REIGN OF THE SACRED HEART

Final Reflections

4/20/2021

My Heart Called Me to Social Justice Ministry

For some Dehonians, advocacy may seem too removed from the personal contact with the poor and downtrodden that is so central to their charism. In South Dakota, in Mississippi, and in Houston, SCJs minister “up close” to people living in some of the poorest areas of our country. Advocacy, by contrast, is often done from the comfort of home or office, or in the halls of government, or in corporate suites (or, some might even say, from an ivory tower). It’s from a distance, and that may not seem to fit it with the Dehonian stress on “the heart” – not just the Sacred Heart of Jesus, but the human heart that is touched and moved to action by compassion for the hungry, the homeless, the incarcerated, and the rejected refugee or asylum-seeker.

But what if I told you that advocacy is my life’s ministry because direct service broke my heart? It was things like a mission trip to Appalachia in the seminary, serving in soup kitchens, making St. Vincent de Paul visits, or more recently, teaching English and citizenship to resettled refugees from Myanmar that lit my fire for social justice and keep it burning.

But it wasn’t the service per se that affected me so deeply. It was hearing their stories, meeting their families, seeing their deep faith. Encountering Christ in the poor, the elderly, the mentally ill, the addict, is not something you do and then easily go back to your comfortable (SO comfortable!) life. Their faces and stories haunt you. They can make you sob, and they can make you very angry as well, at a society that treats them like garbage.

I remember a quote from a long time ago from someone who saw teeming poverty up close in India, and said that at first, it made him want to scream at God for allowing such suffering. Then he realized that through those suffering faces, God was screaming at him to do something! That’s the way I’ve felt since I was 19, that God is screaming at us to do something – and not just to feed the hungry, but to END HUNGER. Not just to shelter the homeless, but to END HOMELESSNESS in a nation that is surely wealthy enough to do so if it cared to.

That’s when I read the book, Bread for the World, by Art Simon, who founded the organization of the same name almost half a century ago. In it, he outlines the many “root causes” of hunger both in the U.S. and globally, from food production and distribution to international trade rules to foreign aid, and to our own personal attitudes and behaviors. But I never forgot one thing he said in that book:

“All the charity in the U.S. combined is
dwarfed by government assistance.”

Art Simon turns 90 this year, but he came out with a new book very recently entitled Silence is Deadly, referring to our failure, particularly Christians, to use the power of citizenship against hunger. He writes: “Our failure to speak and write to members of Congress about hunger consigns millions of people here and abroad to diminished lives and premature death, so it is a silence that kills. We can break that silence by urging the nation's leaders to help end hunger and humanize our economy.”

In an interview about the book, Simon adds: “Charity is a wonderful thing. Charity is essential and I’m still actively part of charitable efforts in hunger. But charity can only do so much. It’s quite limited in what it can do in the long run. It doesn’t have a sufficient spread to reach people who need the help and it doesn’t have the authority to make decisions for the nation as a whole. To end hunger — even to reduce hunger — we’ve got to get the whole nation behind it.”

Fr. Dehon said something very similar: “Charity is a palliative which is always welcome and often necessary; but it does not attack the root of the evil.” Why then, does advocacy receive such short shrift in the U.S. Province? Some have suggested to me that “direct service” is social justice, and there is a sense in which that is true, but it is not the same as social justice. In a world of social justice, charity would not be necessary. And properly understood, charity really ought to be that which is given in addition to justice, not in place of it.

That is why my ministry is social justice, and political activism, and advocacy. I cannot stop at helping one or a few when as a society we could help everyone in the same situation. As long as these injustices exist, my conscience hears God’s screams to CHANGE IT. I know that I need to serve the poor personally as well as out of my pocketbook, but I know just as well that all who primarily do service need to work for justice and be advocates on occasion as well.

Misperceptions about Social Justice and Catholic Social Teaching

Yet "JPR" still seems controversial to some. Some think it is too "political." Some don't see the value or the difference it makes. Some believe the work of service IS the work of social justice, while others feel that social justice advocates denigrate direct service. Is it possible there is some projection going on there? I’ve even come across several, especially younger and international SCJs (and other seminiarians), who claim that “social justice” sounds to them like socialism. First of all, I wonder why “socialism” is seen as such a deadly evil, but apparently not capitalism, which is assumed to be just. Secondly, this betrays a complete lack of understanding of the Church’s teaching on social justice.

Catholic social teaching is not “left” or “right,” though you can look at individual issues and call their position one or the other. Rather, its hallmark is its consistency – it begins and ends with the dignity of every human person and our sister and brotherhood with each other as children of God. This, not being “conservative,” is what drives the Church’s stance on abortion. This, not “liberalism,” is why the Church calls for social, economic and racial justice, equitable development, and alternatives to war and violence.

