#473 – Dick Bernard: Occupy Wall Street – Minneapolis (OWS) and the Tea Party

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As I write, 6:30 p.m. on November 14, a big rally of Occupy Wall Street is apparently taking place in downtown Minneapolis. I say “apparently” because I don’t know for sure if, or how, plans may have changed due to posturing by local government, and response by the OWS folks to that.
That will be part of the news tomorrow IF the news media choose to cover the event*.
I’m one of those gluttons for punishment, accepting into my e-mail in-box anti-Obama hate mail, Tea Party, right and left wing commentaries. It tends to get overwhelming at times, but it is good to see what the assorted folks are dispensing as their particular reality.
Both OWS and Tea Party claim support of the “99%” of the country who are not wealthy. My support is strongly with the OWS folks, though I couldn’t see sufficient reason to travel to Minneapolis this evening.
Occupy Wall Street is the more recent visitor to the news. It began with an unpublicized protest in Zuccotti Park in New York City in September. It took a couple of weeks to get any news notice. OWSs apparent website – “unofficial” it emphasizes – is here.
It has since spread nation-wide, and at this writing seems to be enjoying positive momentum.
So far, OWS appears to have managed to resist the pitfall of many spontaneous movements to be co-opted by the traditional Power structure (see ** here). It is my hope that OWS retains its present character, which enhances its potential for long term success.
The Tea Party, on the other hand, was almost without any question born as a creature of power: angry people were considered a tool by the very people against whom their anger was directed.
If not that, the “Tea Party” was quickly taken over by the radical right wing power structure. Its populist members seem to despise government generally (except those very limited functions that apply directly to them, personally: Medicare, Guns, etc.) and have in a short time gained an immense amount of power (a function of being a part of the traditional power structure)…but have not used that power wisely. (Below are some common elements of Power. Relationship Power (“power to the people”, shall I say) is seldom used in our society, including by those who could most successfully leverage it. Rather, we stick with the old traditions that kept kings and the like in control of their subjects. It strikes me as an odd reality.)

For all intents and purposes the Tea Party partisans control Congress, which in turn has an approval rating which remains at about 9%, lower than any time in history. Like Occupy Wall Street it is somewhat difficult to identify exactly who the Tea Party is; it is not as difficult to identify where it gets its power, and its not from the people at large. Long time right-wing Republican politician Dick Armey was early and visibly involved in Tea Party activities, as were others like present day Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann.
Amongst my flood of e-mails recently, have come a couple of recent commentaries that have helped me, at least, become informed about these polar opposite movements. Neither article is written by a partisan for either, and if you have any interest, the two commentaries are worth the time to read:
1. A recent commentary, here, describes the Tea Party as it currently exists in the United States**. Writer Eric Black is a retired and highly respected writer on politics who spent most of his career with the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
2. A second commentary describes the deep, seemingly unbridgeable, gulf between what are considered the Left and the Right in this country. You can read it here.
I remain fascinated with the ‘relationship’ between the ideological poles which seem so very similar in so many ways (here).
At the same time, as noted in the article in #2, the poles are very different: on the right side there seems an obsession with the absolute rights of the individual, including the right to control others; on the left seems an equal but opposite obsession emphasizing what I would call larger community ideals – “we’re all in this together”.
Whatever….
In the end analysis, in the fall of 2012, the deciding votes will not be those who occupy the poles, but rather those in the silent middle of the ideological landscape.
Those at the poles are best advised to consider the moderate middle in all of their actions.
UPDATE Nov. 15 a.m.:
* – There was relatively little news about the demonstration. Here is the account on page two of the Nov. 15 Minneapolis Star Tribune.
** – A ‘takeaway’ for me on reading this article was the relatively tiny actual membership in active Tea Party groups. 200,000 in the United States would translate into one member per app. 1500 population in the U.S. Their political clout has obviously been much, much greater than their relative strength in terms of membership.
From Lee, in St. Paul:
The recently approved and implemented Hennepin County Board Building Use policy regarding OccupyMN demonstrations at the Hennepin County Government Center in downtown Minneapolis is not in fact
“aimed at shutting down the occupation” as its supporters claim. That’s overblown rhetoric.*
I’ve followed this issue because the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in Minneapolis by OccupyMN could possibly become another 2008 Republican National Convention “train wreck” that diverts media and public attention from important “peace and justice” issues to preventable law-enforcement issues. Unfortunately, “train wreck” damage is already occurring with Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in other cities.
As I told one OccupyMN organizer whom we well know, the 2008 RNC civil court decisions on where and when protesters could march and demonstrate near the Convention site (the Xcel Energy Center) in downtown St. Paul, and the upheld criminal court convictions of protesters for illegal trespass and other law violations clearly reinforced the fact that “free speech” rights aren’t necessarily the same as occupancy rights on public or private property–especially when there’s probable cause to believe that occupation is violating city and county codes or even state laws that protect public health, safety and free access to government or private property.**
Moreover, the mounting law enforcement costs of securing the Government Center (reportedly about $200,000) are apparently diverting funds from other public needs at a time when county and city budgets are very tight and state aid to local governments has been sharply reduced.
Yes, OccupyMN demonstrations should continue and deliver their vital messages, but in ways that respect the rule of law and budget priorities. One unnecessary and costly Minnesota “train wreck” is more than enough.
Richard Lee Dechert
*See “Board Approves Changes to Building Use Policy” here
**See “The ‘RNC 8’ ‘criminalizing dissent’ conspiracy: A blatant case of ends-justify-the-means anarchy” here.

#472 – Dick Bernard: Penn State/Joe Paterno/Relationships between Vulnerable Children and Authority Figures

