A Demoralizing Process

In an open letter to James Lundholm-Eades, the co-chairs of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform highlight a number of concerns related to the St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocesan Strategic Planning Task Force, of which Lundholm-Eades serves as director.

_______________________________

October 19, 2009

James Lundholm-Eades, Task Force Director
Archdiocese of St Paul and Minneapolis
328 West Kellogg Blvd
St Paul MN 55102


Dear Mr. Lundholm-Eades:

Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the people of the Archdiocese in addressing the problems we face as a local church.

We understand that both the Archbishop and the Task Force want to enable a vibrant Catholic community at the Archdiocesan level. We appreciate this goal since we believe the Church’s mission is to create a diocesan community that manifests God’s love for humanity as embodied in Jesus. So we too want a vibrant local church.

From our point of view, vibrancy in a human community is not possible unless all the relevant questions people want to ask are allowed on the table. The process for the strategic planning, although ostensibly an attempt to listen, is flawed in one essential aspect: it does not allow for the discussion of what the facts mean. What should be done will depend in large part on the analysis of the facts in relation to the Church’s mission.

To call the process “highly consultative” while barring questions about why the current situation is as it is will only demoralize people. We have heard many say they do not trust this process. Despite reassurances to the contrary, they say the decisions have already been made. They say that the emails, phone messages, and letters go into “a black hole.” People’s refusal to accept the obvious good will of the reassurances is symptomatic of the flaw in the process. We fear the goal of creating a vibrant local church will not be accomplished, though the resources may be efficiently re-allocated to look better on paper.

We request an Archdiocesan-wide discussion of all the relevant questions people want to ask. The meaning questions we would like to address are the following:

• Why do young adults abandon faith formation classes immediately after Confirmation? Why are such a large percentage of children offered no faith formation at all or, if the offer is made, why are they not accepting it?

• Why don’t two-thirds of registered Catholics go to Mass?

• Why are good and capable men not stepping up for ordination as priests?

• Why is celibacy required for the role of priest?

• Why aren’t women’s vocations to the ordained priesthood recognized and accepted?

• Why are third and fourth generation American Catholics leaving the church in great numbers?

• How is the money collected by the Archdiocese spent? We want the Archbishop to be accountable for his expenditures as the parishes are accountable for theirs.


The Task Force’s response when these questions are raised is that they are outside the scope of its mandate. Of course, they are, and that is the problem. We do not think that response will suffice.

If the Task Force requests the power from the Archbishop to facilitate such a discussion with the people of the Archdiocese and is denied that power, we suggest that as a matter of conscience you consider resigning en masse unless and until a full communication process is approved.

Though we are not experts, we have many ideas about how this process could be organized and will be happy to discuss them with you. There are many professional discussion facilitators in the Archdiocese who would, we are sure, be available to help. Some of the crucial elements are that all subjects be allowed to be discussed, no threats of job loss or excommunication will follow open discussion, and that representatives from all the people, not just those chosen by leadership, be involved in planning the discussion.

We think this is the only way to legitimate the process.

Sincerely yours,

Paula Ruddy
Michael Bayly
Bernie Rodel

Co-Chairs, Catholic Coalition for Church Reform

Holding the Courage Apostolate Accountable

. . . The Catholic Church, Homosexuality,
and Reparative Therapy

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

St. Martin’s Table Restaurant and Bookstore
(2001 Riverside Ave., Minneapolis)

5:00 -6:30 p.m. – Soup supper ($5.00)
6:30 – 8:30 p.m. – Program (free and open to the public)

Almost 30 years ago Archbishop John Roach called for “competent and compassionate pastoral ministry” for LGBT persons and their families within the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis. Under subsequent archbishops we’ve sadly witnessed such ministry undermined and usurped by rigid doctrinal fundamentalism and discredited pseudo science.

Recently, the American Psychological Association repudiated “reparative therapy,” i.e., attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation through therapy and prayer. Yet the Courage Apostolate of the Catholic Church, which employs a 12 step-like program to help their members “recover” from “same-sex attractions,” continues to support individuals who seek “reparative therapy.” Courage also maintains links on its national website to pseudo-scientific organizations that endorse and/or offer reparative therapy.

On November 17, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) will host a forum featuring three speakers sharing their perspectives on this situation and offering steps that can be taken to hold the Courage Apostolate accountable – both locally and nationally –for its support of reparative therapy.

Speakers will include:

Dr. Simon Rosser, Ph.D., M.P.H., L.P.
Internationally renowned researcher on sexuality and sexual health

Philip Lowe, Jr.
Former member of the St. Paul-Minneapolis chapter of Courage

Michael Bayly
Executive coordinator of the Catholic Pastoral Committee on
Sexual Minorities and author of Creating Safe Environments for LGBT
Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective


The program component of this event is free and open to the public,
although a free-will offering will be requested.

For more information, call 612-201-4534.

