and contempt for others, until two sides – taking opposing views of the same difference — demonize each other. Whether the difference is political, religious, racial, or national — trust falls, anger rises, and cooperation ends … even for the sake of causes all sides care about. 

When we face differences with fellow citizens, we will be tested: do we keep trying, with love and a generous spirit, to appeal to ethical principles that might be persuasive to others? Or do we condemn those who differ with us for not seeing the truth that we see?

Then he addressed the elephant… or rather the donkey… in the room, speaking directly to President Obama:

As we all know, a great deal of attention has surrounded President Obama’s visit to Notre Dame. We honor all people of good will who have come to this discussion respectfully and out of deeply held conviction. 

Most of the debate has centered on Notre Dame’s decision to invite and honor the President. Less attention has been focused on the President’s decision to accept. 

President Obama has come to Notre Dame, though he knows well that we are fully supportive of Church teaching on the sanctity of human life, and we oppose his policies on abortion and embryonic stem cell research. 

Others might have avoided this venue for that reason. But President Obama is not someone who stops talking to those who differ with him. Mr. President: This is a principle we share.

The full text of Fr. Jenkins' introduction of Pres. Obama at ND Commencement '09 #morethanredandblue https://t.co/1efpnulGdx

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

In a country that is so fraught with political polarization, where difficult social issues are so thoroughly spelled out with familiar arguments and buzzwords that become so charged up that they instinctively rub us the wrong ways, our faith calls us to something more. There’s no better time than during an election year to put our faith in action, so tonight I want to invite you to reconsider some key social issues in terms of Catholic Social Teaching. We’ll cover just a few, but it can help spur you to further thought because though the Church cannot be a political party, because the truths we strive to live out transcend any political system, the Church and its members should be political.

I will say up front that, personally, in terms of party affiliation, I am an independent, and in terms of ideology, I am a moderate. I have always voted split ticket and have voted for candidates from both parties at all levels in various elections. When it comes to America’s political parties and ideological poles, I believe that Catholics cannot be compelled toward either party or political ideology because the beliefs we hold based on the truths revealed by God are too nuanced and varied for either of the two-party system’s platforms. To give a few examples, Republicans oppose abortion while supporting the death penalty, and Democrats are vice-versa; looking at other life issues, Republicans widely oppose comprehensive immigration reform and basic gun control while Democrats widely support physician-assisted suicide and free, liberal access to artificial birth control and abortifacients. You see no party can make a total claim to us, so we have to be critical and active in making decisions in voting that best try to put our faith in action. ‚This is huge, so let’s tweet that out. I feel that the two-party system creates a faulty dilemma that makes us feel as if we only have two choices, when choosing to be independent gives us the ability to choose freely based on individual politicians and the social climate of each election.

Neither party can totally claim Catholics, so we must be critical, active voters that carefully put our faith in action. #morethanredandblue

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

They say that if you want to keep the peace and have a nice time on social occasions, you’re not supposed to talk about religion or politics… but here we go anyway... Let’s raise a toast: to young adults and our contributions to the Church, for others’ openness and receptivity to our witness; and for our country, our politics, and our elections, that we can prioritize what is right and good above shallow, superficial considerations or petty competition. Cheers!

So, I find that reframing issues in new terms with new perspective can be a strong way to reengage issues and evolve my understanding. So when it comes to politics, elections, and social issues, rather than falling in line lockstep with any party or platform, our Catholic Social Teaching gives us a different framework to filter these challenging issues through, one that can hopefully come to your ears and hearts with less loaded connotations. Tonight will not necessarily decide who you vote for, but our time together could help you figure out how to critically engage with your Catholic identity as you conscientiously discern your voting decisions, especially pertaining to social issues. So, get ready for a whole lot of shades of grey! – but, like, we’ll keep it to 49 or less. On the whole, it may leave us with more questions than answers, but our questions will be better, fuller questions. It will all be rooted in the Gospel, and will point us toward the truth at the core of these issues rather than the anger and derision at which we too often stop in frustration.

So, for starters, let’s dig in to Catholic Social Teaching by looking at its origins and its primary calls. Catholic Social Teaching is a tradition of Church teachings that reaches throughout our entire history but was first formalized in 1891 in the encyclical Rerum novarum, written by Pope Leo XIII. An encyclical is a letter by a pope written to people of good will; popes write in response to a particular context that prompts them to deliver timeless teachings. In Rerum novarum, Leo was responding to the Industrial Revolution, specifically the nature of work and the rights of workers, including wages, conditions, and more. In the last 125 years, several encyclicals, letters from bishops and bishops’ conferences, and other documents have articulated Catholic Social Teaching. ƒThe ideas can be organized into 7 primary themes:

1. Dignity of Work and Workers’ Rights: Christ calls us to uphold the inherent value of work so that a just wage and a just economy can serve the individual and society.