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , /by

There is no need to recite the volumes already, or to be, written about the story at Penn State. (I write, when they are on the field against Nebraska, at this moment, behind 10-0. Entering the game they were the 12th ranking football team in the nation, their opponent the 19th ranking team).
Of course, all that is totally irrelevant. As one commentator said a few minutes ago, it is as if the quarterback, Paterno, fumbled the ball on the goal line at the edge of the greatest victory in history….
I have another perspective that may add a bit to the necessary conversation.
Being human, with a fair amount of seniority amongst my cohorts in today’s population, I know a little bit about human nature.
Being Catholic, I know how stupidity plays out among power people who think that they can contain and control incidents of sexual abuse within the confines of their church authority (that began to unravel in the 1990s, a long time ago, and continues to this day.) It didn’t and doesn’t work. But some in authority still don’t quite get it.
But I have another insight, born of representing public school teachers in a teachers union from 1972-2000 and seeing the statutory transition from, initially, restrictions on corporal punishment (spanking), to mandatory reporting of even a suspicion of abuse of a child by an adult. The transition was complete long before my staff career ended. What astonishes me in the current situation is that this bunch at Penn State could have been so utterly clueless.
There have been, are, and will continue to be incidents of abuse in public education and elsewhere. We are humans, after all.
But in my particular venue, public education, the incidence was very, very tiny, but when uncovered very, very visible. (In the United States today there are perhaps nearly 50,000,000 children in schools; and perhaps 6,000,000 school employees including substitute teachers, aides, bus drivers, cooks, and on and on and on. With such an immense cohort, in school for an average of 171 days a year in Minnesota, there is no end of possibilities for problems, but amazingly few problems occur.)
In Minnesota, the relevant statute has existed since 1975, and can be viewed in its entirety here. It has been amended frequent times, and doubtless Penn State will cause it to be revisited once again.
I remember the general evolution of this law.
It began pretty simply, probably in 1975, essentially prohibiting spanking of, in anatomy terms, the gluteus maximus (to we lay people, the “rear end”). I don’t recall the genesis of the Law, but probably it was from some excess by someone, somewhere. It was a difficult adjustment for the enforcer in a school, often the shop teacher, more often the principal. The paddle had to go. To this day, there are some who advocate the paddle….
As years went on, the Law evolved.
I wish I could remember the year, but I think it was sometime in the 1980s, when the mandatory reporting provision was first enacted. This came to be called the ‘no touch’ rule in my public education jurisdiction.
The reaction was in the direction of zero tolerance of adult-child touch, in any of its manifestations.
I remember the most dramatic aberration (response): kindergarten teachers, virtually all female, became fearful of doing such innocuous things as helping a kid tie his or her shoelaces.
As time went on, the system and the individuals found more equilibrium, but the point remains, as it relates to Penn State, that the business of adult-vulnerable child relationships has been an active part of legal policy discussion since at least 1975 – 36 years.
There is an entire additional discussion, in this case, of the role of football as a symbol of power and authority in our society. Joe Paterno was an institution because he “brought home the bacon” for Penn State in prestige and money.
But, as I say, that is an entire other discussion.
UPDATES (Notice also comment included with this post):
Comment from Bonnie, Minneapolis: Well said, Dick. Hard to understand their cluelessness. Thanks for continuing your good work.
Comment from Bob, suburban St. Paul, Nov. 12:The only moral response by Penn State would have been to forfeit the remainder of their season to emphasize the significance of this horrendous criminal behavior. The students and fans who want to deify their coach and gloss over this criminality need a strong message from the university that this behavior is to be abhorred and treated as a criminal matter.
I believe mandatory reporting started in about 1970 in Minnesota for a host of professionals such as medical personnel, social workers, all mental health professionals, and education staff. Defining abuse to include corporal punishment by teachers must have come later or in 1975. Prior to the mandatory reporting law it was very hard for doctors and others to report abuse for fear of being sued by the parent for violating confidentiality. In 1969 or so I attended a conference at the U of Denver where a Dr Kemp had identified the “battered child syndrome”. I was with a contingent from Ramsey County including the local juvenile court judge, the head of psychiatry at the old St. Paul Ramsey, a county attorney, a police officer and others. When we came back we developed the Ramsey County Child Abuse Team to facilitate coordinated action by the various entities that intervene in abuse cases. Mandatory reporting has been on the books in Pennsylvania for many years. The Penn State staff had to know about their legal obligation to report. It is the same old story of those in power believing that their sacred institution (Church or Football Program) has priority over civil law.
My dates or years are a bit fuzzy but I believe roughly correct without doing in-depth research.
Note from Dick: whatever the actual dates, awareness about abuse, and the laws on reporting, have a very long history.
From Jeff, south suburbs, Nov. 13: The parties involved need to be punished severely… that means the offender
Sandusky, and if any coaches or university officials condoned or did not
report the crime then they also should be prosecuted if they broke the law
in PA.
Obviously Penn State will pay a very heavy price in lawsuits and settlements
in regard to this matter. These civil actions will help Penn State and
other institutions understand that protecting innocent children is paramount
and institutional protection of football or a university’s name is nothing
compared to this. Just think of how Penn State would have been held up as a
correct role model had they handled the situation the way it should have …
morally and legally.
As to the matter of football games. I personally differ on this. if the NCAA
or the State of PA wants to punish the football program at Penn State in the
future that is fine. The games that are set up are contracts that are
certainly not inviolate, and Penn State could forfeit them of course. I
think it would have been difficult last week. My feeling is however that
the players in the program today, and the students at the University today
should not be punished for things they had no involvement in. if the
program is punished in the future in some way , and both criminal and civil
sanctions and punishments are metered out as they are justly deserved I
think that is enough for now.
I do have sensitivity to the fact that sports or a sports program should not
supersede the criminality and heinous nature of the offenses ; but I also
think that punishing students and student athletes today for things that
happened 10 years ago and for which they had no control would be wrong in my
eyes.
Another followup comment from Bob in suburban St. Paul: Dick, I just attempted some research on the origins of our law in MN without much success. I did learn that in 1962 the medical profession began bringing the subject to our attention. In 1974 the federal government passed legislation providing funding to for state programs to address the issue. I do know we were in Denver in 1969 learning about how to develop a multi-disciplinary team at the local level. Just when MN outlawed child abuse remains question for me. Until states passed laws to make child abuse illegal it was dealt with under laws prohibiting cruelty to animals. What is stunning about the subject is the fact that it took us so long to define child abuse as criminal. Until then children were considered chattel. A doctor called me one time when I managed Child Welfare Intake for Ramsey County. He was trying to tell me through the use of obscure language that this young teen-age girl was a victim of incest. He could not be explicit or give me facts to go on because the law did not mandate reporting and he was going out on a limb legally. When I asked him for facts or how he knew these things, he said I just had to trust his medical acumen. It was obvious that this doctor was very nervous about telling me anything but wanted to tip us off. After the law was passed he was required to report and was protected legally. Thankfully we have advanced somewhat, but obviously not at Penn State. Bob
And yet another, from Bob, on Nov. 13: Dick, Try as I may the earliest mandetory reporting law I can find for Minnesota dates to 1974. This seems at odds with my memory of Judge Archie Gingold and others pushing for such a law as early as I969, and our child protection interventions prior to 1974. Perhaps we used other other child protection laws and the mandatory reporting law came along later in 1974, which also provided legal protection for the reporter and really changed everything. My memory is obviously flawed. Bob