CCCR's 2010 Synod: A Second Progress Report

Paula Ruddy reports on the second joint meeting
of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform’s
Work/Study Groups

Elsie’s bowling alley, bar, restaurant, and parking lot in NE Minneapolis was jam packed on Wednesday night, October 7, 2009. About 70 of the people were CCCR work/study group members and friends, gathered into the back room away from the din of strikes and spares and gutter balls. About 30 people arrived at 5:30 for drinks and dinner and informal conversation. Threading our way through the Northeast neighbors, we were all ready to engage in the mini-workshop by 7:15.

During the presentation by Dr. Lois Yellowthunder and Dr. Glenda Eoyang on methods of adaptive change, the energy in the back room was as high as the energy in the bowling alley. Glenda is founder and director of Human Systems Dynamics Institute, a training center and consultant to governmental units, companies, and other organizations wanting to improve their function in service of their missions. Lois is an anthropologist and urban planner who often works with Glenda. Some of you may have heard their presentation at Call to Action in Milwaukee in 2007.

Most of us in the room were of a certain age, meaning we grew up in the 40’s and 50’s, in an era that believed change is initiated from the power positions at the top, that it is predictable, controlled, and that you can look to history to tell you the future. We believed we could make large mapped out plans for human systems as we could for mechanical and structural systems and engineer them to completion. We now know that human community is organic, but the old programming is hard to uninstall.

Glenda and Lois did not go into the causes of the cultural shift that occurred around mid 20th Century. We didn’t take time for the trace-back to quantum physics and evolutionary biology, chaos theory and complexity theory, but they spelled out the differences in how we now look at creating human systems. We now know that each person is an agent in the creation of the future. We know that each action has unpredictable influence on other actions because of the connectedness of everyone within the systems. What emerges from each set of interactions creates the future. We don’t look to “the man” to have a master plan. We are in charge of the future ourselves. Every person has power; every action counts.

But how, then, do people direct change? Isn’t this theory all a bit helter-skelter? That is where the Adaptive Action Model comes in. The self-organizing system moves in the direction of its goals. An individual agent is, after all, a conscious, thinking, feeling, imagining, and willing person. A community is made up of conscious individuals. An individual and a community can envision a good life, a good society, or the ultimate goal of human life. People have created ethical systems and religions in this visioning, and these provide the goals toward which the self-organizing system moves. The Christian vision of humanity’s union with God is the goal toward which a community could move if it held the belief steadily in consciousness and acted with intention.


What? So What? Now What?

But Glenda and Lois did not talk about what the vision should be. That is up to us. They brought us into the here and now of directing change by acting with intention. In the Adaptive Action Model, we ask, “What is the situation here?” “So what does it mean in context; how should it be interpreted according to our vision?” and finally, “Now what shall we do?’ The What?-So What?-Now What? questions, asked in each situation you find yourself, give you power to influence the system in reiterative patterns. What we choose to do to further our vision causes patterns of ideas and values to emerge that in turn influence the actions of others in the system and cultural change happens. That is power.

Glenda and Lois talked about the power of language to influence change. Negative words can make us feel powerless, diminished, hopeless, decreasing our power to interact. Positive, affirming words build us up and give us a sense of our own power to choose our path. Using words that describe imbalances of power can diminish a person’s view of his/her place in the scheme of things. For example, the phrase “the hierarchy” puts the people referred to in a superior category within the system. A person with the leadership role might be called bishop but “the hierarchy” sets him apart and creates classes of membership. What does the word “magisterium” mean? Is everyone infused with the Holy Spirit within it? We can re-think our language to reflect an egalitarian balance of power.

We need some simple rules, Glenda and Lois suggested, like virtual “boids” in computer experiments. Program them with three simple rules and they fly in successful patterns like instinctively programmed birds do. Individual agents form working teams and can create coherent patterns if each follows some simple rules. The Golden Rule, derived from the vision of every major religion and ethical philosophy, is a rule that could, if everyone followed it, create a beneficent social system. Glenda and Lois suggested we may want to adopt it for our working teams. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or negatively, Do not do to another what you would not have him/her do to you. Or Love your neighbor as yourself.

In the last section of their presentation, Glenda and Lois asked us about our hopes and dreams. What is our vision of a fully functioning local church? What is our vision of the Church’s mission? If we keep that vision steadily in our communal consciousness, our self-organizing system will move in that direction. Each action of each individual agent acting intentionally within the connectedness of the system triggers the emergence of the future we long for.

The CCCR vision is a church fully alive, locally and universally, that radiates Jesus' core teaching of radical equality, unabashed inclusivity and transforming love. It is humbling and exhilarating to think we have the power to do this.


Paula Ruddy is co-chair of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR).


For the first progress report of the 2010 Synod, click here.

AIDS, Condoms, and Africa

By Michael Bayly

Father Giuseppe Caramazza’s recent argument that “The Catholic Church is Right: The Condom is No Cure for AIDS in Africa” sounds very similar to Dr. Edward C. Green’s. Green, the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, is frequently cited by those who support the Vatican’s view that condoms are non-effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. For instance, in an article in the National Review, Dr. Green declared: “We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.” Green made this comment in response to Pope Benedict’s remarks on the effectiveness of condoms earlier this year.

