"The Silliness -- and Clear and Present Danger -- of Today's SCOTUS: from the Daily Meditations by Matthew Fox (July 7, 2023)

 We are meditating on justice as a spiritual virtue and we are examining a particularly stunning action of the recent Supreme Court.  This court just passed a law saying it’s okay for a gay-hating religious believer who is a businessperson to deny a gay couple her service. 

But it turns out that the person named in the lawsuit, Stewart, never asked the plainiff for her services as a web-designer because he is not getting married and furthermore he is not gay.  He has stepped up ad said he never approached her since he himself is a web designer and would not need her services, and because he has been happily married to a woman for 15 years.

   Says one commentator:

Smith is so motivated by hatred of LGBTQ+ people that she invented an imaginary grievance, lied about it repeatedly through the various tiers of the court system, and eventually got license to deny service to a gay couple who doesn’t, technically, exist.*   Thus the Supreme Court, all decked out in its black finery and aristocratic self-importance, bathed in its solemnity and righteous black robes, took on this case without checking on whether the party involved was real or not.  Is this a Mickey Mouse supreme court or what?  Silliness, corruption, aristocracy (“let them eat cake”) and stupidity reign.   Six judges got suckered into legalizing a more-than-stupid precedent in their eagerness to support homophobia and religious prejudice.  Smith’s lawyers, demonstrating no shame (fascism rarely demonstrates either shame or a sense of humor), shrugged their shoulders: “No one should have to wait to be punished by the government to challenge an unjust law,” said one.    The conclusion?  It’s okay to invent a grievance and make up adversaries and go to certain courts and win.  Is this Supreme Court now a game, a political puppet show?  And those pulling the strings of six puppets?  I think we know.    What follows is neither humorous nor silly.  It is a dangerous “license to hate.” Can an atheist businessman refuse to serve Christians?  Can a liberal refuse to serve republicans, a Muslim refuse to serve Jews--or vice versa?  Can a gay busnessman refuse to serve (homophobic Christians?)  A slippery legal slope indeed. Said one legal scholar:  "This ruling blows a gaping hole in priior protections from discrimination" including race and religion and offers a "green light" to any business owners wanting to refuse service.  Where's the justice in a court like this?

The Working Catholic: Experience Counts by Bill Droel

 Catholic philosophers of the mid-20^th century (the Personalists) improved upon an older top-down notion of truth. Yes, truth comes from God. However, revelation does not come entirely from above. God’s truth (the Incarnation) is for all time embedded in human experience. The newer approach appreciates that God’s truth arises from and corresponds to real, important questions within our daily lives.

For many years Catholicism assumed that God’s truth came down from on high. Then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it was interpreted and proclaimed by way of the Church, through our bishops. This approach rightly meant that standards were fixed. However, the certitude of its interpretation presumed that a few people could know the full, static will of God. The interpretation sometimes delved into quite arcane matters, using technical terms and distinctions foreign to common people.

Our society currently adheres to an opposite view of truth. It is called utilitarian relativism or cost-benefit analysis. Truth in our society depends on the perception of an individual or on a circle of executives or a team of news editors or a vocal group of students or some trend among celebrities. Standards depend on the situation and the estimated outcome. For all its popularity, relativism is unsustainable. It favors opportunists who play the short-term game. It leaves too much to individual interpretation. It can easily define deviancy down.

The mid-20^th century philosophers who improved our understanding of God’s revelation did not endorse relativism in any way. The new bottom-up approach does not mean that truth is derived from feelings or even from a thoroughly audited vote or any other type of soft relativism.  Faithful to Scripture, the bottom-up approach compliments the responsibility of bishops to teach the truth.

  In summary, Christianity’s former bias toward abstractions, prototypes, blueprints, static policies, previous absolute formulae, cookie-cutter solutions, standard procedures, preset rules, protocol, agency policy and old-time programs now must consider real life experience. The new approach warns church leaders to abandon their older, tiresome habit of answering questions that no one asks. The new approach celebrates creativity, research, expansion, complexity, dynamism and, what Pope Francis calls “a culture of encounter,” one-to-one and group-to-group dialogue across neighborhoods, cities, ethnicities, ages and genders. An accumulation of experience combined with sustained reflection improves our understanding of God’s truth, says the newer approach.

A substantial number of baptized Catholics now reject the church. Among other reasons, many do so because the church’s presentation of God’s truth does not resonate with them. To repeat: This is not to say that the content of the older presentation is wrong. The disconnection is because church leaders often insist on a method and terminology that is foreign to young adults. For their part, young adults don’t bother to construct an alternative spiritual method and language for our time.