2. Care for God’s Creation: Christ calls us to preserve the world by being good stewards of it as God’s gift to humanity.

3. Rights and Responsibilities: Christ calls us to protect access to the things that everyone needs so as to live justly for others, society, and ourselves.

4. The Call to Family, Community, and Participation: Christ calls us to uphold the domestic church as the basis for fostering belonging and active involvement in society.

5. The Preferential Option for the Poor and Marginalized: Christ calls us to consider people who are poor or marginalized in every decision we make individually, communally, and socially.

6. Solidarity: Christ calls us to love and be mindful of every single person as our brother or sister.

7. The Dignity and Value of Human Life: Christ calls us to view and treat all human life as inherently and completely valuable in all forms and at all stages.

The calls of Christ in the 7 themes of Catholic Social Teaching #morethanredandblue pic.twitter.com/zqR2nKf7IR

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) July 21, 2016

Coming up next in Part 2: applying CST to the basic principles of each party.

Opting for Black Lives

The Preferential Option for the Poor and Marginalized is one of the most prophetic and powerful teachings of the Church, and partly due to its oddly-worded title, might be one of the least understood social teachings.

Option here does not mean optional - it comes from the word "opt," meaning to choose. Preferential does not mean we should prefer to be poor but that the poor and marginalized deserve to be thought about intentionally.

At its core, opting means to actively consider the poor and marginalized in every decision we make personally, communally, and socially.

A lot of good thoughts have been provoked recently by this clever cartoon,
that follows the same basic principle of the option for the poor and marginalized.

A good metaphor to encapsulate opting for the poor is to think of parents with several children. Parents strive to love all their children as much as possible and to give them all the care and support they can. However, when one child is sick, it tilts the balance. All of a sudden, the parents will direct more care toward the sick child - taking their temperature, making doctor visits, filling prescriptions, bringing meals to bed, etc. Does it mean the parents love the other children any less? No, but it means as long as the child is sick, they are in need of greater care so that they can get well again soon. And hopefully the other children can act with compassion and patience as they support their sick sibling and parents through that tough time.

This is a call that we must strive to answer in our social attitude and actions. When we make our budgets and spend our hard-earned money, we have to think about marginalized people and how our decisions and actions impact or ignore them. When we consider our voting decisions, we have to think about whether our political actions lift up marginalized people or push them further away, toward the edges.

After hearing the metaphor of the sick child, someone asked me recently, what if the child won't get better? what if their illness is chronic or terminal? I think the metaphor holds up - that shouldn't change our attitude toward caring for them. It may cause frustration or angst to know that the care we give may not cure their illness, but the dignity and value of their life and the love given and received in that care remains essential.

I think of all these wrinkles of the call to opt for the poor and marginalized as we face these escalating issues with race relations in our country. With the growth of the #BlackLivesMatter movement, I have been tempted to wonder why a separate, specific emphasis is needed, why black lives have to be named and lifted up separately from white lives or all lives.

The answer rests in the call to opt for the marginalized in our society.

Black people have disproportionate remained and become victims of these tragic situations because we have socially allowed them to remain marginalized people. We have not cultivated and developed an attitude of inclusion. We have not culturally and socially honored black people. We have allowed black people to remain a "them" rather than sustaining a society that is more comprehensively an "us."

Because we have allowed the situation to reach a point where black people have remained and become victims, we do need to intentionally and actively consider black people in our decisions, individually, communally, and socially. So we do need to state specifically that black lives should matter and must matter. Of course, all lives should matter, but when we allow ourselves to devalue or belittle the lives of black people, it is fitting to lift them up and move away from perpetuating their marginalization.

The how here is tougher to discern.

Is affirmative action in college decisions, job applications, and other competitive situations helping to rectify the disparity that marginalizes blacks and other minorities? Are corporate policies like the NFL's Rooney Rule making an impact on minority access to elite jobs? Are community outreaches succeeding in educating people and bringing them together?

We are at a crisis point with this issue, and I hope the option for the marginalized can give us Catholic language that directs us as we ponder what to do. Marginalized people must be opted for as we make decisions and take actions. How can you consider the marginalized, especially black people, in your decisions individually, communally, and socially?