“The pope is correct,” said Green, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments.” He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”

The BBC’s William Crawley, has the following to say about Dr. Green and the complex issue of AIDS and condom use. (Note: I've added the emphasis in certain parts of the text).

Writes Crawley:

Dr. Green is sometimes described as an AIDS researcher in press coverage. We should be clear about his area of expertise. He holds a PhD in Anthropology from the Catholic University of America and studies public health strategies “at the level of population.” He is not a medical doctor, nor is he a virologist, nor is he an epidemiologist. He is a widely-respected academic who examines the impact of various public health strategies in various populations.

In 2003, he published a book, Rethinking AIDS Prevention, which challenged the general approach to AIDS preventing in the developing world. Specifically, he argued that the most successful strategy for preventing the spread of HIV in Africa was not the distribution of condoms but campaigns encouraging people to reduce their number of sexual partners. Monogamy was a powerful behavioural defence against HIV, he said. Condoms, though technically able to prevent the spread of HIV when used correctly, have failed, according to Dr Green. Why have they failed? According to Pope Benedict, condoms encourage promiscuity and this drives the AIDS pandemic. According to Dr Green – who has no moral or religious objection to the use of condoms – this strategy in Africa has had the counter-effect of encouraging people to engage in riskier behaviour while believing that they are protected by condoms. “This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology,” he says.

These conclusions led Dr Green to change his view on the usefulness of condoms in Africa. Notice that he maintains their usefulness in other parts of the world, such as the United States; he regards Africa as a special case for cultural reasons. [Interestingly, Caramazza also admits that condoms may work in places outside Africa.]

. . . The upshot is that [unlike the Pope, and presumably Fr. Caramazza] Dr Green strongly supports the ABC model in HIV prevention: “Abstain, Be faithful, or use Condoms if A and B are not practiced”. In the same year that Rethinking AIDS was published, Dr Green was appointed by George W Bush's Advisory Presidential Council on HIV and AIDS.

It is vital that we have a serious debate about HIV prevention and that we locate that debate geographically and culturally. It is wrong at the outset to simply assume that an HIV prevention model that works in the United States or Europe would necessarily work in sub-Saharan Africa. Researchers who believe condoms are an effective strategy represent the majority position within the HIV prevention community.

Against Dr Green’s concerns about “risk compensation,”, they argue that this points to a greater need for accompanying education programmes explaining the proper use of condoms and challenging risky behaviour.

The UN AIDS programme accepts – who wouldn't? – that “other components [of a successful HIV prevention strategy] include delay of sexual initiation, abstinence, being mutually faithful to each other when both partners are uninfected, and reducing the number of sexual partners.” But the UN emphasises that condoms still play a very significant role and their promotion must be culturally sensitive: “Condoms must be promoted in ways that help overcome sexual and personal obstacles to their use. Complex gender and cultural factors can be a challenge for HIV prevention education and condom promotion. Due to gender norms and inequalities, young girls and women are regularly and repeatedly denied information about, and access to, condoms, and often they do not have the power to negotiate the use of condoms.”

Against Dr Green’s [and Fr. Caramazza’s] claims that condoms have been ineffective in countries such as Uganda, the World Health Organisation maintains that “recent analysis of the AIDS epidemic in Uganda has confirmed that increased condom use, in conjunction with delay in age of first sexual intercourse and reduction of sexual partners, was an important factor in the decline of HIV prevalence in the 1990s.” This statement references a 2003 research paper exploring the Ugandan experience, “The Roles of Abstinence, Monogamy and Condom Use in HIV Decline.” published by The Alan Guttmacher Institute in Washington DC. (Read the paper in full here.)

This analysis concludes that “positive behavior change in all three areas of ABC - abstinence, being faithful (monogamy) and condom use - have contributed to the decline of HIV in Uganda to sustained lower levels.” It’s a long way from that statement to the claim that condoms are making the problem of AIDS worse.

To read Crawley’s article, “The Pope and Condoms,” in its entirety, click here.

CCCR Plans Second Joint Meeting of Work/Study Groups

Members and friends of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform’s work/study groups are invited to the second joint meeting of these groups at Elsie’s Restaurant (729 Marshall St. NE. Minneapolis) on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 (7:00 - 9:00 p.m.).

Since April 18 of this year, Catholics of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis have been gathering in work/study groups so as to grow in knowledge about topics that are of concern to them — Catholic identity, Catholic spirituality, social justice, human sexuality, clericalism/mandatory celibacy, bishop selection, faith formation of children, authority and governance, ecclesiology, communication among polarized people, and patriarchy. In a September 7 letter to Archbishop John C. Nienstedt, the three co-chairs of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) - Paula Ruddy, Bernie Rodel, and Michael Bayly - said that the purpose of the work/study groups is for Catholics to deepen their faith and spirituality as well as their knowledge.