#471 – Dick Bernard: Armistice (Veterans) Day 2011

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

UPDATE: A reader sends along this Eyewitness to History link from the actual day/place in 1918.
Today is a unique date: 11-11-11 (November 11, 2011).
It is also Armistice Day, commemorating the end of World War I, when at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, a moment was taken to recognize the hope that the end of the Great War, was also the beginning of Peace (hope always springs eternal.)
My mother, Esther, then 9 years old, remembered the day vividly: “The hired girl and I were out in the snow chasing chickens into the coop so they wouldn’t freeze when there was a great long train whistle from the Grand Rapids [ND] railroad track [about 4-5 miles away, as the crow flies]. In the house there was a long, long telephone ringing to signify the end of World War I.” (page 122 of Pioneers: The Busch and Berning Family of LaMoure County ND).
WWI was very deadly and confusing: my grandparents and most of the neighbors in their home (Wisconsin) and settlement (ND) communities were German ancestry, first generation American, and spoke German. One of my grandfather Busch’s hired men was killed in the war, and Grandpa wanted to enlist. Mom’s younger sister Mary, born 1913, remembered “there was a lot of prejudice against Germany at that time so the language was kept quiet. Being called a “kraut” wasn’t the nicest thing to hear. Most of the neighbors had German ancestors. Most of them came to the U.S. to avoid compulsory military training.” (p.136)
Esther and Mary’s Great-Uncle Heinrich Busch in Dubuque, a successful businessman who with his parents and brother had migrated from Germany in the early 1870s, wrote a passionate letter, in German, home to his German relatives Nov. 5, 1923, saying in part “The American millionaires and the government had loaned the Allies so many millions that against the will of the common folk, [P]resident Wilson was pulled into the War. England had nine million for newspaper propaganda [for war] in American newspapers about the brutal German and that the German-Americans had come to suffer under it, they were held [arrested] for [being] unpatriotic and were required to come before the court for little things as if they were pro-German. The damned war was a revenge and a millionaire’s war and the common people had to bleed in this bloody gladiator battle…..” (page 271) He went on in the same letter to predict the rise of a regime like the then-unknown Hitler and Nazis because of Germany’s humiliation and economic suffering in defeat.
War was not a sound-bite. History did not begin with Pearl Harbor and WWII….
Armistice Day is still celebrated in Europe, especially.
In the United States, in 1954, the day was re-named Veteran’s Day.
Whether intentional or not, the original intention of Armistice Day has come to be diluted or eroded: rather than recognize Peace; the effort is to recognize Veterans of War.
I’m a Military Veteran myself, so I certainly have no quarrel with recognizing Veterans.
But today I’ll be at the First Shot Memorial on the Minnesota Capitol Grounds, recognizing Armistice Day with other Veterans for Peace. Part of the ceremony will be ringing a common bell, eleven times.
A block or so away the Veterans Day contingent will be gathering at the Vietnam War Memorial.
The same kinds of people; a differing emphasis….
Ten years ago today, November 11, 2001, we were waiting to board our plane from London, England, to Minneapolis.
At precisely 11 AM…well, here’s how I described it in an e-mail March 20, 2003: “One of the most powerful minutes of my life was at Gatwick airport in suburban London on November 11, 2001, when the entire airport became dead silent for one minute to commemorate Armistice Day, which is a far bigger deal in England than it is here. The announcer came on the PA, and asked for reflective silence. I have never “heard” anything so powerful. I didn’t think it was possible. Babies didn’t even cry.”
A year later at the Armistice Day observance of Veterans for Peace at Ft. Snelling Cemetery I related this story again for the assembled veterans.
Today, whether you’re observing Veterans Day, or Armistice Day, remember the original intent of the day.
Peace in our world.
UPDATE – Noon November 11, 2011
Some photos from the Armistice and Veterans Day commemorations on the State Capitol grounds. The ceremonies were about one block apart. I spent time at each. Factoring out the band and other official personnel at the Veterans Day observance, the number in attendance seemed about the same. At the Armistice Day observance, eleven peace doves were released after a bell was rung eleven times. At the Veterans Day observance there was the traditional 21 gun salute. (click to enlarge the photos)

Bell Ringing Ceremony


Some of the eleven doves of peace released at the ceremony.


At the Veterans Day observance at the Vietnam Memorial, Capitol Ground


Statue between the Armistice and Veterans Day observances today, at St. Paul MN

#470 – Dick Bernard: Public Schools, and the kids in them, matter

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Sometimes seemingly random events have a real element of synchronicity to them: they seem to have no relationship, but in every meaningful way, they are directly related. I recently experienced two such synchronous events.
Wednesday, November 2, I was invited to a house party in south Minneapolis. The event was to recognize the first ten years in the history of a truly remarkable independent and non-partisan organization: Parents United for Public Schools (“PUPS”). The groups website (click here) says it all far better than I ever could.
I was invited to the gathering because in the first few months during which PUPS was evolving from idea into reality I participated in the early organizational meetings of the group. We were something of a ‘rag-tag’ bunch then – simply parents, grandparents and taxpayers who really cared about public schools. Back then, in 2002, there was no organization, no dues, no staff, and thus no guarantee of a future. After a few meetings, a bunch of us sat around in a circle at a library in the west suburbs and had our say. At my turn, I simply urged the group to stay in existence so that it would still exist at the beginning of a second year.
The organizers slogged on (such efforts are never easy), and here they are, still independent ten years later, a recognized and highly credible voice for Minnesota’s children.
At the gathering, Minnesota Education Commissioner Dr. Brenda Casselius stopped by to share a few words about her passion for kids and public education. (click on photo to enlarge it)

Craig Roen, PUPS Board President, and MN Department of Education Commissioner Dr. Brenda Casselius, Nov. 2, 2011


For those who lament that its impossible to change a resistant status quo, PUPS is an excellent validation of the timeless quotation of Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” No one in PUPS is under the illusion that they’ve ‘won’; but their winning is in their continuing to advocate for children and for public schools. They’re in this for the long haul. They won’t quit.
The following Wednesday, I was invited to speak to a group of senior citizens in the south suburbs of the Twin Cities. My topic was public education. This group, like myself, had long before seen their children leave K-12 public education. In not too many years, the over 65 cohort will equal the number of students in Minnesota public schools. I call people like us “outside the walls” of public education.
I took on the task of attempting to briefly capsulize 150 years of Minnesota Public Education, as well as the current ‘lay of the land’ in public education. It is up to the group of 15 folks to judge whether or not I succeeded, but as I was preparing what I was going to present I had in mind the meeting the previous week.
Succinctly, at issue in Minnesota Public Education are about 840,000 public school students (one of every six Minnesotans), using about $9,500,000,000, about one-fourth of the total state budget. This seems like an immense number (and it is) but as I pointed out to the group of senior citizens (all of whom know someone who is actually in public school), this amounts to about $66 per day per student – hardly a kings ransom.
But because the enterprise is so immense and complex and far-flung, and because the consumers, the kids, cannot vote and have little say, public education is a fertile field for near warfare between assorted factions who wish to control both inputs and outcomes. Dialogue and seeking consensus can be difficult.
At the end of my talk (which was “peppered” with lots of constructive dialogue) I identified two crucial areas for the future of Minnesota public education:
1) Minnesotans have to commit to work together to help solve the very real problems in what is called the ‘achievement gap’ in the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and elsewhere where poverty is a problem. There is no room for propaganda or punishment on this need. We must work together.
2) Schools have an absolutely critical need to engage with the huge percentage of us who are “outside the walls” of public education (over 60% of households have no one under age 18 living in them; 75-85% of today’s taxpayers have no children of their own in school). We cannot be left as outsiders.
Yesterday was, today is, and tomorrow is at stake.
Thanks PUPS, and to all who care, thanks as well.