All this shows that we are somehow not doing the job we should be doing of integrating social justice into the SCJ formation (seminary formation in general, I would argue). Yet listen to these words from our newly-revised Ratio Formationis Provincialis:

“Our formation will challenge us to be with the poor in our ministries and in our lives, both by direct service and by working for structural changes. We will be open to letting this ministry affect our prayer and our lifestyle.”
“To accomplish these ends (“a specifically Dehonian formation”) the following elements are essential: … Formation to Hunger for Social Justice and Protection of Creation…”
“’Active Presence’ involves direct service to the materially poor in a variety of cultures and working for systemic change.”
“Social Justice Ministry is a fundamental part of what it means to be a Dehonian.”
“The goal is that this direct service will lead to a greater sense of solidarity with and compassion for those who are poor.”
“It is important that studies be accompanied by apostolic experiences of both a direct service and structural change nature so that this combination became the foundation and the spirit of the intellectual study.”
Effective apostolic work demands that all be given a solid understanding of the social, cultural, political and economic issues facing society.”
“Our mission in the Church demands a particular attention to the problems of justice, peace, reconciliation and the integrity of creation, and an appropriate and specialized preparation in these areas. As followers of Fr. Dehon, in our studies and our apostolates, we will, to the extent that we can, connect the theology of the Heart of Jesus with the social teaching of the Church.”

So very much to unpack here! First, the poor are at the heart of Christianity, and in a special way Dehonianism. Formation should challenge us to be with the poor, and to develop an “Active Presence” among them. Solidarity with and compassion toward the poor, In fact, is the central goal [my emphasis] of direct service. Not because of what it does for them – because of what it does for us.

However, direct service is given no “pride of place” (although it is most people’s first and too many people’s only experience of “active presence” among the poor). It is made clear more than once that formation, ministry, theology and the Congregation’s very mission itself are expressed not only through direct service but also “working for structural change.” “Active Presence” involves not only direct service but also “working for systemic change.” For students, it is “the combination” of direct service and structural change that must “become the foundation and the spirit of intellectual study.”

Essential to Dehonianism, in fact, is a “hunger” for social justice and protection of creation. Followers of Dehon should try to “connect the theology of the Heart of Jesus with the social teaching of the Church. It must affect not only our ministry but our spirituality, our prayer, our lifestyle.

Finally, to be effective ministry must have a “solid understanding of the social, cultural, political and economic issues facing society.” Carrying out the mission entrusted by Christ to his Church demands [my emphasis] a particular attention to the problems of justice, peace, reconciliation and the integrity of creation, and “appropriate and specialized preparation in these areas” is necessary.

How then can there be any controversy about JPR? And I won’t even go into your Constitutions and Rule of Life, but if you’re curious see Nos. 32, 36, 50, 51 and 61, as well as 34 General Directory (2) (last bullet), 51 General Directory (5) and #50 in the Provincial Directory.

Parting Words

I wanted to tell you my personal story of why I got into this work and why I am so passionate about it, and offer some reflections from an “outsider” on Dehonianism and social justice. Thanks for reading, thanks for everything you’ve read and considered these past seven years, and thank you for all that the US Province has done and will do to live out the vision of Fr. Dehon. May our paths cross again.

I leave you with the words of Filipino priest Edicio de la Torre:

Why are we here, a small group holding our torches? Do we think that we can dispel the darkness of the night? No, that would take millions of torches. The massive problems we face will not be overcome by a few. We need many, many more. So why do we hold our torches here in the night? So that there is enough light to see our companions beside us, and reassure ourselves that we are not alone in the dark. Because what we fear is not so much the dark, but being alone in the dark. And from afar, others will see our small brave community, and will feel greater courage to join. Because it is easier for others to join a group that has already taken a stand, rather than starting by themselves. Let us believe and imagine in our mind’s eye, that there are other groups of people who are holding their torches in the dark. Time will come when they will link to one another, and our lights will merge and be more powerful than the darkness.

0 Comments

Pope Francis's Solution to All the World's Ills

1/11/2021

2 Comments

2021 has not gotten off to a great start, for the U.S., at least. In this time of political turmoil, we could do much worse than to read Pope Francis’ 2020 encyclical, Fratelli Tutti. Papal biographer Austen Ivereigh sees it as the third of a “triptych” of encyclicals that focus on our relationships with God (Lumen Fidei), our relationships with the Earth (Laudato Si), and now our relationships with each other, not just interpersonally but societally and globally. Francis writes about all the problems facing civilization, and suggests a simple but so difficult solution – human relationship.

Dan Horan of Catholic Theological Union writes that the Pope’s key concept of “fraternitas,” while criticized as too male, is meant to show how we are all “inherently related to all women, men, and even nonhuman creatures as part of God's one family of creation.” Horan also notes Francis’ call to cross borders and build bridges: “…be passionate about meeting others, seeking points of contact, building bridges, planning a project that includes everyone"(216). The Pope, as often before, warns of the evils of apathy and indifference, which Horan describes as taking away our “capacity for compassion and promoting an individualism that creates separation and prohibits authentic relationship, resulting in social division and tremendous suffering by the poor and vulnerable.”

Toward the end of the encyclical, we read: "Those who work for tranquil social coexistence should never forget that inequality and lack of integral human development make peace impossible" (235). Francis appeals to all people of any faith to be agents of reconciliation, but not, Horan stresses, “at the expense of silencing or dismissing the discomfiting experiences and histories of those who have been victimized.” This is a big challenge for the U.S., which hates to dwell on things like the genocide of Native Americans or the enslavement and continuing oppression of African-Americans, our unjust war in Iraq, and now our mass violations of human rights at our southern border.