“We’re very much aware of the great numbers of people who are abandoning the Catholic faith,” the co-chairs wrote. “Many of these people have abandoned the Church because of matters of conscience. This situation is of serious concern for many of us.”

The three co-chairs note that the Catholic laity and clergy who comprise CCCR are people who are intensely aware of the problems of conscience in the life of the Church that the work/study groups have identified and are facilitating dialogue around. “That is why we want to work together –including with our church leaders – in analyzing the problems and instituting practices that will alleviate them,” they wrote in their letter to Archbishop Nienstedt. “We consider the problems to be both structural and cultural. The discussion has to go deeper than a focus on single issues.”

The CCCR co-chairs are well aware that there are some who dismiss and malign as anti-life, anti-family, and anti-authority anyone who seeks reform within the church. This is unfortunate, they believe, as they “do not want to contribute to the angry polarization in the Church that mirrors the political ‘culture wars’ in our country.”

To this end, the leadership of the CCCR has been attempting to engage local church leadership in dialogue. So far their efforts - including the co-chairs’ September 7 letter to Archbishop Nienstedt - have been unsuccessful. Undeterred, the group continues in its own discussions and planning. The bulk of this activity occurs within what the Coalition has termed “work/study groups.” Currently there are ten such groups meeting regularly across the Twin Cities. Each group is focused on a specific topic, and approximately 75 people are involved in one or more groups.

“We started with topics as people wanted to address them,” note the co-chairs. “We hope to give some shape and order to the process and develop a program for the conference we are planning in September 2010. We’re calling the conference a Synod of the Baptized and entitling this one ‘Claiming Our Place at the Table.’ From this conference, we hope to spread the discussion of our problems of conscience and some suggestions for practices that will bring about cultural change throughout the archdiocese. We believe that this discussion is for the good of the local church.”

The members of CCCR’s ten work/study groups met jointly for the first time in July. The October 7 joint gathering will feature a presentation by Dr Glenda Eoyang and Dr. Lois Yellowthunder. This presentation will focus on facilitating organizational change, and will be based on Eoyang and Yellowthunder’s ideas and insights on complexity theory and applied to the organization of our own archdiocese. Their presentation aims to assist participates in 1) understanding the church as a “self-organizing system;” 2) recognizing the creative options for action within this system; 3) becoming familiar with language that empowers; 4) identifying rules for effective action; and 5) acknowledging the hopes, dreams, and expectations that continue to move forward the work of CCCR and the work/study groups in particular.

For more information about October 7’s second joint meeting of CCCR’s work/study groups, call Paula Ruddy at 612-379-1043.

Removing the Plank in Our Own Eye

By Paula Ruddy

I went to hear Michael Crosby, OFMCap, talk to the peace community, Pax Christi MN, at its annual assembly on Saturday, September 26. Inspiring is the word for it. Michael is the author of numerous books and consults widely. To learn about him go to www.michaelcrosby.net and to learn about his new program to teach the positive use of power go to www.choosingcompassion.net.

What was inspiring to me was the peace community itself in a day long workshop, about 80 strong, men and women who have been dedicated to the ideal of peace and the work of peace year in and year out. We clapped for a young person in attendance because he was a young person in attendance. They are living the mission of the Church from the strength of their own community. Nothing so beautiful as the experience of the moment within a community of caring persons.

Michael Crosby talked about power. First he asked us if we wanted it, and he got the expected ambivalence. Tentative hands went up for yes, lots of hands went up for no. We didn’t know what to think of the question. Should we want power or not? Crosby over several years has developed a constructive vision of power and its uses, undergirded by a theology of the Trinity that borrows from analogs of quantum physics and personalist philosophy.

All matter is composed of interrelated parts. Nothing exists in singularity, all the packets of energy combining and exchanging in constant communication to create power in the material universe. Analogously the individual person does not exist in singularity but in relationship.

Michael Crosby speaks of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not as two men and a bird, but with language that gets to the heart of personhood, the “I am-ness” of the self and its essential relatedness. God is the I Am, in communion with Another, Thou Art, in a dynamic We Are. God’s life is a community, a communion of love. Jesus of Nazareth is humanity identified with the Thou with whom the I Am communes, from which communion breathes the We Are, alive in the universe. All humanity is destined for communion with God through our brother Jesus and in his Spirit. That is the Christian vision.

So what about this God-inspired human power? It is the energy of the person to influence others in relationship. The power to influence, exercised freely, can be positive or negative. Relating negatively produces control, coercion, exploitation, manipulation, domination resulting in fear, abuse, injury, conflict, violence, hate, and ultimately, indifference. Destructive control kills the ability to care. The person abused by power stops caring. Indifference, or hardness of heart, is the antithesis of the life emanating from the Trinity of persons related in love. A Christian cannot be indifferent. S/he must care.

The ability to care, power used in positive ways of relating, produces respect, affirmation, challenge and correction, resulting in freedom, trust, healing, collaboration, understanding, peace, love and compassion. The person influenced by loving care himself/herself becomes a caring person. A community of caring persons is in the image of the life of the Three-personed God.