#469 – Dick Bernard: Election Day 2012 is exactly one year away.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Today is an off-year election day. Do vote, and vote well-informed. As I wrote yesterday in this space, here, traditionally very few bother to vote in these important off-year elections. Be one of those who goes to the polls, well informed.
One year from today – the date is November 6, 2012 – is another of those most crucial elections in United States history.
One year ago, November 7, 2010, was another of those elections. A year ago only about 40% of those who were qualified to vote actually went to polls in our country, and a large percentage of those voted strictly out of anger. Paradoxically, perhaps as large a percentage of those who did not bother to vote at all, stayed away because they were angry, and did not bother to vote for exactly the opposite reasons of the other group. (I was an election judge last year: I saw the angry ones coming in, and the low turnout….)
Anger is not a good way to make a decision. That’s how we decided, last year.
Every election day is crucial. The only new difference is that elections are going off the charts in importance as we voters, through often uninformed action, and as often, inaction (not voting at all), are killing our future, and collectively we seem not to care.
It’s not as though we do not have information on which to make informed decision. We have a great plenty of information easily available.
We just don’t care. Or we’ve given up.
Whatever the case, collectively we got exactly what we wanted in 2010, and we will get exactly what we want in 2012. What we wanted a year ago appears to be, at this moment, a Congress with a collective approval rating of 9%. Only one of eleven Americans is satisfied with our closest national representatives. And we are the ones who sent them there, whether we actually voted for them or not. For a year now they’ve been saying that things will get better if only we get rid of President Obama, and doing their best to make sure that he can’t accomplish anything.
Our state governments are not much better. Watch the issues being voted on in this state or that, today. Or what those same governments are squabbling about if there is a Democrat Governor and a Republican House and Senate. We, the people, have tied ourselves in knots by electing this crew.
A few nights ago – it was Monday, October 24, 2011 – I watched Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell say with his usual plastic straight face that the reason for the problems in the Senate is the Senate Democrat majority who have not passed 15 bills sent over by the House of Representatives.
The Democrats are the obstructionists, he said.
This is the same man who has declared from almost the minute of President Obama’s inauguration that his party’s intention was to make Obama a one term President. That is his sole working objective.
The day after McConnell’s performance on television, I wrote a brief note to my local Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, with a simple question: what are these Bills, by name and file number? I specifically asked for the information in writing.
Surely, this should be a very easy question: very timely; and in the age of the internet, very simple to accomplish.
Here’s the Congresswoman’s answer as of Tuesday, November 8, 2011: not a single word, other than an automated acknowledgement of receipt of the question, about noon on October 25, 2011: Bachmann Oct 25, 2011001. (I think I could make a list of what these issues are, but I won’t: they are a laundry list of wishes that have absolutely no chance of ever becoming law, but can pass the House because of the nature of its essentially anti-government majority.)
To the vaunted 99% who are the victims: there is, indeed, a class war going on, and it is being waged against you. Here is how the 28 years between 1979 and 2007 is portrayed by the Congressional Budget Office.
I hope you cast your vote today, and a year from now, and any and every opportunity in between, and that it is always a well-informed vote.
Watch what happens today, and be well prepared when Tuesday, November 6, 2012, comes around.

#468 – Dick Bernard: Election, Tuesday, November 8, 2011

/0 Comments/in , , /by

This is an off-year election, but nonetheless with very important local issues.
It brings to mind the 2009 local election in my town, which I wrote about in this space a year ago. You can read it here.
If you don’t care to read the piece linked above, succinctly: there were ten candidates for four school board seats: “When the votes were tallied, the numbers revealed that only 6% – one of every 16 – eligible voters had even bothered to go to the polls. The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes polled 3% of those same eligible voters. That person sits in office today because one of every 33 local citizens took the time to vote.”
A somewhat similar scenario faces us tomorrow. I will report (by update on this post) after November 8. I don’t expect miracles.
Whether one votes, or not; or casts an informed vote, or not, they are in reality “voting”.
A vote is too precious a thing to waste.
If there’s an election in your town, Tuesday, find out what the issues/candidates are and do your best to not only vote, but vote well-informed.

#467 – Dick Bernard: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Reform? Cuts?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A few days ago three of us (photo of the other two at the end of this post) engaged in a brief conversation about the Big Three safety net programs of the U.S. Government: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
I am six years into my Medicare years so I know from experience how it works (very efficiently); ditto for Social Security. I have somewhat less knowledge about Medicaid, but neither is that an alien concept to me.
The question was raised: “what are your thoughts?”
I responded that I wasn’t concerned about talk about “reform”. The immediate retort from one of the others was “but the issue is CUTS”.
Good point.
Still, I have a hard time sharing the rage of that old guy (probably younger than me!) in the AARP commercial who threatens the wrath of 50,000,000 members if anybody dares try to cut AARP members earned government benefits (I’ve earned those same benefits, too; I’m also one of those 50,000,000).
But I don’t think it’s quite that simple as simply rejecting CUTS or REFORM.
Here’s why I think we should be a bit more flexible.
These are huge programs with long histories and from time to time careful review and prudent adjustment are very appropriate. Indeed, these programs have been reformed from time to time over their respective histories. It is a natural part of the process.
Sure, there are the nefarious elements who say they would like to eliminate the programs, but even given that possible fact, I’m not sure the near hysteria I see in my e-mail inbox is warranted.
On the one hand – the consumer – the issue is about receiving a particular benefit, say medical care, for a certain cost. Certainly I wouldn’t want mine “cut”. Might some aspects be “reformed”? Of course.
I don’t think anyone expects to get Medicare et al for ‘free’. After six years I know that there is a substantial cost: Medicare premiums paid out of the Social Security check; additional premiums for supplemental insurance which is essential; extra for non-reimbursable deductibles; plus payment (in our case) for what we consider essential Long Term Care insurance to cover the possibility of very expensive nursing home care later.
There is nothing that comes for nothing. Directly or indirectly we paid into these programs for years, and in the case of Medicare, we continue to pay. It isn’t “free”.
On the other side of the transaction, I also am very aware that all of those Medicare, etc., dollars go somewhere, and the most likely somewhere is into the pockets of the companies, doctors, etc., who receive Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, or the stores and others who derive secondary benefit from those Social Security checks received by so many of us. (I once lived in a fairly large community where it was said that the major income stream for the town was Social Security checks. It was down economic times there, and I think it was right. Get rid of Social Security and that town would have been dead.)
Absent Medicare and Medicaid, many people would not be able to afford even essential care, which would take money out of the pockets of those in hospitals, clinics, etc. Even insurance companies would lose. Procedures now paid by Medicare and Medicaid, eliminated, would HURT the entire health industry, and hurt it badly. Think almost routine procedures (today) like cataract operations.
Very simply, it is in NO ONE’s selfish interest to “cut” anything – including those who are mistrusted on the other side of the conversation. But without reform, the programs are not sustainable long term.
It is, in my opinion, in EVERYONE’s best interest to look at possible reforms to, for instance, attempt to deal with rampant corruption – false billings, etc. – which cost everybody.
It is frightening to even consider the possibility that maybe there are some things that might be done to make a great system even better especially in today’s political climate.
But I think the alternative is even worse, and sooner than later many issues need to be addressed.