Dr. Anna Rowlands, St. Hilda Associate Professor of Catholic Social Thought at Durham University in the United Kingdom, comments: “I think what he’s asking for is for us to move away from all forms of culture that involve domination or social aggression,” she said, “into something that is built on the culture of encounter, and we have to do this across the board as a way to build social peace.” Again, “domination” and “aggression” have been hallmarks of U.S. global economic and foreign policies for generations under both parties at all times.

That is the challenge for us today as we face a world of every-growing divisions – between rich and poor, blacks and whites, nativists and immigrants, progressives and conservatives. Can we – as individuals, as communities, and as a nation, encounter those unlike us, hear their stories of injustice and violence with open hearts and respond with compassion and action, sacrificing our comfort for the common good? It may be the test of whether human life on this planet is sustainable, or worth living.

2 Comments

Time to Re-Think Abortion as a "Pre-Eminent Issue? A Personal Reflection

11/20/2020

The November election saw massive turnout for both major party candidates, and far fewer than usual for 3rd party candidates. In many ways, it felt less like a normal election between a Democrat and a Republican and more like a referendum on Donald J. Trump. I'll leave it to others to write about how President Trump is handling his defeat at the polls and his seemingly inevitable loss in the Electoral College, What I find most interesting and important as a Catholic is that overall we were split almost right down the middle in the final result.

However, the above story reports that Catholic voters, who make up 22% of the electorate, were sharply divided by race and ethnicity. White Catholics backed Trump 57% - 42% over Biden (in 2016, Trump won 64% of white Catholics and Clinton won 31%). But among Hispanic Catholics, 67% backed Biden to 32% for Trump ."The election results show that the Catholic Church is as divided as our nation, but the real divide is race and ethnicity, not theology," said David Gibson, director of Fordham University's Center on Religion and Culture.

How could Catholics be so divided on whether Pres. Trump deserved a second term? Some factors we simply cannot eliminate or ignore are racism, nativism and denial of the science behind the climate crisis. It's undeniable that many in the country have responded to his racial "dogwhistles," his demonization of immigrants, and his refusal to take climate change seriously. That many Catholics, even many in our pews every Sunday, also harbor these views should not shock us but should surely concern us, especially Catholic leaders, pastors and preachers.

For others, it may primarily have been the feeling that their economic prospects would be better under Trump. Yet others, like so many in the country, actually like what so many others see as Trump's "unpresidential" speech and behavior, because they have come to hate all politics and politicians and want someone to "burn it down." Again, no surprise that Catholics mirror the general population in that regard.

I haven't seen any surveys yet on this, but I also assume that for some, if not many or most, of the Catholics who voted Republican this time, it was first and foremost because of one issue: abortion. Our national Bishop's Conference made it clear this year as in every election for decades that abortion is the Church's "pre-eminent" political issue. But in this case you had a President who was "right" on abortion (in terms of calling himself "pro-life" and nominating extremely conservative judges who might be inclined to overturn Roe v Wade) and wrong - often glaringly, egregiously wrong - on every other issue the Church professes to care about: compassionate immigration, refugee and asylum policies, capital punishment, concern for the planet's sustainability, commitment to the poor, and desire for racial justice.

It begins to look as though "pre-eminent" means "only." Do the bishops really mean to tell us that abortion always and everywhere trumps (no pun intended) not only every other social justice issue, but all of them combined? I don't believe most of them would, but the bishops, who are currently worrying that Biden's "personally opposed but politically pro-choice position is "confusing" to everyday Catholics, should be just as concerned that they confuse the faithful when they preach social justice across the board but seem to be fine with a candidate who opposes them on every social issue but this one (I'm leaving out "religious liberty," which Bob Bossie reflected on last month, and school choice).

I have always supported the Church's teaching on abortion. Before working for the church, I worked for a pro-life Catholic (Democratic) candidate for U.S. Congress in 1981 (the only one of 10 in the primary - he came in fourth). I consider myself a "seamless garment" Catholic like Chicago Cardinals Bernadin and Cupich. I believe "left-wing" Christians need to be challenged by abortion every bit as much as "right-wing" Christians need to be challenged on human rights for all, welcoming the stranger, lifting up the poor, and non-violence. But I am against abortion for the very same reasons I am for immigrants and against "endless war" - because "ALL lives matter," because all children of God are my brothers and sisters, and because every person conceived and born has a sacred human dignity that comes from our Creator. And I don't believe being "pro-life" stops when a child is born.

In this article from America Magazine, a priest who works for Cardinal Cupich suggests that calling abortion a "foundational" political issue is much preferable to the word the bishops have been using. I think he's really on to something, and that showing that "all lives" should matter to us for the same reasons unborn lives do would help bring Catholics of the right and left find common ground in future elections, challenging both parties to become more pro-life. What do you think?