Michael Crosby’s construction of the uses of power fit right in with all I have been thinking about during the past weeks. As a member of a work/study group of the Catholic Coalition for Church Reform (CCCR) preparing for the Synod of the Baptized in September 2010, I have been thinking about the Church’s mission. What is the mission of the Church? Our study groups have been trying to articulate the mission first so we can think about what practices will create a culture that will help fulfill the mission. You can imagine my mental “Oh, Yesses!” as Michael Crosby spoke. Some people did say Amen out loud.

What is our vision of Church? First off, it is a community. Isn’t each community to be modeled after the Trinity in loving relationship? The Christian Church is a vast community of smaller communities of persons baptized into Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is one very big community within the Christian Church. Our Archdiocese—bishops, clergy, lay people--is one community within the Roman Catholic Church. Each parish is a community within the Archdiocese. Circles within circles.

And what is the power/energy within the community to be used for? Isn’t it about equality, respect, inclusion, affirmation, patient kindness, support of full human development through relatedness: in a word, love? The ability to care exercised within the community makes it a caring community to act in the world to spread the word and deeds of God’s love for humanity demonstrated in and by Jesus. That’s how I applied Michael Crosby’s power analysis to the question of the Church’s mission.

It was getting late in the day and I had a daydream during Michael Crosby’s last sentences.

Just as Michael finished, a bishop came into the church basement room where the peace community was gathered. He wasn’t dressed like a bishop, no cope or mitre, or even a Roman collar, but I knew he was a leader by the energy that emanated from him. As he was making his way to the front of the room, he was greeting people, “Hello, Joe and Marilyn. Tom and Darlene, how are you? Chris, thanks for all the great work! Hello, Florence, good to see you. Brigid, I knew I’d see you here! How are you Mary and Angelo. Duane. Steve. Mary. Kathleen. How wonderful to see you all.”

First he thanked them and acknowledged the years of good work they had been doing. His sincere praise was like water on a struggling garden. People came alive to it, their own energy uplifted by his.

His next words were electrifying, “How can I help?” Sitting down among the gathering, he said, “The people working in CCCR have recommended an Archdiocesan Peace Commission. We have saved some money out of the Chancery budget, but it may not take much money. We could publicize your projects and arouse wider interest among the parishes for the work you do. We could have training sessions for non-violent communication in parishes. We could have Peace Sunday once a month with materials suggesting help for homilists. We could show how the negative use of power in families is destructive of children’s development; we could show how affirmation causes children to bloom. What do you think? There are lots of possibilities here. I think it is at the heart of our mission. Any volunteers to help plan this? “ He must have earned their trust in their prior dealings with him, because many people volunteered.

The dream ended. But I was left with a glimpse of a church community mirroring the loving energy within the Trinity and the spark igniting the Church’s mission. Hmmm. A Peace Commission. Is it a good idea? Contact www.cccrmn.org and leave us a message if you want to work on it.

For more information on Pax Christi International, Pax Christi, USA, and Pax Christi MN, go to the following websites: www.paxchristi.net, www.paxchristiusa.org, and www.paxchristimn.org.

A Choice for Catholic Bishops: Confrontation or Engagement

By John Gehring

Catholic progressives are not the only faithful worried about the dangers posed by some U.S. church leaders turning away from civil engagement in the public square and embracing a confrontational style when it comes to politics. The Obama-Notre Dame commencement controversy – along with the shrill tone of our nation’s bitter abortion culture wars – has provoked self-reflection among those bishops who see prudence and reason as a more effective strategy for winning hearts and minds.

In a rare public airing of criticism from an active bishop, Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, New Mexico gave a provocative interview recently with the National Catholic Reporter decrying the combative tactics of a few bishops as counterproductive to getting a fair hearing for Catholic values. He lamented the fact that some church leaders even refuse to talk to politicians or deny them communion based on a single issue. Sheehan also disagreed with his brother bishops who lashed out at the University of Notre Dame for inviting President Obama to give the commencement address. According to the National Catholic Reporter, here’s what Sheehan told his fellow bishops:

I don’t feel so badly about Obama going [to Notre Dame] because he’s our president. I said we’ve gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don’t agree with us on everything. We got Governor Richardson to sign off on the abolition of the death penalty for New Mexico, which he was in favor of. We talked to him, and we got him on board and got the support in the legislature. But you know, he’s pro-abortion. So? It doesn’t mean we sit and wait, that we sit on the sides and not talk to him. We’ve done so much more by consultation and by building bridges in those areas. And then to make a big scene about Obama - I think a lot of the enemies of the church are delighted to see all that. And I said that I think we don’t want to isolate ourselves from the rest of America by our strong views on abortion and the other things. We need to be building bridges, not burning them.