Nancy Adams and Barb Powell Oct 29, 2011

#466 – Dick Bernard: Comments on Heritage #5, All Saints Day, 2011

/0 Comments/in , /by

Heritage #5,the originating post, is here. The comments as received via e-mail are below. One person commented in the ‘comments’ box at the end of Heritage #5 (see Dan, below). I express my own thoughts at the end of this post.
There were several comments at Twin Cities Daily Planet posting. They can be accessed here (scroll up if you wish to see the entire post as it appeared on the Daily Planet).
Jeff, whose comment was included in the original Heritage #5, added this note: I re-read the comment [#2 in the Daily Planet]. I certainly would be willing to fight the historical side of it. Its pretty hard to not define the Church as authoritarian since as you say it is what is called Apostolic. Rule passed down from Christ to his apostles and the head to be Peter who became the Bishop of Rome thence passed down as the papacy.
In modern history most of the time (not all) the church leadership is conservative and tends to side with authoritarian governments. I think of Italy, Spain, France mainly but one could argue that in Poland they were against the communist authoritarians, and in some Latin American countries they were as well in the 20th century.
But most of the history which tends to be in Latin America and Europe the church was generally aligned with the forces of authoritarianism and against reform. Its just a fact. After the Reformation the main Catholic states were the Hapsburg Empire and its fiefs (Spain and Austria , non Orthodox east Europe, and south Germany and the Rhineland) and France (certainly we would know of Richelieu and Mazarin who were Cardinals and major players in the French empire)
One could argue that an Americans view of history has always been filtered thru English glasses and certainly the English view of Catholic France and Catholic Spain (and Catholic Ireland) was always one of conflict and those nations are always viewed as “papist”, non democratic, etc. minions of Rome (not that the English subjects at least until the 18th century weren’t for the most part all minions of their royal or Cromwellian head)
From alignment with the Roman Empire to Charlemagne to the Hapsburgs most of early and early modern European history of the Church is pretty much one side. The prelates, bishops, cardinals, popes, and abbots were all landed property owners and protecting their own.
COMMENT TO JEFF’S FROM DICK: One of the real surprises to me was the Church’s opposition to liberation theology in Latin America, including from Pope John Paul II, and especially Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who became the current Pope. I sense that said liberation theology was viewed as a threat to the Church’s idea of its authority. There was an element of fear, almost paranoia, of other ideologies taking root as well. Paradoxically, this resistance to a movement (Liberation Theology) devoted to simple issues of justice for the dispossessed seems to have backfired, and helped other movements, like the pentecostals, to make inroads in formerly Catholic dominant countries.
Joyce, from suburban St. Paul: One interesting thought, Dick, is that when the Latin mass was instituted, Latin was the vernacular, the common language, so the mass would have been widely understood. When Vatican II allowed masses in the vernacular, the church was, in effect, returning to an earlier tradition!
Dan, from the Twin Cities: Catholics are a lot less doctrinaire than many in the church hierarchy would presumably prefer.
Flo, in north central Minnesota: As you know I, too, was born and raised Catholic. After marriage outside of the church, for which I refused to sign the document required by the Catholic Church, Carter, an ELCA Lutheran, and I chose to become United Methodist. It was profoundly hurtful to be dis-invited to attend Catholic Mass with Mom and Dad when they visited and received Communion, because a member of the local Catholic Church objected. Where no-one knew me I still attended Mass and had Communion with them. Then came the Catholic wedding of a dear niece. In the bulletin, non-Catholics were told that they could come forward for a blessing, but could not receive Communion.
The United Methodist Church received us into membership, honoring our Baptisms, without doctrinal constraints. The United Methodist Church declares that it has OPEN HEARTS, OPEN MINDS AND OPEN DOORS, even now. Still there is a very active movement within the Church to CLOSE HEARTS, CLOSE MINDS, AND CLOSE DOORS, by adopting a doctrine.
For these reasons and many others, I often wonder if I can continue to support any CHRISTIAN church. Surely, even Jesus Christ, himself, wouldn’t be welcome because his activism and politics led him to minister to those who did not have favor with the religious and political powers of the time. Still, I was born and raised Catholic …
SAK, from London England: I read your post with interest.
I had just heard a documentary about the 30
years war (one of three parts of “The Invention of Germany”* – extremely
interesting & shows how wrong stereotypes or received ideas & views can be).
It was a horrendous war in which, as usual, politics & power struggles
mingled with religion. The main casualty was “Germany” (in quotes since the
country did not exist then.
I have always admired Martin Luther’s “Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht
anders” (“Here I stand, I can do no other”).
But after the violent mess I see spreading (North Africa – Middle East –
Central Asia …) I can’t help but reconsider. Could he really not have done
otherwise? Had he known how the Reformation-Counter Reformation & the
ensuing wars would develop would he still have proceeded in the same manner?
As Maurice Ravel put it: if you need fresh air why throw a chair at the
window if you can simply open it? I know opening (somewhat jammed) windows
can take time & patience but it has its non-violent advantages. Furthermore
violence is rarely forgotten & its consequences roll down the ages. I can
see that one should be able to discuss the Gospels but perhaps
interpretations should be humbly advanced and not preached from atop high
horses. There is no need for vehemently attacking any who hold different
interpretations. This goes for the lay persons and to a lesser degree for
the church. Although the reformation could have been differently & less
violently advanced, I still believe that along with a reverence for
tradition religion is in constant need of reform. The Catholic church is
much more democratic now and has a growing ear to the ground. As more and
more priests express reforming ideas I believe things will change gradually.
I cannot see the church of today supporting obviously cruel unreasonable
dictators. Progress has been made and more modernisation & justice can be
achieved peacefully I hope.
* Links included: here, here and here.
Lyle, a retired minister: Thank you, Dick, for your thoughtful and penetrating view of the Roman Catholic Church. You cover a great deal of ground and offer those of us outside the R.C. Church empathetic insights in understanding of that large and varied ecclesiastical body. In the rural community in which I grew up, we had close friends in the R.C. Church and did a fair job in accommodating each other’s differences. E. g. in our 4-H club we met on Friday evening, but would wait until after midnight so that our 4-H friends could enjoy the meat contained in some of the hot dishes which had been brought for a shared meal! I also took two years of piano lessons from a nun who was very kind and able.
If you haven’t read it, you might enjoy Roland Baintan’s Here I Stand. Baintan was a professor at Yale Divinity School and his book is about Martin Luther’s life.
Thank you again for your insightful blog–and also the excellent sermon forwarded by a Jewish friend!
Connie, in big city Texas, roots in rural Michigan, who I got to know a few years ago as a very active Catholic in Minneapolis: I just read your blog article.. “Awesome”!! You guys [including respondent Jeff] got it right. I think it, but you all say it best. Thanks.
I responded to a Huffington Post article yesterday about the “Power of the Church” in Government and the Abortion issue among others..
And in my little note I did pick on the Bishops and the one [specific one] … He is going to be a factor in the future.. I’d keep an eye on him.
I heard/read about the changes in the Mass at my downtown/3blocks away church/where I hear the bells ringing every day..nice bellringing!! It’s “Our Lady of Gaudalupe”.
Very old historical Church.. Lovely.. Sits around a ton of skyscrapers in the Arts district like a mushroom in the tall pines!!
It is made up largely of Hispanics.. Very vibrant group who are very very active.. More Spanish speaking masses on the weekend than English…But it seems
well attended when I attended.. on occasion . Yes, I’ve become that Lapsed Catholic you speak of..
Rita from Twin Cities: Dick – Good to read your blog. Personally, I gave up on the Catholic