Help Them Do Something for Themselves: Reflections from Uganda

From June 20 to July 1, I was part of a Catholic Relief Services (CRS) delegation to Uganda. As part of my work as campus minister, I registered my high school with CRS as a Global High School, silver level. This means that our school commits to doing CRS Rice Bowl annually as well as one other school-wide project, for which we created Respect Life Week to build awareness of marginalized people and the ways we can better uphold the consistent ethic of life.

CRS often assembles delegations for educational immersions to countries where they work, and this summer, the Global High Schools were invited to participate. Our group included CRS' national coordinator of the program, a CRS regional relationships manager, and five other teachers/ministers from other Global High Schools (two from Albuquerque, one from Philly, one from NYC, and one from Fort Wayne, IN). The eight of us spent a day in Baltimore at CRS national headquarters for orientation, and then we traveled to Uganda for nine days.

Our time in Uganda was spent with the CRS Country Representative, Liz, an American who lives and works full-time in the country with her family, and manages the national operations. She supervises a staff of over 50 people, including everyone from finance and HR workers to program and project managers and field agents who implement and execute the development work.

We started our trip at national headquarters in the capital city, Kampala, where we met some of the staff on learned the basics of their operations and the active programs they have going. We then traveled to various parts of the country, accompanied by Liz and different staff members, to learn more in depth about particular projects and to visit sites in the field to meet with partners as well as the local people participating in the projects. Amid the travels and visits, our trip also included a bit of extra time to see the country, learn about its culture, and reflect on the experience.

Gathering at CRS Uganda HQ in Kampala.

A lot about this experience will marinate for a while within me, and a lot of what I saw will have a lasting impact on my personal sensibilities and on the way I strive to teach and form teenagers. While things are still fresh, I wanted to share a few major takeaways from this immersion.

Welcome and Wonder

From start to finish, I can say without exaggeration that every single person we formally encountered, from restaurants and craft shops to local residents of far-flung villages, shared a profuse and profound welcome. Ugandans' way of saying hello was to tell us that we "are most welcome." The manner of phrasing and cheerfulness behind it reminded me of the Irish, with their culturally inherent sense of welcome. Before we moved to any kind of conversation or questions-and-answers with anyone, we were always first greeted with their lengthy welcome.

Meeting with SEPSPEL staff, the partner to SILC work in the Jinja area.

The hospitality was thorough in both words and actions. During our site visits, each time we came to a new village, people scrambled to gather any kind of chairs, benches, stools, or seats to insist that we sit down and make ourselves comfortable.

I often felt bad as people moved about to gather seats. It made me feel like we were an imposition - which as a group of white people in a bus, we to some extent certainly were. I felt like we were inconveniencing them and causing stress with our presence. So I tried to decline my seat once, as people nonetheless continued bringing chairs and inviting repeatedly us to sit. And I realized that if I were hosting guests, I would probably not sit until they had made themselves comfortable. And I knew then I needed to accept their hospitality because it was more important to show my gratitude and comfort than to worry about perception. Each group we visited truly was delighted to have us as their guests.

Colleagues sit on one of the benches provided by the local villagers.

This welcome set the perfect tone for all of our encounters. As we traveled to a country whose GDP per capita is barely 1% of our homeland, their hospitality helped focus me on the moment of our interactions to simply be greeted with such warmth and welcome. It didn't block out the profound disparity of those economic realities, but it helped me focus the fundamentality of encounter in these interpersonal moments.

In this sort of wonderfully human way, there was also a great sense of curiosity. Whereas we could only really meet their welcome with gratitude, the sense of wonder was more mutual and reciprocated between us as we spent time together in these places.

When we arrived, driven from place to place in our small bus by our Ugandan driver, our bus always attracted eager glances from those in their homes and along the road, all the way into the villages. As we disembarked and walked to our meeting place, people would gather to see us. Then when we circled up to talk or took our seats in a particular area for conversation, people from the village, especially children, would start to trickle in, a handful of people at a time, until the gathering of onlookers gradually swelled to a sizable crowd.

The object of so many people's attention - our chariot awaits.

We were met with combinations of curiosity, timidity, trepidation, confusion, skepticism, respect, gratitude, excitement, and much bashfulness. I don't think of any of this is negative, but just reflects the variety of feelings amid these authentic encounters. And for as much as all these things swirled in the reactions of people, just about every one of those things was present in me, too.

The wonder and curiosity was thoroughly mutual, and I enjoyed the simple human elements of our time with so many different people.

Sustainability

Teaching about social justice the past year, I have started to learn more about the difference between charity and justice. Charity is what we do to respond to a social problem and care for those who it affects. Justice is what we do to transform the system and structures so that a problem is addressed at its roots. Typically, we should always strive for justice yet do charity until justice can be realized.