While the media highlights the most controversial religious voices – Cardinal James Stafford describing Barack Obama’s election as an “apocalyptic” event surely made irresistible headlines – most Catholic leaders recognize the need for thoughtful dialogue. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent cordial meeting with President Obama at the Vatican offers an example of how the global Catholic Church recognizes politics is the art of the possible rather than a zero-sum game. The Holy Father found common ground between the church’s broad international agenda and many of the president’s priorities: Middle East peace, nuclear deterrence, poverty alleviation, religious freedom, comprehensive immigration reform, and addressing the dire impact of global climate change. Instead of vilifying Obama on the issue of abortion, Pope Benedict gave Obama a signed copy of “Dignitas Personae,” a Vatican document on bioethics. No screaming or spectacle, simply a gracious model of faith and reason at work.

The Catholic Church risks losing credibility in the public square when even a few bishops are perceived to be closely aligned with ideologues pushing narrow agendas. As Archbishop Emeritus of San Francisco John Quinn recently wrote in America magazine: “The condemnation of President Obama and the wider policy shift that represents signal to many thoughtful persons that the bishops have now come down firmly on the Republican side in American politics. . . . The perception of partisanship on the part of the Church is disturbing to many Catholics given the charge of Gaudium et Spes (a seminal document of Vatican II) that the Church must transcend every political structure and cannot sacrifice that transcendence, no matter how important the cause.”

Take the polarization over health care reform. While the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has long promoted universal health care and views it as an essential human right, a few bishops sound like they are reading from right-wing talking points when they warn, as two did recently, about a “government socialization of medical services.” Another bishop wrote that the “Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care” and warned, “any legislation that undermines the vitality of the private sector is suspect.” This raised some red flags with prominent Catholic theologians and social justice leaders who warned in a statement that these comments only “embolden opponents of reform and distort Church teaching about the essential role government has in serving the common good.”

Catholics in America have journeyed a long way from being a despised immigrant minority in a culture that questioned their commitment to democracy. Today, Catholics are leaders in the influential fields of politics, business and journalism. The Catholic Church is a powerful voice for social justice, peace and human dignity around the world. But the church is also at a defining crossroads. The choice between an embattled fundamentalism that hunkers down against hostile threats from a wider culture and the hope of a vibrant faith engaged in constructive dialogue could well define the future of Catholicism.

John Gehring is Media Director and Senior Writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. This article was first published at BeliefNet.com.

Peace Activists Charged with Trespass at the 2008 RNC Talk About Their Day in Court

By Coleen Rowley

Eight peace and anti-torture activists were convicted of trespass at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul. At the time of their arrest, they were carrying messages, including a letter to President Bush, placards describing the victims of the indiscriminate killing and copies of international and constitutional law documents concerning the illegality of the Iraq War as well as the illegality of torture.

The St. Paul city assistant prosecutor argued however, that the case involved nothing but the power of the police to control crowds and the judge accepted the notion that the issue of trespass was more important than the issues of international and constitutional law. (In other words, the type of narrow legal reasoning prevailed that could be used to convict Rosa Parks of sitting in the wrong seat on the bus without letting her argue the illegality of the wrongful, illegal racial discrimination that restricted the seating.)

As a result of not being able to talk about their “claim of right” negating any criminal intent to commit the crime of trespass onto the property fenced off for purposes of the RNC, the eight were convicted. They included a retired surgeon, a physics professor, an Air Force veteran, a nun, a social worker, human rights workers, and educators. The good news was that Conscience almost got its day in court! Those who go along and follow unethical, unlawful orders will someday find they are the ones with the guilty consciences.

The Church is Dead; Long Live the Church

By Jim O’Leary

I had the privilege of a complete Catholic education in Minnesota, beginning in first grade for twelve years with the Sisters of St. Joseph through grade school and high school and then on to the seminary where I received another eight years, tuition free, of a Catholic education and then, in 1957, right into the priesthood - back in the days when all priests were Democrats. Even when I went to graduate school for a Masters in Social Work, it was in a Catholic setting. Archbishop Lucey of San Antonio had funded a social work education program so that the Church could better serve the poor. It was the first social work masters degree program in Texas and run by the Incarnate Word Sisters. That whole background explains why I am today a proud liberal, a proud Catholic, and a yellow dog Democrat.

So far as I know, back in the 60’s, all the Catholic bishops supported Caesar Chavez, even at the risk of alienating wealthy titans in the agriculture industry, especially in the lucrative vineyards. Cardinal Mahoney went against his own wealthy Italian wine making family in California to march with Cesar Chavez at the same time Dorothy Day was getting arrested along with Cesar. Perhaps you will recall the photo of our Catholic-educated Bobby Kennedy attending a Mass out in the fields with Dorothy and Cesar.

Yet when the Bushes and Ronald Reagan campaigned openly against the social justice teachings of the Church, Catholics voted for them. They should have known better. They were voting against their own identity.

Beginning with deacons and deaconesses in the Acts of the Apostles right up until the Social Security Act in 1935, which established a safety net for the poor, and crafted in great part by St. Paul’s own Monsignor John A. Ryan, the Catholic Church’s stand for the Gospel teachings of Jesus has always been obvious.