Another Dismal Year for Refugees

10/8/2019

1 Comment

By Mark Peters

On Sept. 29, we marked (celebrated seems the wrong word) the 105th Global Day for Migrants and Refugees. At Mass in St. Peter’s Square that day, Pope Francis noted: “Wars only affect some regions of the world, yet weapons of war are produced and sold in other regions which are then unwilling to take in the refugees generated by these conflicts. Those who pay the price are always the little ones, the poor, the most vulnerable, who are prevented from sitting at the table and are left with the ‘crumbs’ of the banquet.”

For the U.S., a century of not caring who paid the price of corporate exploitation, political meddling and "low-intensity warfare" in Central America has led to a refugee "crisis" (in quotes since the numbers haven't changed so much as how we're handling them) at our southern border. We may worry most about the ones that arrive, but many don’t even make it that far. The group No More Deaths reports 244 migrant deaths just in southern Arizona’s brutal desert border region since January 2018. That’s about two lives lost per week, with grieving families left behind. And those are only the bodies they’ve found. Many, many more are not found. Border Angels estimates that since 1994, about 10,000 people have died in their attempt to cross our southern border.

As poverty, violence and the dramatic effects of the climate crisis increasingly worsen living conditions in Central and South America, the refugee situation at our borders will only worsen. This is a worldwide trend. As of last year, according to new statistics from the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the population of people in the world displaced by conflict or persecution reached 70.8 million — more than double the number recorded in 2012.

The climate crisis has already created millions of invisible refugees and could create up to 1.5 billion more in the next 30 years. But under international law no country is obliged to take them in.

Catholic social teaching says that richer, larger countries that can do more to assist refugees and migrants have a moral obligation to do so. But the United States is not stepping up – last year, the U.S., with a GDP of nearly $20 trillion, took the fewest numbers of refugees in 40 years: only 22,491 people. It was just announced that this year, the limit will be 18,000 (110,000 were allowed in the last year of the Obama administration). By contrast, Turkey has been taking in over 3 million a year, and Lebanon has housed around 1.2 million Syrian refugees in its population of 4.5 million people – one in five people.

Developing countries shoulder a disproportionate amount of responsibility for hosting refugees with the poorest nations hosting 6.7 million individuals, a third of all refugees worldwide. These countries have the least resources to respond to people seeking refuge, when they are already facing structural barriers to development. Turkey, Pakistan, Uganda, Sudan, Germany, Iran, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Jordan all took in between three-quarters of a million (Jordan) to 3.7 million (Turkey) refugees each in 2017, mainly from Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Iritrea (UNHCR).

Meanwhile, following the administration’s decision to suspend foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador last April, an official with Catholic Relief Services testified that the aid had “helped Central Americans thrive in their own country, providing them with physical security and food,” and that cutting the programs “will create a vacuum for increased instability, poverty and migration.”

Many refugees are victims of war, oppression, gang violence, or domestic abuse and are deserving of asylum, but the Trump Administration is also attacking our asylum laws. Under its “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP), it has returned more than 48,000 asylum-seekers to await their court dates in Mexico, a country where kidnapping and assault of migrants is rampant. Over the course of two months, the Texas Observer uncovered multiple stories showing that the program includes no meaningful screening for even the most obvious threats to migrants’ safety and lives.

Then on Aug. 11, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the administration permission to enforce its toughest restriction yet on asylum seekers at the southern border. The Catholic Legal Immigration Network is now suing over this curtailing of asylum-seekers’ access to legal representation. Said a CLINIC attorney, “This is an hour of any asylum-seeker’s life that will change their life forever. If they pass this interview, they get the ability to submit an asylum application. If they fail it, they immediately get deported.”

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers recently issued a report claiming “massive and systematic human rights violations taking place at the United States of America southern border with Mexico.” They conclude that current policies are “not incidental or accidental violations of human rights, but clearly have been planned deliberately in an attempt to deter asylum seekers from requesting protection in the United States.” Another group reports that the U.S. immigration court backlog now exceeds a million cases, while The American Bar Association (ABA) concluded in a recent report on "Reforming the Immigration System" that the immigration courts are facing an existential crisis. They are irredeemably dysfunctional and on the brink of collapse.” The court backlog is on the verge of becoming so large that the government may have to suspend asylum hearings.

The administration’s changes to immigration policies and procedures, including the use of tent courts, the scarcity of immigration attorneys and a backlog surpassing 1 million cases, have led to some judges admitting that they decide certain cases “based on whether the decision would get them fired.”
The Associated Press reports that fake court dates are being issued in immigration court. A board member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association is quoted: “People have been ordered to appear on national holidays, on weekends and even at midnight — when we all know immigration court isn’t operating. They have no way of knowing without going to the immigration court if the date is real or not, spending extensive funds on counsel, and often traveling huge distances.”

On Sept. 13 the U.S.C.C.B. weighed in on immigration again, this time on plans that critics charge will mean the end of the United States as a safe haven for the world’s refugees. Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston and U.S.C.C.B. president, and Bishop Joe S. Vásquez, chair of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Migration, wrote: “Further reductions in the number of refugees allowed to seek freedom in the United States would be wholly counter to our values as a nation of immigrants. America welcomes refugees; that is who we are, that is what we do. Such reductions would undermine America’s leadership role as a global champion and protector of religious freedom and human rights.”