Participating in this educational immersion with CRS took the buzzword of sustainability and made it wonderfully concrete for me. Rather than being a word thrown around for how good it sounds, sustainability is lived out tangibly in the programs and projects CRS implements. They take an idea, hammer out its process, find support from private organizations and charitable foundations to secure funding, and then team up with a local partner in the country. Together, they work to educate and empower local people over a fixed term (that is occasionally extended). After that time, they step away and leave the work in the hands of local people who can take the skills, systems, and education they have gained to continue their work themselves.

Rather than coming with expertise, supplies, and resources that local people wouldn't have, rather than building something local people might not understand, rather than having to come back to fix something when it breaks down that is totally other to locals, these sustainable projects are meant to empower people to sustain themselves. We saw three projects at work, and I want to explain briefly functioned in a way that can endure well beyond the horizon of its implementation.

First, we learned our SILCs (Savings and Internal Lending Communities). This outreach targets rural areas that lack access to financial institutions and are culturally ignorant of savings and investment. SILCs bring together up to 30 community members form a village who elect a chair, secretary (bookkeeper), treasurer, and lock-key holders for the safe-box. They then gather regularly to donate to an emergency social fund, make deposits to personal savings accounts, and request and communally approve loans to peers for anything from school fees to health-care expenses to small business pursuits. The SILCs are initiated and supported by a field agent (FA) or private service provider (PSP), to whom the SILCs pay a small service fee at each meeting.

We spent an afternoon observing a SILC meeting.

Partnering with different organizations in regions around Uganda, CRS identifies locals with enterprise potential and empowers them as FAs. These people train thoroughly to learn the mechanics of SILCs and then visit nearby villages to pitch the idea and process and mobilize the people. After success in pilot villages and additional training, reporting, and monitoring, FAs can become PSPs, certified by CRS and partner organizations to extend their reach to new villages and spread the idea of SILC to new areas.

This idea is sustainable for villages: local people gain the knowledge of savings, gain access to emergency funds, better their situation by applying their savings to capital improvements, often to their house or livestock, have the ability to borrow at low interest (often 5%) for personal enterprise, and benefit financially from the communally shared lending proceeds (often 25% or more annually). This idea is sustainable for PSPs: these individuals gain a marketable skill that provides them structure and direction for their livelihood and a steady that can support their families. With enough villages perpetuating their savings and lending cycles and enough PSPs working effectively as support professionals, CRS will step away having shifted an economic paradigm in Ugandan culture.

Next, we visited GAIN (Girls in Agricultural Investment). This program partners with the local staff of Caritas in the west of Uganda as an extension of the Church. The local diocese and its parishes donate land to GAIN, who mobilizes cohorts of young women, aged 14 to 20; many of these women have completed their schooling or have stopped going to school in favor of family considerations. The girls spend six months learning basic farming skills as they work on the church land with passionfruit crops.

We met the women of a GAIN cohort in their half-finished local church.

CRS, Caritas, and local corporate partner, Kad Africa, team up to train the girls in agricultural skills while also educating them in work habits, income management, personal career planning, and more. Each cohort works through their six-month cycle to cultivate their passionfruit crop and sell it into the market, supported directly by Kad Africa.

This project is sustainable because Church land is securely owned and freely given for usage by rotating cohorts, group after group. This is sustainable for the young women because they gain these skills under quality supervision and can bring them home to their families. Their passion is even pushing them to develop rudimentary improvements, such as water collection in the fields, and asking for growth in their agricultural practices, such as water pump access. In fact, early returns show up to a 500% growth in personal income after their time in the program, and some families are giving parts of their land to these young women to continue their agricultural work. This is sustainable for local villages because these young women are going on to participate in local SILCs, to acquire animals, and to work toward starting small businesses, such as second-hand clothing sales and sewing and seamstress work.

The women and their partner rep, Immaculate, led us out into their passionfruit fields.

Finally, we spent time with the Revitalizing Vanilla project, which works with the RFCU (Rwenzori Farmers' Cooperative Union). This program partners with Ben and Jerry's, which on a corporate scale is working toward completely fair trade coffee, chocolate, sugar, bananas, and vanilla. This project is aiming to improve quality, productivity, and efficiency in vanilla farming while building fair trade markets with co-op farmers.

One RFCU co-op taught us about their work.