From the beginning of Christianity, it was only the Church which founded schools and hospitals and cared for the poor. In the Middle Ages, when European Catholics first confronted Chinese culture, the Chinese were immediately struck by the compassion found in Christianity and were attracted to it. In every age, our saints have been those who cared for the poor and neglected, whether it was St. Peter Claver or St. Martin de Porres working with African slaves or Bridget of Ireland who gave away all her clothes to poor beggars at her door. Catholics were always taught who came first.

Here is how the world saw us in the first century:

There is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as if they were passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland but for them their homeland, where it may be, is a foreign country. They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days on earth but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all, but all persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many. They are totally destitute but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do, they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life.

- From A Letter to Diognetus (Nn. 5-6; Funk, 397-401)

If American Catholics had only paid attention to the papal encyclicals and the bishops’ letters on poverty, workers’ rights and peace, then Catholic social teaching would be better known today and no longer described as “our best kept secret.” What a shame! With over 30% of the Congress made up of Catholics and with six out of the nine Supreme Court justices Catholic, we have arrived politically. Just think what the Church could do if its social teachings were known and lived by the laity. Now, sad to say, even the most liberal of Catholic Democrats has to run on improving the lot of “the middle class,” without a word about the really poor. Catholics vote like everybody else, forgetting the common good but remembering their pocketbook.

Yet the work of Christ goes on, quietly now, as if the Church has resigned from politics. Parishes everywhere turn their Confirmation classes loose on social justice projects, even sending them on trips to the Third World. There are the Jesuit Volunteers, mostly graduates of Jesuit colleges, whose motto is “We will ruin your life” (i.e., your life of ease, pleasure, comfort and wealth). There are the execution vigils stubbornly carried out in every diocese in Texas, sometimes as many as three times a week, and almost exclusively made up of Catholics (granted those are mostly nuns). There are prison ministries which never garner any headlines but offer encouragement to thousands of inmates. There are the homeless shelters, the soup kitchens, the drop in centers, and the welcoming of illegal immigrants by such simple things as Catholic parishes in border towns leaving their churches open all night and advertising it in their parish bulletins, providing some good places to hide and sleep. It has always been the case that convents and rectories were known as places to get handouts. Even though there was never any formal study to show Catholics to be more generous than others, just ask any hobo where the best place to go is.

Even though the second largest “denomination” in the country is now “ex-Catholic” and, by and large, progressive, don’t count out us guys who still belong to the largest denomination, the Catholic Church. We still go to Mass on Sunday and we still give a damn.

Claiming Their Right

Nuns, Social Workers, and Librarians Confront The Military Industrial Complex


By Steve Clemens


It wasn’t the usual group of criminal defendants in Hennepin County’s Courtroom 14D this past week where Judge Lloyd Zimmerman presided. Minnesota judges are used to facing defendants who have been charged with drunk driving, burglary, assault, and even murder. And it is a rare occurrence when defendants who face up to three months in jail agree to “stipulate to the facts” of the charges against them before any evidence is presented by the prosecutor. In fact, after the stipulation was entered into the court record, the prosecutor for the City of Eden Prairie rested her case.

After all, the stipulation said both the defense and the prosecution agreed to the “facts”: The nine defendants went on the property at 7480 Flying Cloud Drive on March 4, 2009; they had not been invited and, in fact, were asked to leave; they refused; and the police were summoned and arrested them on the charge of criminal trespass. Only one element of the case was disputed: did the defendants have a reasonable belief that they had a “claim of right” to be on that property despite the wishes of the owner?

The youngest defendant is 52. Three were Roman Catholic nuns in their seventies. There was also an elementary school librarian, a retired social worker, and an environmental engineer. At least four defendants are grandparents. And not a lawyer among them – they chose to go “Pro-Se”, to defend themselves. An old saying is often heard in the halls of most law schools: “He who defends himself has a fool as a client”. But these defendants thought this was no laughing matter. They sat before their jurors facing fines and jail because of conscience and conviction.

It was where the alleged trespass occurred that holds the key to understanding their determined and principled resistance – the headquarters of the largest Minnesota-based military contractor, Alliant Techsystems. Some of the defendants in the courtroom had begun their protest of the manufacture of illegal, indiscriminate weapons (especially cluster bombs) in the 1960s when Honeywell made them. After nearly twenty years of protest, vigils, and arrests, Honeywell chose to spin off their weapons products into another company, Alliant Techsystems – which is often referred to as ATK, their abbreviation on the stock exchange. That is significant. There is a lot of money to be made in selling both bullets and high tech weapons to a nation whose military budget grossly outpaces the rest of the world. But ATK doesn’t stop there. It markets its deadly products to more than 40 other nations.

Besides the deadly cluster bombs that one defendant told the jury “kills more children” when the “duds” are picked up by them thinking they might be toys, this war profiteer also makes depleted uranium munitions and land mines. Defendants testified about the effects of some of these weapons and cited International Treaties that ban their manufacture, sale, and use.