That’s the state of things today. When the 106th Global Day for Migrants and Refugees rolls around next year, will we be able to say that the Church’s teaching on migrants and refugees is any better known and accepted among Catholics themselves, let alone that our government’s policies come closer to reflecting Catholic values? And will those Catholics who stand with Pope Francis mobilize in the numbers necessary to resist immoral policies and demand justice for refugees and other forced migrants? Time will tell.

1 Comment

I AM A RECOVERING RACIST – Bob Bossie, SCJ

8/1/2019

2 Comments

Years ago I attended a workshop where I was taught to distinguish between racism and prejudice. Everyone has some form of prejudice that they carry, knowingly or unknowingly. It’s part of our culture.

As a boy of about 10-12 years of age, my dad took me and some of my siblings to the circus at Boston Garden. Like many such sport centers, it had several balconies. As we were being seated, I noticed that the top balcony was filled with, persons we call today, African Americans. I asked dad why that was so and he simply said that, that was “N____’s Heaven.” Because I had never heard that expression, or any other expression of its kind, in my family or among my friends, I sat in my seat pondered the meaning of his words. In a few moments I was distracted by the unfolding show…...

Later in life, I reflected that this discrimination was part of the culture. No more to be questioned than the air we breathe. And so, this young, white boy, and so many others like me, grew up carrying that prejudice -- as part of his DNA, you might say.

I suspect that people of color carry similar prejudices against others, be they “white”, a different religion, class or ethnic background. The workshop mentioned above, however, taught me that the difference between my prejudice and that of people of color is that, as a white, American man, I am part of society’s power structure. People of color are in positions of inferior power while I am not. In our society, it is not possible to imagine the top section of Boston Garden to be relegated to “Whites Only.”

Allow me to offer another example: a woman friend and I stopped at a gas station where she bought a candy bar. After she paid and we were about to leave, she said , “Oh, I forgot my receipt.” I said, “Linda, it’s only a candy bar.” She responded assertively, “Bob, I am black.” At that moment, her sense of her position in society became clear to me despite the fact that she was employed by a major consulting firm and commanded a six figure salary. I knew at that moment that my lacking a receipt for a candy bar would never be a concern for this white man.

That workshop taught me three facts:

1. Racism equals prejudice plus power.

2. Race is an artificial construct. Anthropologists tell us that, scientifically, there is no such thing as “race.” When people pass overland, skin color and features change gradually. The leader of the workshop I attended helped me and other attendees deal with this concept by asking us to write a list of all the things we like about being white or another race. I really couldn’t think of anything other than I seem to get a good tan when out in the sun. Then she asked us to write down a list of all the things we liked about our culture. Music, poetry, language, food, etc. immediately came to mind. Different cultures do exist but not races she reminded us.

3. By definition, all white people are racist. WHAT???? This was the hardest thing for me to accept. It took me many years to start to get my heard around this concept. This doesn’t mean I choose to be racist. Rather, as a white man, I am, by definition a racist, that is, I carry a position of power that persons of color do not. “White privilege” it’s called.

I have spent a good part of my adult years fighting against racism. But it is always true that I am part of the dominant race. For this reason, the words of a Chicago pastor continue to apply to me: My name is Robert Bossie, and I am a recovering racist. I guess the old saying bears truth day after day: if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

2 Comments

Iran-Iraq Connections

7/1/2019

2 Comments

By Bob Bossie, SCJ

In 1953, at the urging of the British government, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran -- yes, Iran. The reason was that Iran’s President Mossadegh nationalized the Iranian oil industry which was totally controlled by Great Britain. Mossadegh was a beloved president who had initiated many social programs for the benefit of the average Iranian. Time Magazine named Mossadegh “Man of the Year” for 1951 and called him the “Iranian George Washington.”

Britain, which lacked its own oil resources, loved the cheap Iranian oil it used to fuel its cars, industry and Navy which plied the world’s oceans in maintenance of its empire. President Truman refused Britain’s overtures for regime change in Iran but President Eisenhower complied.

The coup was led by senior CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt Jr., the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, using the US embassy there as his base. The US then installed the notorious Shah of Iran who brutally repressed the Iranian people for 25 years.

In 1979, the Iranians overthrew the Shah and captured the US embassy to prevent the CIA from using the embassy, once again, as a base to reverse their efforts at self determination. Fifty-two US diplomats and citizens were held hostage to ensure that the US would not try to attack. (Interestingly, Presidential candidate Reagan told the Iranians that the US would never interfere in their internal affairs if they would hold the hostages until after he defeated President Carter. Reagan feared that an earlier release of the hostages would help Carter win the election. The Iranians released the hostages just twenty minutes after Reagan ended his inaugural speech.)

