September 27, 2003

When I read the article the first time, the quote from Archbishop O’Malley stuck out like a sore thumb. When was the last time you heard anyone take responsibility for their own actions, particularly to their own detriment? Best of all, this came from the clergy!

I have over the years had a lot of discussion with a lot of people about whether Catholics really are Christians. The more fundamental Pentecostal types tend to think that Catholicism flirts with idolatry and a few other heresies. I will admit that historically the Roman Catholic church is the most corrupt of Christian institutions, but that is because they have about 1500 more years of history than the rest of us. Given time, we might catch up.

Well, the facts are now plain; there is at least one Archbishop in Boston that gets it. This guy understands the heart of Christianity better than most. He is, by virtue of the settlement exercising that old Catholic sacrament of confession. He is owning the mistakes of the church. He understands that the first step to salvation lies in understanding that you need it. God will, I believe, honor this. The Boston Archdiocese may go through some hard times in the next few years, but it will thrive in the long run. Not because it has the financial resources, based on what I am reading it may not. It will thrive because they will be close to the heart of God.

There is much discussion these days about the way the economy is recovering without job growth. During my listening this week I heard one debate wherein the more conservative debater allowed that the only way the government can create jobs is to gin up some program and hire the people itself. I agree with that statement, but it was a good idea in the 30’s, why not today?

The more I think about, the more I think the answer is relatively simple. In the 30’s the government engaged in programs that actually built things. Huge electrical networks, dams, highways, parks, monuments, you name it, the New Deal built much of what we take for granted in this country. Today when the government comes up with some program it involves fewer people sitting in offices grinding data through computers, or flat out giving away money. Why the change?

IN large part I think it is due to the so-called "environmental" movement. You cannot go to the Grand Canyon now without a lecture from someone about how the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams have changed everything. Highways are considered ‘scars’ across pristine land. My favorite is the scenic waterfall drive on the Oregon side of the Columbia River Gorge. This small two-lane road has beautiful rock walls and pullout parking lots where one can take short hikes on nice trails to see incredible waterfalls. Naturalists talk about how the car fumes are changing the vegetation.

Because of all this "save nature" stuff much is in disrepair. Been to a national park lately? Many of them are not in good shape. Broken walls, cracked pavement, lousy approach roads, all lessen the experience. Overcrowding at the parks can be overwhelming, but God forbid we actually make improvements to handle the crowds -- that might actually change something, further ‘scarring.’

I think it is to early in this recovery to start pushing the jobs panic button. That said, if it does become necessary, I hope that we will do so in a fashion that makes something, even at the cost of ‘scarring’ the land. Public employment is just a gift in disguise. Public works is something else altogether different. FDR may have started the modern Democrat party, but her sure thought a lot differently than they do now. He built stuff.

Never has the line between supporting ideas and supporting an institution been more evident than it is in the California recall. Overwhelmingly, THE argument for voting for Arnold is that he can get elected and he will give the Republicans a toehold in California. The question is, "At what cost?" As I have mentioned before, he is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. As he has made more public statement he is more moderate than liberal on social issues, save perhaps same-sex unions. But many people feel that to move the entire Republican party to social moderation is to stop being Republican.

I understand this sentiment. It is the same thing I have said about the church so many times before. As the church has liberalized on so many issues, has it lost its heart? At what point does it cease to be the church?

It is possible to argue that in politics, since the job is in fact to get elected, a party has to morph as society changes, or else it will cease to function. That is actually what happens in the UK where parties tend to be more strictly defined and as things change, new parties appear gaining power, while the older ones fade. People then are free to move from party to party as they see fit. The UK system is more ideologically pure for the constituencies, but the net effect is often coalition government where one cannot operate along strict party ideas anyway. No, in government, that is the way of things.

The church is different. If right and wrong, good and evil are subject to fluctuation in the church, then God Himself is subject to such fluctuation. How, I ask you, can a God, immortal, invisible, omnipotent, and perfect, change? He cannot! If the church therefore changes, it is because it is failing to properly reflect Him.