A starting place, in my opinion, is the discovery of God’s truth as contained in music, drama, science, engineering, sex, commerce and other so-called worldly activities. Thomas a Kempis (1380-1471) is the author of the still popular The Imitation of Christ. Though parts of this book might be helpful, its bias (and that of several contemporary Christian teachers) must be rejected. God “instructs [us] to despise earthly things, to loath present things,” Imitation of Christ advises. No. God from all eternity has been at ease with human joy and striving. God’s church cannot therefore be aloof from or opposed to the world. The secular is sacred in a real sense.

A church that relates to the deep concerns of young adults cannot be equated only with clergy and other church employees. The church is all of us who go about doing our best on the job, in the community and for our family. The church is those of us who want to have a meaningful life; to put our questions into a context. The church is two friends who meet at the diner and share their sorrow, frustration, joy and insight. Our own experience contains some of God’s truth. How do we process that experience? Where do we find regular forums in which faith in daily life is explored? What language is there for us to take our isolated incidents and frame them into meaningful experience? Where are the storytellers to help us?

To be continued…

Droel edits INITIATIVES (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629), a newsletter about faith and work.

The Working Catholic: Leisure by Bill Droel

 I put away the clock and now I enjoy the time.

            Saving Time: Life Beyond the Clock by Jenny Odell (Random House, 2023) is not a time management book.  It is not about leaning in or about making the most of the weekend. It is not about the work-life balance. It is not a how to or a self-help book. Saving Time is part memoir, part philosophy and a smaller part travelogue with photos.

            Ever since Eve and Adam were evicted from the garden, things had to get done. But humankind has not always and everywhere been on the clock. A mercantile economy and then capitalism brought us the clock. According to capitalism busyness equals goodness. (This notion is sometimes called the Protestant ethic.) To do reasonably well requires sustained effort. To be stuck in place implies laziness. Both the upwardly mobile and those who struggle to make ends meet judge their lives in individualistic terms. Both the successful and the struggling tend to overlook our culture’s controlling circumstances. Both the secure and the precarious are stressed by the clock. The wealthy go to a therapist to deal with their stress. For them, coping often means putting in more work. The working-poor can deal with clock stress by forming a union, as is happening in this Covid-19 era. However, an unhealthy escape from stress is resentment, sometimes in movements like MAGA.

            Odell is aware that liberation from clock slavery requires more than a change in attitude. Thus her book deals with economic class, race relations and particularly with culture. In that regard Odell draws upon Josef Pieper (1904-1997) and his classic book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture (Faber & Faber, 1952). Proper leisure, says Pieper, is not the same as recharging one’s battery for more work. Nor is leisure an experience to be consumed.

            True leisure, Pieper continues, is an emotional/spiritual posture for its own sake, not as refreshment for other types of work. Leisure is a vertical relationship, not a chronological segment like Saturday or Friday evening. Leisure is wonder and joy. It is appreciating our connection to transcendence. 

            Unfortunately, leisure in our current culture is commercialized. It is often as much work as one’s job. Waiting for the Weekend (Viking, 1991) by Witold Rybczynski details how people pervert genuine leisure by spending Saturday “working on their backhand” or “putting in the work” to improve their putting or “working in the garden.”

It is possible for a person to cultivate a true leisurely disposition, but not much will change without a new culture. Christianity was once a major cultural force—admittedly for the bad at times, but often as an alternative to the daily grind. Christianity, like Judaism, used to insist on an alternative Sabbath—no labor, minimal commerce, some worship, singing, reading and family outings. Young adults today, understandably, are not much attracted to main line Protestant Christianity, Roman Catholic Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. Even evangelical Christianity has lower communitarian appeal to young adults. With important exceptions, it is often an individualistic identifier with low content. As a cultural force, evangelical Christianity is overly connected with negative politics.

St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) has been called "the last Christian."  Before the 13th century few people needed any time-keeping device other than direct observation of the sun and moon.  But when the mercantile economy emerged in Europe, people wanted to keep appointments.  So a clock tower was installed in public square.  St. Francis turned his back to those clocks to remind people that a life fixated on clocks (be they now an app on one's mobile device) is not ultimately satisfying.  St. Francis had no tight schedule.  He rebelled as best as he could against specific programs, utilitarian transactions, measurable goals and the like.  St. Francis had no office, no work-life balance.  In a sense, St. Francis did nothing.  He communicated by way of gestures.  And for some reason his vertical posture was attractive to young adults.  His spiritual movement was a counter-cultural force.  

Is it possible for today’s young adults to create a less frantic life in imitation of St. Francis? Not unless the goal is for young adults to quit their jobs, abandon their mobile devices, roam about begging and maybe repairing a building here or there--all the while dressed in a long hooded jacket.  Wait.  Young adults are garbed in hoodies.  Perhaps the St. Francis spirit is percolating from within.  

Droel is editor for National Center for the Laity (PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629).