Fearful that the Iranian revolution would inspire other Middle Eastern countries to seek their own self-determination, the US and other Regional monarchies/dictators encouraged Iraq to attack Iran in 1980. The Iran-Iraq war lasted eight years and took over one million lives. Because it was in its own self-interest, Kuwait “loaned” Iraq $16 Billion to continue the war. The US supported Iraq through intelligence gathering and by supplying them deadly chemical and biological materials which Iraq weaponized and unleashed upon Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. Also, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger plane killing 290 people, including 66 children.

At war’s end, Kuwait and the U.A.E. began overselling OPEC’s agreed-upon quotas of oil, thus driving down oil prices. This greatly impacted Iraq’s oil-driven economy. Second, Kuwait demanded that Iraq immediately repay the $16B “loan” even though Iraq was struggling financially given the war’s devastating expenses. Third, Kuwait was slant drilling across the Kuwait-Iraq border into a disputed oil field inside Iraq. Fourth, Kuwait was encroaching on Iraq’s territories with farms and oil installations. These factors alone led Iraq to consider Kuwait as engaging in economic warfare against them. Fourth, Iraq had long held that Kuwait was, in fact, a province of Iraq.

Finally, as Iraqi forces gathered on the Iraq-Kuwait border, US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, told Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the US has “no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait …… we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq….” Many foreign policy officials said this was akin to a green light for Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. On August 6, the US imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq. Later the US persuaded the United Nations Security Council to apply its own sanctions. Even so, the US population was deeply divided over a US military response, that is, until they were presented with the totally fabricated testimony that Iraqi forces removed over 300 newborn, Kuwaiti children from their incubators, threw them on the cold hospital floor and took the incubators back to Iraq.

While the US and its allies drove Iraq from Kuwait in August of 1990, these sanctions were kept in place for 13 years and took the lives of one-two million Iraqis, many of whom were children under five years of age. I visited Iraqi hospitals three times in 1996-97, including one run by the Dominican order of religious sisters, where I personally witnessed wards filled with children dying from lack of proper medicines and nutrition due to sanctions.

In 2003, the US invaded Iraq under the pretense that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The combination of all these factors destroyed this highly educated and prosperous nation. It’s impossible to measure the number of lives that were ended or the amount of destruction reaped throughout this criminal, years-long economic and military warfare.

Now the US is engaged in just such a crime against Iran (and Venezuela, may I add) including economic sanctions which, in fact, are economic warfare that is already driving millions of people into poverty. The purpose of these crimes can best be summed up with some dark humor, “What is our oil doing under their land?”

US Forces in the Middle East Currently Surround Iran

2 Comments

October 3rd, 2018

10/3/2018

Homily for June 5, 2018

7/9/2018

1 Comment

By John Czyzynski, SCJ

The incident related in today’s gospel (Mark 12: 13-17) touches on a topic we hear a lot about in this country, namely the separation of Church and state. Actually, those words: “separation of church and state” are not found in the Constitution. Here is what we find in our Constitution: Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states: “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or pubic trust under the United States.” And the first amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

So although the words: “separation of church and state” are not found in the Constitution, those two statements and their interpretation by the Supreme Court have effectively mandated a separation of church and state.

That leads some people to say that we should not mix religion and politics, but that is not true. To do that would be to compartmentalize our lives. It would be like putting religion and politics in two separate boxes inside of us and think that they are not supposed to influence each other. The fact is that they do and they should.

That is part of what is going on in this wonderful exchange between Jesus and the group of Pharisees and Herodians who encounter Jesus. They are trying to catch Jesus in a trap. So they set up a question that, as they see it, will get him in trouble no matter which of the two possible choices he makes. In a way they are trying to trap Jesus into choosing whether they should give precedence to an earthly ruler or to God. Jesus’s response indicates that earthly governments and temporal leaders do have authority, have power—but as Jesus told Pilate when Pilate tells Jesus that he had power over Jesus’s life—he would have no power at all, if it were not given to him from above (John 19: 11).

When Jesus tells the group challenging him that they should give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God, what He is saying is that, Caesar (whoever Caesar is for us: be that a king/queen, emperor/empress or president/governor) this temporal, earthly ruler has power, but it is given to that person for the common good. When that person is doing things, leading in a way that promotes the common good, then we should listen to him/her, give them what belongs to them, as it were. However, if what that person is doing is not for the common good, then, we must obey the higher law which comes from God.

I heard a story that tells of a person coming before God after their time on this earth. God looks lovingly at the person and says: “where are your scars?” The person responds: “I don’t have any.” And God says: “wasn’t there anything worth fighting for??”

As we hear this wonderful exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees and Herodians, we ask, we pray, that it serve as a reminder that politics and religion can never be separated and that the ultimate rule for our conduct on this earth is doing what our well-informed conscience tells us is right as we stand before God. A well-informed conscience knows what the Church teaches about morality, social justice…. May we appear before our God wearing that “scars” we received by the way we vote and the organizations we support fighting for what is right and just and for the common good.

1 Comment

An "Impossible" Immigration System and "Decimated" Legal Rights for Domestic Violence Victims

6/5/2018

2 Comments

Attorney Barbara Graham returned to the Provincialate Offices on May 29 for an update on what is happening with immigration policy in the United States. Speaking at last June’s Provincial Assembly, she had talked about the “impossible system” of immigration law and how President Trump’s then-brand-new executive orders would only make things worse. She also humorously demonstrated the huge waste of money that "building a wall" would be.