Church many years ago. I just talked with a relative from another
state who was asked from the pulpit to contribute to the legal defense
for priests accused of molesting children.She was absolutely
incredulous and said, “I’m done.” Thanks for your emails. Rita
Marcia, from Arizona: Thanks for this info. I am interested in the topic of religion in general. I like taking a birds eye view most of the time, but can enjoy an “ant’s view now and then. 🙂
Some people say the only things you can count on are death and taxes….but for me the only thing you can count on is CHANGE… and there are changes in both death and taxes! lol
This brought to mind what I posted on FaceBook yesterday. The quote from Baha’u’llah was in a letter to the Kings of the earth and how they treat their subjects. And then I added my own two cents worth. lol
“Know for a certainty, however, that whatever your hands or the hands of the infidels have wrought will never, as they never did of old, change the Cause of God or alter His ways.” (Summons of the Lord of Host, p 224,par 95)
Wondering when…if ever, we, the human race, will ever give it up and realize that it’s God who will always have the last word. lol
Molly from Twin Cities: Thanks for this follow-up post. I’d read the article when you sent the first note (thanks for that one, too). It was a terrific overview. I was raised RC, also, and left in my mid-20’s. I did not go away mad, I just went away empty, but with gratitude & recognition for the part it played in my upbringing. I wound up “dropping out” of churches till my mid ’40’s. I’m very happy where I am, at MacPlymouth, though, because of its message of love and social justice…
Anyway, I really appreciate your notes at the end of the comments. And agree, re its deadly alignment with political money & power being preached from the pulpit… (and, its dreadful role in trying to quell liberation theology in Central America, sigh…)
My late Dad, also a lifelong Catholic, said, during a conversation re directions of the Church (I believe that discussion was about how much the Church misses out on by not allowing ordination of women) “The Church persists in asking the wrong questions.” Wow. What a great observation.
My Dad was all about love and quietly helping others, and the Church keeps forgetting that part of the New Testament message as it gets embroiled in control… Again, sigh…
Lucy from Minneapolis: Thanks for sharing your thoughtful (as usual) writing, Dick. Thought you might be interested in this link I came across yesterday.
It’s written by a 16 year old Latin student who does a great job of taking the new liturgy to task. I think he did a great job of expressing the discontent I feel–plus he’s got a good grip on the Latin!
POST NOTE FROM DICK BERNARD:
There is some of what I might call irony in the situation which led me to write this post in the first place.
On the one hand, the hierarchical Church has chosen to very publicly roll out a new translation of the Mass, calling attention to something, words, that most people, including active Catholics, would find of little interest or relevance and which are of no consequence whatsoever, except to purists.
On the other hand, this same Church has from time immemorial caused no end of damage to itself by its penchant for secrecy in very serious matters with great consequences such as the long-standing and unfortunately still ongoing scandals of sexual abuse.
It seems that there should be some learning by the Church, here.
I doubt there will be, and the erosion of active and committed membership will continue, silent and impossible to control.
The Catholic Church – MY Church – has since Roman Emperor Constantine in about 300 aligned itself with temporal power. Jeff’s comments are a good summary of that. Since then it has been ruled exclusively by a small fraternity of men who select themselves, and in turn select men as local leaders, our Priests. The Church is the consummate example of a hierarchical model of rulership.
For most of my life, until recent years, the Church has known its role, as a religious entity, separate from the political entity. It should have stayed there. While large – at most one-fourth of Americans are said to be “Catholic” in some estimates – it is by no means a reliable bloc of people who think alike. I’m an active Catholic and my concerns are doubtless shared by a great number of my fellow Catholics, including many who do not darken the church doors.
Most recently, often in alliance with other authoritarian religious leaders from other denominations, the hierarchy has very boldly ventured into the political arena pushing its own specific political agenda. I don’t need to enumerate the many ways.
The hierarchy is well-funded, of course, and controls the Church treasury, and it can afford the expensive lawyers to keep it from venturing too far into the weeds of violating separation of Church and State; and it has the money and the public relations capacity to manipulate and attempt to form public opinion, including within the pews of its churches.
Whether it has the legal and public relations and financial power to move its political agenda is not a question with me. It is powerful.
The more important question is what the Church – and the State of which it is a part – will become if it is successful.
At the same time as it demonstrates its Power and Authority (pleasing to the authoritarians); it is slowly but surely losing its core base – people who have been the heart of the good work the Church has done over the centuries. If this is what it wants, so be it.
But there can be a very high cost to “winning”, short and long term.
I plan to stay with the Church, and do what I can from inside the walls.
For everyone, whether you agree with me or not, be wary. Sometimes power plays can backfire, and have serious and unintended consequences.
UPDATE Nov. 28, 2011
This past weekend was the official “roll out” of the new Missal. It is scarcely worth the report. The biggest adjustment will be for the Priests.
I sent the initial blog post on Nov. 1 to ten Catholic Priests, most of whom I know only from the perspective of a ‘parishioner’. Five of ten responded, none disagreeing with me (I was surprised that so many took the time to respond, and through e-mail). One, with perhaps 30 years service as a Catholic Priest, now in southwest U.S., gave me permission to post his response, which follows: “Thank you for your thoughts on the direction of the Catholic Church. I for one am like Peter, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” this is one reason why I am a Franciscan. I have a foot in the ‘peace and justice movement of the Catholic tradition’.. As such, on the inside, I effect change – and am changed as well. I choose to ‘open the window and the door’ and not do violence to myself or anyone else. Yes, there are things that drive me crazy about the crazy neo-cons in positions of authority in the Church, but for me the real Catholics that witness to me are those who are presently encamped with the Occupy movement – and feeding the poor. For those who have ‘given up’ on the Church. How much have they given up on the Gospel? Where is their community that holds them accountable? Do they honestly believe that there is any other moral authority in the world today big enough to counter the powerful forces of greed and militarism than the Catholic Church? I’m staying in and fighting with the moral authority of Christ. You can’t do it with relativism.”
Another Priest-respondent recommended a blog site which I am finding quite interesting. It is PrayTellBlog, which you can access here. This blog includes large numbers of reactions to this weekend (nearly 100 at last look). Suggestion: scroll to Nov. 27 entry.
Personal from Dick Bernard: We attended 5 p.m. Mass on Saturday – not our usual time – so could not get the sense of our 9:30 a.m. community. It is already old news so hardly worth comment. It will be with us until the next revision years from now. Some will consider it a victory. I don’t see it as adding anything to the Mass. Exalting form over substance comes to mind.
I was interested in the comment of a friend who converted to Catholicism about 1982, and remains part of the church. He noticed, “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”, which is old hat to we pre-Vatican 2 types, but was very foreign to him.
UPDATE December 11, 2011:
After Sunday Mass today I wrote a blog entitled “Going to Hell” (Church today was very positive, as usual, but I keep thinking of a TV program I watched about 24 hours ago.)
We’re in the third week of the new Missal (small portion illustrated below), and about all I’ve noticed is that the paper program book we receive each Sunday has been revised by omission of the text of the Epistles and Gospel reading. This is likely to accommodate the new language which we are supposed to communally recite without increasing printing costs.
For me, a lot is lost without the readings as we once saw them. I have been to Mass at another Church since the change, and their routine was a bit different.