Robert Hanssen, Opus Dei, and the Opposite of Generosity (June 7th Matthew Fox Daily Meditation)

 Yesterday, as we began our meditations on Generosity, Robert Hanssen died in prison.  He was serving 15 consecutive life sentences for betraying his country.  

 In 2001, Lesley Stahl reported on “The Secret Life of Robert Hanssen.” The former FBI agent was convicted of spying for Russia, and began serving a life sentence in 2002. He died in prison this week at the age of 79. (60 Minutes)Hanssen has been called the most damaging spy in American history who betrayed pro-American spies to Russia and got many of them killed.  Assigned to a counterintelligence unit in New York, he sold highly-classified national security information to Moscow for $1.4 million in cash plus bank funds and diamonds (!).

At first I thought to write about Hanssen would interrupt our meditations on Generosity.  But in fact, he sheds light on generosity because he demonstrated the opposite, and a spiritual term is often best approached by going to its opposite first.

 Following are some opposites of Generosity:  acquisitive, avaricious, begrudging, close fisted, costive, greedy selfish, unkind, cruel, harsh, mean, stingy, selfish and ungenerous.  

Since Hanssen did it for the money, it would seem he excelled at all these in addition to being hypocritical and disloyal to his country and his profession.  

Leonardo Leo and the right couldn't control the justices they put on the Supreme Court.  So they created a captured court -- one that explains Clarence thomas' benefactors.  Chris Hays reports.  (MSNBC)  

I wrote about Robert Hanssen when I wrote my book on The Pope's War, a history of the papacy under Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II both of whom championed Opus Dei.  Hanssen was an active member of Opus Dei.  As is the current archbishop of Los Angeles who recently stepped down as head of the Catholic Bishops of the U.S.  and also Leonardo Leo who has been called the "third most important person in America." 

Leo, co-chairman of the Federalist society is personally responsible for the six most extreme supreme court judges and was recently in the nes for being photographed partying with Judge Clarence Thomas and his well-known benefactor, billionaire republican Harlan Crow, in the latter's backyard. 

The head of FBI during Hanssen's tenure was Opus Dei.  Opus Dei bishops and cardinals appointed under the previous two popes were greatly responsible for killing liberation theology and base communities in Central and South America.  

An insightful investigation into the controversial Opus Dei sect, founded by a priest of the Franco regime and now extending its influence across the world. Journeyman Pictures  

Opus Dei was founded by a fascist priest, Jose Escriva, and its members saddled up with dictator Franco for decades.  Opus Dei goes where the power is--especially finance, media, governmental institutions and courts.  

They got their founder, a proven misogynist who once said he admired Hitler, canonized a saint faster than anyone else in history and succeeded in canonizing Junipero Serra.  They very fond of money (and diamonds) and the power that goes with it.  

______________________________________________________

Adapted from Matthew Fox, The Pope's War:   How Ratzinger's Secret Crusade Has Imperiled the Church and How it Can Be Saved, pp. 106-124.

The Working Catholic: Bad Artists by Bill Droel

 

Sometimes a flawed individual creates captivating art—music, painting, a novel, a play. Monsters: A Fan’s Dilemma by Claire Dederer (Knopf, 2023) is the latest consideration of how the public should ethically treat art that comes from a bad person. Her dilemma is more acute thanks to the courage of the Me Too movement.

            The following analogy relies on a dated incident. In early 2022 Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, now retired, outed a veteran pastor for baptizing people with the words, “We baptize you in the name of the Father…” Citing an August 2020 ruling from the Vatican, Olmsted said using the pronoun we instead of I baptize you makes the 100s of baptisms performed by that pastor “invalid.” The pastor apologized, pleaded ignorance and resigned from the parish. (He is now the pastor at another place.)

Back in the day everyone who took a graduate course in sacramental theology (admittedly a small crowd) learned the distinction between ex opera operantis and ex opera operato. Is it possible for a sacrament to take effect even though the conferring priest is a sinner or, in Dederer’s word, a monster? The Catholic answer is yes. The sacrament itself confers its own grace. There is a qualifying criterion for effectiveness: The celebrant and the recipient must have the right intention. Such seems to have been the case in Phoenix. The pastor admitted his error.

This blog does not intend to settle a technical/pastoral application of Catholic rules. Its purpose is to give guidance to those sensitive to the discrepancy between an artist’s moral character and the art. Generally, in my judgment, the work of art stands on its own merit (ex opera operato), presuming the artist and the viewer/listener/reader have the right intention.

Caution is advised when judging an artist’s intention. Did she or he state that their purpose in making the art was to spread their own sin? It’s possible, but unlikely. Did she or he repent from their sin subsequent to making the art? Being judgmental is not healthy.