This time out, the audience consisted of a dozen SCJs and about 20 others, mainly from parishes from Franklin to West Bend. What they got was a comprehensive explanation of what’s happened since we last heard her. One person described the experience as “taking a drink from a firehose!” From her perspective as Director of Legal Services for Catholic Charities Milwaukee, Barbara explained the many ways the Administration is radically changing our immigration system “though the back door.” She explained how – despite Congress’ inability to pass immigration reform – the statutes currently on the books must be interpreted and fleshed out by the Executive branch, and how the way President Trump and his subordinates have done so in ways that have further “decimated” the few rights granted to asylees, especially those who are victims of domestic violence.

From routinely denying stays of removal, trying to reopen 350,000 cases that were administratively closed years ago (further swelling the backlog of pending removal cases which stands at almost 700,000), to denying full hearings to asylees and suggesting that 3 year olds can represent themselves in court, the Administration has completely overwhelmed the system and effectively deprived refugees and the undocumented of any rights. Barbara explained that while 90% of those represented by nonprofit lawyers win their cases, 90% of those who are unrepresented lose (private lawyers win 74% of their cases), and the great majority are now unrepresented. Even for those who are lucky enough to find representation, the legal process is getting more complicated, slower, and more expensive. (Catholic Charities does have a list of approved attorneys on their website, and Barbara noted that the better ones are often not the most expensive.)

Many in the immigrant community now live in fear of being picked up even going to and from church or the hospital, and are too scared to pay parking tickets, report crimes, or call about domestic violence. Even ICE (the enforcement arm of the immigration system) is overwhelmed by the change in how they are expected to carry out their jobs, no longer focusing only serious criminals but anyone who is not a legal resident, no matter how long they’ve been here or how law-abiding they are. ICE is now often doing Google searches and scanning through public databases of all kinds in order to find people to be detained and put into removal proceedings. Even those who’ve been reporting in routinely for years, like Ragbir, whose story she shared, are being detained without warning and separated from their families.

Add to this the termination of DACA, the ending of Temporary Protected Status for people from Syria, Central America, and several other countries still rife with violence and chaos, and attempts to punish and sue “Sanctuary Cities,” and you have a true upheaval in this country around this issue, one which Grant Silva last year called “the civil rights issue of our time.” Many in the Church have taken a moral stance by publicly opposing the administration’s moves, condemning the President’s attempts to appeal to fear and de-humanize migrants and refugees (and most recently to immediately separate all children from their undocumented parents at the border). Our own U.S. Bishops have spoken out strongly and clearly on the issue.

Barbara concluded by talking about what we can do. First, she took a page from Fr. Dehon – promote Catholic Social Teaching, from the pulpit and through parish educational programs. She talked of her experience speaking at many white, middle and upper-class parishes about the immigration and getting a good response. One audience member, however, spoke of the many Catholics he has known whose minds seem to be closed. We have to find ways of reaching people and fostering respectful dialogue.

Obviously legal assistance is also key. The U.S. Province will be partnering with the School Sisters of St. Francis in Milwaukee to raise funds to pay DACA renewal fees for students who are eligible; people were encouraged to find other creative ways to raise funds to assist those in need. Those who wish to get involved personally can always find ways to help through local immigrant advocacy groups and their local Catholic Charities.

Beyond the limited power we have as citizens to change laws and influence politicians, some also choose to resist and protest. Barbara spent some time talking about the rise of the New Sanctuary Movement, which echoes the efforts of churches and people of faith in the 80s to harbor refugees and the undocumented, sometimes secretly, sometimes publicly. The motivation can be simply to keep someone alive, or to publicly challenge unjust policies, and the potential risk for prosecution can range from almost nil to virtual certainty depending on what you do, but simply giving moral or material support to others who are providing sanctuary is not illegal.

Barbara’s presentation came in the middle of two days of meetings for the North American Migration Commission, which sponsored the program. At their meeting the next morning, the members of the committee were unanimous in their appreciation to Barbara for presenting such a complex topic in such a dynamic and interesting way, but agreed that our next step as a Province must be to grapple with the moral dimensions of this crisis and consider all the ways we ought to respond.

Tony Russo, SCJ, offers an opening prayer

2 Comments

Why I Went to Capitol Hill

5/16/2018

1 Comment

US Province JPR Director Mark Peters (eighth from left) with other faith leaders at Bread for the World's offices in downtown Washington, where the training sessions took place

Last week, I had the privilege to travel to Washington, D.C. for a "lobby day" to protect foreign aid. CMSM is a member of the Interfaith Working Group for Foreign Assistance, which paid all expenses for the trip through a grant. Unfortunately, the organizers were not able to get me an appointment with Paul Ryan, but I did meet with my own representative, F. James Sensenbrenner, as well as Senators Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson.