This is the lynchpin of the defendant’s case: did they have a “claim of right” to be on the property? The testimony from the stand connected the dots. The US Constitution states that treaties signed by our government become the “supreme” law of the land. The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Tribunals signed by the U.S. declare weapons which are indiscriminate and kill civilians, damage the environment, and keep killing years after a conflict has ended are illegal. The Nuremberg Principles declare that “complicity” with war crimes and crimes against the peace or crimes against humanity is itself a crime. The defendants spoke about therefore having a solemn responsibility to take nonviolent action to try to prevent the manufacture, sale, and use of these illegal weapons.

What the defendants readily admit is on March 4th, they marched forth – right into the lobby of ATK carrying with them a notebook with the title: Employee Liability of Weapons Manufacturers Under International Law. They intended to hand this loose-leaf notebook to CEO Daniel Murphy or one of several other corporate officers and it contained a letter to him, sections of relevant International Treaties, and some case studies of weapons manufacturers who were prosecuted as war criminals under the Nuremberg Tribunals at the end of World War II. They requested to schedule a meeting with one of the corporate officials but were denied that as well. It was at that point they refused to leave.

Rita Foster, one of three Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondolet (CSJ), gave the opening statement for all the defendants. She described the actions and intent of the defendants on that morning in March.

Marie Braun was the first defendant to take the stand in her own defense. An indefatigable leader and organizer of the local anti-war movement and member of Women Against Military Madness, she told about meeting a German woman about her own age in the 1970s at a conference. When they were talking about their experiences growing up, the German woman told Marie that she had asked her parents why they hadn’t done anything to stop the Holocaust. Her parents told their daughter they “didn’t know” what was going on. Marie’s new friend told her, “I think they did know something.” They were afraid to act and now their daughter experienced the shame and guilt many Germans still feel today. Marie told the jurors she is now a grandmother and doesn’t want them to feel ashamed because of her failure to act – she knows what ATK makes.

Char Madigan, CSJ, who has worked with thousands of mothers and children who have suffered domestic violence, took the stand next. She talked about commonwealth versus corporate wealth and greed. She talked about taking responsibility rather than “hiding behind private property or trespass laws”. She said, “Just as property rights don’t protect from domestic abusers, nor should property rights protect weapons makers who violate international law. [Speaking] as a nun, property rights should not protect church officials from covering up pedophilia.” Char was clear that there should be some property rights but they have to be balanced and weighed with other important values, in her case with the value of international law to protect people during war.

John Hynes used to work at Honeywell until quitting in 1971. He was on the inside when Sister Char was vigiling outside! He told the jurors, “I wish someone had given me a copy of ‘Employee Liabilities’ when I worked at Honeywell.”

Kathleen Ruona only testified briefly and reminded the jurors that these weapons endanger all species, not just humans. John Braun, described the design and effects of cluster bombs. When he declared that civilians, especially children, were often victims of “dud” cluster bombs, the prosecutor objected, saying his statement was inflammatory.

Betty McKenzie, CSJ, was the third nun to address the Court. She testified about the effects of depleted uranium. She told the jury she was not a doctor or scientist but she had read plenty and heard experts talk about the horrendous effects the heavy metal poisoning and toxic radiation released from this newer super-weapon favored by the military. The judge instructed the jury, as he did for most of the witnesses, that her testimony was allowed not as “fact” but rather as to her “state of mind” when the defendant was arrested. It was up to the jury to determine if her beliefs and intent were “reasonable.”

The school librarian told a story about a children’s picture book where the main character observes various children in her school being picked on or bullied. When none of her friends come to her aid after being poked fun of, her older brother reminded her that she also didn’t “say something.” Pepperwolf told the jurors, “I couldn’t go back to school and face my students if I had this knowledge, this common knowledge of what these weapons do, and not ‘say something.’ That is the title of the book: Say Something.

Tom Bottolene gave the closing statement for all the defendants. He stated that the US Constitution was written for all the people not “we the corporations” or “we the government”. Since the case hung on whether the defendants had a reasonable belief they had a claim of right, Bottolene asked, “Is it reasonable to believe that this document has any meaning?” He went on to discuss the basis of international law and the rules of war. These were ratified by our government. And again he asked, “Do these documents have any meaning?”

He reminded the jurors that the Nuremberg Tribunals ruled that corporations were liable for their acts; that being told to or asked by the government doesn’t excuse those actions. He explained how the Nuremberg rulings became part of the United Nations Charter, another Treaty signed by the United States government. “Is it reasonable to believe that document has any meaning?” he asked again. Then he told the jurors about his friend, the late Sister Rita Steinhagen, CSJ. When she was on her way to prison for a nonviolent protest, she said, “I have the burden of knowing.”

For Tom, for the other eight defendants, and now the judge and the jury – all have the burden of knowing. We can’t tell our children like some German parents did after the Holocaust, “We didn’t know.”

Postscript: Just after I finished this article, the jury found all 9 guilty of trespass. The judge sentenced them to a $300 fine or 24 hours of community service. In my opinion, they have already performed a service to the community with their acts of conscience.