It has been and will be, in my opinion, much ado about little or nothing.
Or, perhaps, it is much more significant, and troubling. In the Preface of my Grandmother’s 1906 Douay-Rheims (Catholic) Bible (see below, click to enlarge) is the following statement by Right Rev. Henry A. Brann, D.D.: “[The Church] has even restricted by legislation the promiscuous reading of the Bible by the uncultured and the ignorant who sometimes have presumed to interpret even the most difficult passages….”

Portion of Preface to 1906 Douay-Rheims Bible, by Rt. Rev. Henry A. Brann D.D.

#465 – Dick Bernard: Heritage #5. All Saints Day 2011. The Words of the new Catholic Mass from an older Catholics point of view.

/1 Comment/in , /by

UPDATE November 4, 2011: All comments are accessible in the November 3 post, accessible here Further comments will be added to this post if/as they are received. Check back from time to time.
PRE-NOTE: Heritage #1-4 begin October 5. What motivates this rather long column on religion and the politics connected with it is a sermon given by a prominent Congregational Pastor who is a good friend and colleague of the highly respected Catholic Priest who married my wife and I. The sermon was forwarded to me by another friend who is Jewish. The sermon is worth the time to read. It is not the topic of the following, but its contents directly relate.
Comments about this post are welcome, and will be added to the end if received by e-mail. There is one comment already. Check back once in awhile if interested in future comments (if any).
This is my turn to talk about an often confusing issue: my Catholic Church. The opinions expressed are my own. The Catholic Church is a very large organization dominated and run by a very small group of men with a political structure designed to perpetuate a certain point of view, and it is not comfortable for even an active layperson like myself to express a contrary opinion. But there is a time, and the time is now.
Nestled at page A14 of Sunday’s Minneapolis Star Tribune, the only article on the page, was this item from the Washington Post: “FOR CATHOLICS, A REVISED MASS“.
The news in the Star Tribune article was not a surprise. We Catholics have been hearing about its coming for a year. The new words arrive officially on Advent, the beginning of the new Church year.
For some Catholics these new words may be a joyous development, for others (me included) they are unnecessary, ill-advised, divisive and they are a sign of an irreversible mandate of current church leadership to go backward as much as possible to the old days before Vatican II (early 1960s).
For most people who are counted as Catholics the language change will be meaningless. Rather than a sign of unity, the new imposed language is a sign of further division within the Catholic Church, and in my opinion no encouragement for ecumenism, even within the Catholic community itself.
I am a lifelong Catholic and an active one. Three times this past month I’ve ushered at the Basilica of St. Mary, the pro-Cathedral of the St. Paul Archdiocese. I rarely miss Sunday Mass. In fact, I like going to Mass. It ends and begins my week, every week. The new text will not change my habit or tradition. We receive the Archdiocesan newspaper, and I particularly read the Archbishops opinions. I’m pretty well informed.

1914 Postcard of the envisioned (then under construction) Basilica of St. Mary Minneapolis


I’ll live out my life as a Catholic, but this is not to say there is only a single definition of what a “Catholic” is. Ask any Catholic who cares, and you can get an opinion, by no means all the same.
All is not quiet within the walls of Catholicism.
The Old Days
I grew up in what I have always called “Catholic Catholic” families from rural midwest communities. Catholicism was central to their lives, both on the German and French-Canadian sides, going way back. My parents, born in the first decade of the 20th century, carried the tradition forward and were devout Catholics. Had Dad been able to master Latin, I likely wouldn’t exist. He wanted to be a Priest like his fellow Altarboy, Ed McDonald, who later became a Priest, later a Monsignor, and in 1937 “Father Ed” married Mom and Dad, Henry and Esther. Priests and Nuns came from my root families. In many ways, I am my father’s son (Henry Bernard, R.I.P. Nov. 7, 1997)
Those were the good old days when the language of the Mass was Latin, and the only way to follow along was a bilingual Missal: English (or German, or…) on one side, Latin on the other.
The Priest was an authority figure – “Father” – separate from and superior to the faithful.

Page of Henry Bernard's well used St. Joseph Missal, a gift he received in 1956


The people were essential to the Church but subordinate.
Grandma Bernard’s 1906 edition of Douay-Reims (Catholic) Bible had the below clear warning in its Preface. I’ve often wondered if Grandma, with a 6th Grade Education, ever read that Preface, or cared what it said (click to enlarge).

1906 Douay-Rheims Bible, imprimatur His Eminence John Cardinal Farley, The E.M. Lohmann Co St. Paul MN


Back then, Church boundaries were sacrosanct: if you lived within a churches neighborhood, that was the church you attended. This was easy to enforce as people had less mobility than today. Each year parishioners financial giving was published. It was always interesting to read who gave, and how much.
Ecumenism (simply getting along with other denominations) was frowned upon. There was suspicion and distrust, one denomination to another. Pre-Vatican II, I would not have seen a Congregational ministers sermon sent to me by a Jew. For a time in the 1920s, a main target of the Ku Klux Klan was Catholics. Where dominant, Catholics were not kind to Protestants or Jews.
Most marriages, at least within religions, were within a specific culture: i.e. French-Canadian Catholic married French-Canadian Catholic. Interdenominational marriage did not happen inside a church, at least not in a Catholic Church.
Change to the new.
October 1962 to December 1965, now nearing 50 years in the past, was the Second Vatican Council, a time of change, . When Vatican II began I had already graduated from college, and was in the Army. Pope John XXIII (Pope 1958-63) had figuratively opened the church windows to change many Catholic practices in many ways. While I don’t know this for sure, I think the same dynamic was happening within other denominations.
Ecumenism flourished. We learned that Methodists were okay, and they got to know Catholics as real people, not as agents of a foreign power, the Vatican.
Most of us now living have spent more than half our lives in Post-Vatican II.
The present.
I’ve observed in my many years around the church that it is at minimum two separate “Catholic” churches.