I discovered at the training sessions before the visits that foreign aid - a miniscule part of the federal budget - has been highly effective and has enjoyed bipartisan support over the decades. But the Trump Administration is calling for deep cuts in all the accounts under this heading. However, I was gratified to discover that both my Democratic (Baldwin) and Republican (Johnson and Sensenbrenner) congressional representatives agreed that cutting foreign aid is no way to balance the budget. However, they did say that they need help from supporters in dispelling the myths about foreign aid - that it eats up a huge portion of the budget, that it doesn't work, that it gives to foreigners at the expense of Americans, etc. I told them I would pass that message along to those I work for, especially the preachers, who are influential within their parishes, apostolates and personal networks.

You can read more about the myths and realities of foreign aid at the Faith in Foreign Assistance website. Below is the op-ed I submitted to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about my experience. Perhaps others can use it as a template for a shorter letter to the editor to your own local papers.

I recently was part of a delegation of dozens of faith leaders from across the U.S. who visited nearly 100 Congressional offices to discuss one of the most important investments the U.S. makes. In fact, it’s an untold success story, one that makes me proud to be an American.

Around the world, we are witnessing the greatest gains in child survival and health in human history, and it’s thanks in large part to U.S. foreign assistance -- our funding, leadership and influence. No part of the federal budget benefits more people, more cost-effectively, yet it's consistently overestimated and misunderstood. One aide told me that his boss’ constituents often estimate that it’s a quarter to one-half of the U.S. budget! In fact, it’s about one-half of 1%.

I went to Washington on behalf of the Interfaith Working Group for Foreign Assistance, 51 faith-based global health, development and humanitarian aid organizations united by the moral call to help the vulnerable. We urged Congress to sustain funding for “the least of these”, funding that promotes well-being both here and abroad. I wanted to assure our state’s Congressional delegation that when people of faith understand the reality of foreign assistance, they want to preserve, even increase, this funding.

I was gratified to meet with aides to Senators Baldwin and Johnson and Representative Sensenbrenner. They all saw the value of foreign development aid and humanitarian assistance, but need our help educating the American public about how critical this small amount of funding is to families around the world, including here in the U.S.

So I hope you will take a moment to consider this: Child death from preventable illness and disease is in historic decline. Six million fewer children under 5 will die this year than in 1990. 75% of countries have at least halved under-5 mortality rates, which means improving child survival is possible -- even in impoverished places.

Foreign assistance costs just pennies per American -- 50 cents a year funds America’s contribution to eradicating polio; 30 cents funds efforts to treat a collection of 7 debilitating tropical diseases that deform, blind and kill a billion people; $1 helps provide access to safe drinking water and $3 helps defeat malaria, while every federal dollar invested in stopping chronic malnutrition returns $30 in higher lifetime productivity.

The end result paints a picture which we can all support: Emaciated infants gaining weight, children tasting clean water for the first time, girls attending school, better harvests increasing food security. Death from diseases like measles have dropped by 85%, malaria by 58%, HIV by 61%, and clean water has helped to decrease deadly diarrhea deaths, the most common cause of death of children under age 5, by 57%. The list goes on.

U.S. foreign assistance also keeps Americans more secure. Pathogens like Ebola, as we saw, know no borders and foreign assistance helps keep our microscopic enemies away. It also promotes political stability and reduces the potential for war and refugee crises.

Foreign aid even strengthens the U.S. economy. Half of U.S. exports go to the developing world where developing markets are growing at a faster pace than many traditional partners. Agricultural and manufacturing exports are essential to creating more and better paying American jobs. In 2016, Wisconsin exported $21.0 billionin goods to foreign markets. 800,800 state jobs are supported by trade.

We ask Congress to preserve this tiny part of the budget knowing that faith-based organizations are also doing their part and have been valuable government partners, on the front lines, trusted by communities, and very effectively leveraging $5 for every public $1 received. But the role of the U.S. government remains indispensable, convening other governments, negotiating agreements, opening access to marginalized populations, keeping frontline staff safer, and creating opportunities for faith engagement.

Thankfully, all three members of Congress I met with understand that foreign aid works, and that important needs remain: Girls are still kept out of school; clean water remains a basic need in homes, schools and even healthcare facilities; food insecurity and famines persist; 76 million refugees are in urgent need of assistance. But they need to know their constituents continue to value this investment.

We are a blessed country. Though of different faiths and political persuasions, we are united by the common goal to help all God’s children, near and far. Our faith communities must continue to raise our voices and urge both Republicans and Democrats to make sure U.S. government foreign assistance doesn’t fall victim to politics. Ask your representative not to let this aid become a sacrificial lamb and with it, the vulnerable people whose lives it saves.

1 Comment

<<Previous

Final Reflections

My Heart Called Me to Social Justice Ministry

Pope Francis's Solution to All the World's Ills

Time to Re-Think Abortion as a "Pre-Eminent Issue? A Personal Reflection

Another Dismal Year for Refugees

I AM A RECOVERING RACIST – Bob Bossie, SCJ

Iran-Iraq Connections

October 3rd, 2018

Homily for June 5, 2018

An "Impossible" Immigration System and "Decimated" Legal Rights for Domestic Violence Victims

Why I Went to Capitol Hill

Author

Archives

Categories