The farmers working with this vanilla are being trained by CRS field staff and peers to implement best practices on their plants. For example, at the time when the vanilla flowers, the yield is maximized if farmers manually pollenate the plants. So farmers recruit bands of children, teach them to identify the flowering plants, and have the kids mark them throughout the fields; meanwhile, trained farmhands move plant by plant to pollenate the flowers individually. Additionally, the market for vanilla is tight, as only certain areas grow and harvest it well, with Madagascar leading the way; these cooperative farmers work together to make standards of quality uniform and ensure that only fully matured vanilla is picked and marketed. They are currently facing theft trends in which people harvest and sell vanilla early and sell it for whatever they can get, even though premature harvesting leads to lower quality; the co-op's are striving for wider, clearer laws against theft while they collegially unify the market and standards.

The "demo" farmer had a teaching area, where best practices, like vine ties, were shown.

This is sustainable for the farmers because their best practices will last beyond the term of the program. In fact, we saw an example of a "demo" farmer who maintains a part of his field as a teaching area, with perfectly tied starter vines, carefully mulched bases, and properly wrapped vanilla vines. These practices are taught to new co-op members and will also be shared with Farmer 2 Farmer participants, foreign farmers who will come for weeks at a time to work with co-op farmers and share best practices; this "demo" farmer was itching for training from that sub-project so the co-op could begin hosting foreign visitors in their fields. The commitment from Ben and Jerry's is laying the foundations for these farmers to be the first in a gradually growing commodity market that will more justly distribute profits and create fairer outcomes for these people.

These are just a few examples of development work that goes past charity to strive for justice. Certainly, no program goes off without a hitch. Crops can be stolen. Some people can be unreceptive. Local partners may waffle. But the blueprint for the deepest, most lasting impact comes in empowerment and systemic change. These programs strive to educate and enable people to, as the priest who directs the local Caritas operations said, "help them do something for themselves."

Perpetual Discernment

I was continually impressed not just but what I saw but by who I met. In local people participating in these sustainable projects, I saw ambition, entrepreneurial spirit, self-advocacy, resourcefulness, and amazing competencies. In CRS Uganda staff, I saw humility, excellently relevant expertise, a patient attitude, and best of all, pastoral sensibilities. And in watching our American country rep, I saw an incredible combination of development chops, interpersonal leadership skills, and spiritually motivated vision. It was quite the smorgasbord of awesome.

A farewell picture with Robert, a project manager who traveled with us to show us his work.

And what was clear to me early on, and increased in clarity as we went, was that this type of work was not my call. Having had the privilege of studying abroad in London and living abroad for a year in Ireland, I valued my time but struggled mightily. I loved the people and the core of my studies and work but was challenged by the day-to-day lifestyle.

I love American sports; I love American cities, suburbs, and towns; I love interstates, carefully gridded streets, and smart traffic patterns; I love the four seasons, the heartiness, and the diversity and neighborhoods of Chicago. So the flow of daily life was a struggle.

We briefly visited an all-girls secondary boarding school and chatted with some students.

Added to that, I love Campus Ministry. I love taking things from the world like these immersion experiences and putting it toward service outings and social justice education for teenagers. I love forming student leaders. I love directing retreats. And outside of the US, and maybe Canada and parts of Europe, the school systems don't often include this, or if they do, it happens with priests or in parishes. I fill an oddly particular need in American Catholic high schools that I love and feel uniquely gifted and suited for.

So as I marveled as the CRS staff, at the excellence of how compatible their gifts and dispositions are to this development work, to this ministry that is faith living out justice, I can cooly recognize that this life is the right fit for them. And my ministry to my teenagers in the United States and the life that surrounds that is the right fit for me.

This is the beauty of our universal church. This is the enfleshing of global solidarity. Sitting on my couch in Chicago, I have experiences that actualize the oneness of the call of solidarity; I have names, faces, and stories, countrysides, villages, and active memories that make me mindful of all people as my brother and sister. And my call is to bring this into my ministry.

Our cohort walks between SILC villages, as locals show us the fruits of their collaboration.

As my cohort of eight justice- and ministry- motivated Catholics moved about the country, our conversations were ongoing, never really ceasing (except when I frequently fell asleep on the bus). Getting past formal reflection processes, we were always commenting, asking, comparing notes, and helping each other grasp the palpability of the solidarity that was being enfleshed in our midst.

As we realized the human bonds we share with our peers in CRS, with the staff of the partner organizations, and with the people of the Ugandan towns and villages, we had that spark that a good retreat or a powerful prayer experience brings. And our fire was the fuel from the Holy Spirit that proceeded from all these people and all these encounters.

This morning, my parish pastor shared a phrase that his friend brought back from South Africa, and I smiled as I thought of these many people who are the freshest faces of global solidarity to me:

If you travel alone, you can travel fast; if you travel together, you can travel far.

Our ham of a boat guide, Alex, flexing his guns, after he took us out on Lake Victoria on the source of the Nile River.