There is the official business entity, the hierarchy, the Bishops and on up the line to the Vatican. Our local Archbishop defined the Catholic Church power structure very well in his column in the Diocesan newspaper June 9, 2011: “The Minnesota Catholic Conference [is] made up of the seven Catholic bishops from the state”. The Bishops, not the people, are the official voice of the Church. They keep their own counsel, consistent with Rome; they are not selected by the approximately one million people they are said to represent, nor are they under any obligation to seek input or listen to that input from the parishioners. This is the Church which owns the property. If there is a “Catholic” position, the Bishops are the ones who speak it. It is just how it is. They are the language of power. They are heavily involved in political issues – all legal, of course.
The other Catholic Church is the people I see in the pews every Sunday, and those in other pews in other Catholic Churches. These garden variety Catholics are a diverse lot, not easy to typecast. Some of these like an authoritarian Church.
But few of us are in the pews.
In a revealing document I saw and kept in June, 2009, an official Archdiocesan planning committee said that only “34% of registered Catholics” attend Mass on Saturday evening or Sunday, and that “this Archdiocese is aligned with the national estimate.”
Succinctly, apparently two-thirds of registered “Catholics” don’t go to Church, at least not on a regular basis.
Other non-participants may represent a third Catholic Church: ask them, and they will say they were raised Catholic, or baptized, but that is about it.
To be Catholic is to not fit into a particular niche.
I think non-Catholics find Catholicism puzzling, and I think a large part of this comes from the tension between the officialdom at the top, and the rest of us. Another reason is that the Church is not an open book: there is always an intended and strong element of mystery to it, and not in the sacramental sense. It’s “none of your business”.
There are endless tensions these days, and they are conveyed sometimes not too subtly in sermons and bulletin commentary. On Sunday we were informed that our Church was significantly short in its budget, and there was an urgent appeal to help cover the shortfall. Absent adequate money, programs begin to suffer. Giving is voluntary, of course, and at least one reason might be one or another areas of disagreement with something the Church (not necessarily the Parish or the Priest) has done.
Perhaps we’ll write an additional check, but part of me resists….
The Priests – what is left of them, and they are a dying breed – are caught in the middle of all of this, and do not all think alike. They are not free agents. They are representatives of the hierarchy – the Church. But they are not all cut from the same ideological cloth. As is true of their parishioners, they have their own points of view.
At our church, we often see visiting Priests, as retired Priests, Professors, Monks and the like. Succinctly, there are few Priests to go around, even for very large congregations such as ours. I do listen very carefully to sermons from the Priests as they interpret the text of the day.
Many of these clerics are brilliant people. My guess is that some of their messages rankle the authoritarians in the pews.
Nuns? These were the true sheroes (not misspelled) of justice and peace, the essence of the Catholicism I love: hospitals, schools, etc. I was proud to know a number of them quite well. Today, Nuns exist, but barely. Years ago they were a cheap and exploited “human resource” but vocations are few and far between these days.
Future
The Catholic Church will not disappear. It is far too large and it has been around too long. On the other hand, we are a pluralistic country, of many beliefs and traditions. No one of these can or should dominate.
I think that my Church is in for ever rougher times as the authoritarian fringe attempts to reestablish control and bring back the “good old days”.
The new Mass text will come – that is a given. Missal publishers will make a mint on the new business, though I doubt there will be a huge market for the Missals – that would happen only if they went back to Latin. The new text will not help bring unity, and I think the hierarchy knows this: thus the long roll-out process.
One could laugh, back in the 1950s, about the fear of the “Pope’s Army” preparing to take over. I used to envision church ladies with machine-guns in Church basements. For me, it isn’t such a laughing matter any more. There is an “Army” and it is being used. Only the weapons are different. I do see a growing abuse of power originating in Rome.
The Church, with all its many faults, has done immense good through history (think Catholic Charities, Catholic Hospitals and the like.) The true core of the Catholic tradition, the essence of the Christian scripture, is peace and justice.
But the current dominant and authoritarian leadership is not well serving the Catholic Church.
Can the Church recover the glory of the old days? I don’t see such a scenario. I’m told the all-Catholic Quebec of my ancestors is full of beautiful and almost empty churches today. Some years ago I heard that Rome itself is considered mission territory by the Vatican.
Will the new changes make a positive difference overall? I have my doubts.
END NOTE: I belong to a very large Church prominent among the Catholic Churches in this area. Big prominent places like my Church tend to get favored treatment.
It is further down the line – the smaller rural parishes – where the tensions and disproportion of power between laity and hierarchy become more visible and the issues more urgent.
Earlier this month I was at a vibrant rural, now suburban, parish in another state. The church was packed for the weekend Mass. At the back of the church was a handout prepared by the pastor. That handout is here, with identifying information redacted. Church Decision001 It is not necessary to read between the lines. Succinctly, what the Parish could accomplish and wanted was subordinate to the Bishop’s wishes.
UPDATE:
My good friend, Jeff, spent most of his life as a practicing Catholic until his particular last straw several years ago. Here’s his comment:
A good discourse my friend. Well undertaken and drawn.
I also think much good has been done over the centuries by Catholic entities, you mentioned a few.
However , as a historian, I would say the evidence in respect to the presence and influence of the Catholic church falls heavily on the authoritarian side. (I don’t need to cite the terrible history of the Inquisition, going hand in hand with imperialism and colonialism, the sad record of the leadership in WWII (not to denigrate the very many Catholic priests and nuns who were on the right side), right up to the record of the current leadership which is well fleshed out by your article)
Dorothy Day, Catholic support for the Labor movement, the liberation theologies and movements in 1960-1990 Latin America, the peace and justice movement are really relatively minor compared to the historical record of the institutional church and its authoritarian history commingled with Spanish/Portuguese imperialism, Catholic anti democratic alignments generally in Europe from before the Reformation to the 21st century. In general the Church aligned itself against the forces of reform, Enlightenment and democratic self determination nearly every step of the way. And generally the most Catholic countries became both democratic and economic backwaters with few exceptions, France being one, but I suspect you know the history of Modern France since the Revolution was one in which the prerogatives of the Catholic church and clergy were really stopped in a hard way by the French govt/people for the most part — I would not say the record is 100% one sided, but lets say it is certainly heavy to one side.
So your comment is very well drawn, but I would say that the period of Vatican II which essentially lasted into the late 80’s was a minor aberration.
I respect your fight. Keep it up, I still read the weekly archdiocesan paper with a lot of empathy for the faithful, and with incredulous disdain for the official propaganda espoused there.
Final note: Ethnic Catholicism in America is a good topic… historical Irish and German Catholicism being quite a bit different than Italian and French Catholicism. And of course there is Polish Catholicism and now Hispanic Catholicism… and even African Catholicism , or Asian (Vietnamese and Filipino and Indian) Catholicism….
A diverse and un-stereotypical bunch.. indeed.
Also I would say that many Catholic clergy and laypeople obviously over the centuries were on the anti authoritarian side. (the Spanish Civil war was a good example, however its typical that again the Catholic church was for the most part aligned with Franco, even though there were some courageous dissidents on the other side) Also the Church does have a tendency like American political parties, to go thru periods of internal disequilibrium followed by dissent, co-opting the dissent and finally reform within the institutions…. Certainly that was true in the case of the Pre Reformation church in light of the Cluniac reforms, Franciscan movement, and the ability of Thomas Aquinas to bring the rational thought of Aristotle into the Church and Western culture, and even some of the Counter Reformation (which had some merits, but was a bit more like the movement you are seeing now… lol)
UPDATE November 4, 2011: All comments are accessible here.