There is another way to sort out the discrepancy between a bad person and his or her quality art. Some people use descriptions like Christian rock or Catholic novel. There is no such thing, really. All art that displays the truth (lower case t) is pleasing to God. The good morality of the artist is no guarantee that the art is worthy. In fact, so-called Christian music can be so insipid and a so-called Catholic novel can be so mediocre that neither qualifies as art. Try again, God will say. God wants art with all its teeth.

 

Droel serves the board of National Center for the Laity in Chicago.

Gaudí’s Sagrada Familia: the Joy of Creation

 

We recently went on vacation to Barcelona, Spain with our London family.  We stayed at a hotel in Sitges, just south of the city of Barcelona.  The main tourist attraction in Barcelona is the church of the Holy Family, Sagrada Familia.

 

The original construction of the church in 1882 was under the direction of Architect Francisco de Paula del Villar.  However in 1883 Antoni Gaudí (b. 1852) took over the project transforming it to his architectural design and engineering style. The church is not yet finished and is still under construction.  It survived the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), and the Fascists and the religiously conservative regime of Francisco Franco.  Gaudí died on June 10, 1926.  The construction of the church passed into the hands of several different architects, holding to the same theme and design.  Gaudí’s design of the church is Catalan Modernist. 

Sagrada Familia is a welcoming and inspiring structure.  Churches of the past, Romanesque to Rococo, were refuges, protecting the faithful from devils in the struggle for redemption after the fall of Adam.  Sagrada Familia celebrates nature as joyful revelation in stone.  The struggle of life is not denied. The passion of the Sagrada Familia is recognized, but in the context of the joy of creation.  

Walking in the sanctuary worshipers experience an explosion of light, on one side the beams of dawn, the other side the brilliance of sunset.  

Standing in the plaza outside the church one sees the spires as a grove of trees, of different sizes and species.  

Sagrada Familia inspires us to save the sacred earth. 

“God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.” (Genesis 1:31)

Resources

Original Blessing, Matthew Fox, Bear and Company, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1983.

The Working Catholic: Social Doctrine Part Thirteen, Poverty by Bill Droel

  

It’s published in Wall St. Journal (4/30/23), so it must be true. It’s an essay about wages by Michael Lind. He begins with a quotation from Adam Smith (1723-1790), a theorist for modern capitalism. For capitalism to thrive, Smith says employees must get a family wage.

Family wage is a principle of Catholic social doctrine. A slogan from Unite Here, a union of hotel workers with headquarters in Manhattan, is a good paraphrase of our Catholic principle: “One Job Should Be Enough.” Our U.S. bishops described a family wage in their 1919 Program of Social Reconstruction. Pope Pius XI (1857-1939) has it in his 1931 encyclical Reconstructing the Social Order, as does Vatican II (1962-1965). St. John Paul II (1920-2005) also writes about it. The idea is that one wage earner should be paid at least enough to support a family, including its education needs, some funds for leisure plus for modest savings. The amount of that wage can differ by location and by the type of job. A family can have a second wage earner, but the family’s survival should not depend on that arrangement. St. John Paul II emphasizes that the measure of a society’s justice is its wage structure. All other compensations and social policies and management plans are accessories.

Lind says that our economy does not abide by the family wage principle but uses a model he calls low-wage/high-welfare. Many employees get inadequate pay but stay afloat through Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, housing vouchers and more. In other words, as Lind writes, “taxpayers pay to rescue workers whose work does not pay enough.”

Lower wages allow for lower costs which benefit some consumers. For example, middle-class and upper-class families are winners in the low-wage/high welfare economy when they hire housekeepers or landscapers. The losers are taxpayers and of course the underpaid.

Matthew Desmond in Poverty, By America (Crown, 2023) agrees. Poverty resists elimination despite charitable endeavors and social welfare because some people benefit from the poverty of others. “Poverty is an injury, a taking,” says Desmond. Normally, people are unaware of how their lifestyle depends on the perpetuation of poverty. However, Desmond’s book makes it plain, using many examples including our tolerance for insubstantial wages.

There’s a corollary to the principle of a just wage. Because an employee agrees to a sub-level wage the criteria for justice is not met. Adherence to this aspect of Catholic doctrine means, for example, that a pastor cannot morally pay a teacher less than a just wage because the teacher understands the job as a vocation. The standard is objective, not subjective. That standard does, however, take into account that a just wage in a small town, for example, might be lower than a comparable wage in Manhattan.

There is plenty of room for debate as to how to achieve just wages. Lind mentions collective bargaining, but he is not happy about a bargaining unit at one Starbucks and then a different unit at the next Starbucks. He suggests sector or multi-employer bargaining might be better. This idea is like the Catholic idea of an industry council plan. To be continued…

Written for Catholic Labor Network (www.catholiclabor.org); 5/3/23

For more on this topic get St. John Paul II’s Gospel of Work edited by Bill Droel (National Center for the Laity, PO Box 291102, Chicago, IL 60629; $8.)