CATHOLIC VIEWS: BLOG BY FATHER PAUL KEENAN The Triumph of Kindness June 3, 2008 If you haven’t done so, please take time to read Father Bob Pagliari’s most recent column in Catholic New York It’s a very touching story about a man bringing his forgetful father to the doctor’s office. The father’s poor memory became a problem during the early stages of the visit, but the son treated his father with love and respect the entire time. It’s very easy to become impatient in such circumstances but the son didn’t even once give way to the temptation. It’s a powerful story of the triumph of kindness. There are millions of opportunities to test the triumph of kindness. I think of parents whose children have special needs or disabilities. How many times they may be tempted to react with understandable anger and frustration. And how many times they choose patience and kindness instead! It happens time after time, each and every day. Or you can watch family and friends deal with people with speech impediments or with hearing difficulties. Instead of conversations being tense, these people take the whole thing as a matter of course without causing the other person hurt or embarrassment. It is the triumph of kindness once again. Kindness, I think, is at its best when we are dealing with someone with whom we disagree. Can we express our opinions to each other without putting the other down or insulting them? If so, that is the triumph of kindness. In his book, My Little Church Around the Corner, The Reverend Doctor Randolph Ray wrote these words about kindness: “Kindness is the life’s blood, the elixir of marriage. Kindness makes the difference between passion and caring. Kindness is tenderness. Kindness is love, but perhaps greater than love … Kindness is good will. Kindness says, ‘I want you to be happy.’ Kindness comes very close to the benevolence of God.” Truer words were never spoken. --Father Paul Keenan, Office of Communications A World Without Father's Day May 25, 2008 In case you haven’t been watching television or listening to the radio lately, Father’s Day is just around the corner. We’re hearing and seeing multitudes of ads telling us about the perfect gift for Father’s Day. We might bemoan the commercialization of special days like Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, but I have this nagging question in the back of my head – how long will there be a Father’s Day? Sounds absurd, doesn’t it? Who would dare to put an end to Father’s Day? Think about it, though. There are movements afoot in our world the logical conclusion of which would make it unnecessary for there to be fathers for human procreation. Look at the recent legislation passed in the United Kingdom overturning a ban on embryonic stem cell research and on hybrid embryo research. People hail these sorts of procedures as wonderful advances that will make it possible for various dread diseases to be cured, even though the evidence for that is slight, indeed. There are many problems, morally speaking, with such procedures. Important among them is the removal of humanity from sex. The sexual act was created by God for the purpose of procreating children, yes. But the forgotten element in much of this current research is that the context for the procreation of children was to be a total self-giving love between the husband and the wife. The child was meant to be the fruit of that union. But now sex in marriage is to be replaced by sex by praxis. Life can be produced in a lab and the whole matter can be accomplished, some say, even without the necessity of a human father. There is a grave danger that we are coming to lose the humanity in the act of marriage and in marriage itself. And when we lose the humanity, we also lose a sense of the God who created humanity in the first place. The fact is, when we lose the sense of total intimacy between a husband and a wife, we lose the whole beautiful mystery behind marriage and the procreation of the human race as God intended. It is one more subtle but very real chipping away at the mystery of life itself, with the additional sad factor that in many of these experiments human beings are created, without any consent on their part, simply in order to do the bidding of science and others are destroyed when they are no longer deemed to be needed. It may be difficult for us to get our minds around what a world would be like without mystery. But perhaps we can start with this. What would the world be like without Father’s Day? --Father Paul Keenan, Office of Communications California's Judicial Activism May 21, 2008 There are many problems with the decision by the Supreme Court of California to legalize gay marriage. Catholic moral theologians will certainly point out the difficulty of legalizing a definition of marriage that goes against the plan established by God in which marriage is between a husband and a wife, that is to say, a man and a woman. But there are problems from a legal perspective as well, as Jay Sekulow, a noted Supreme Court lawyer, points out in a recent article, “Same Sex Marriage in California by Judicial Fiat” on Catholic Online. In this article, Sekulow argues that from a legal perspective, the real problem with the State Supreme Court’s decision is that it is the product of judicial activism. He writes, “The California high court failed to uphold what the state legislature and an overwhelming majority of California voters clearly understand – that the institution of marriage is limited to one man and one woman.” The court’s decision that the right to marry is given constitutionally to same-sex marriages and to heterosexual marriages is, he says, the product of the court’s interpretation and completely ignores the will of the state legislature and usurps the voice of the voters of California as well. As to the former, he points of that over thirty years ago, the California legislature specifically defined marriage as between a man and a woman. As to the latter, he notes that in 2000, sixty-one percent of California voters approved Proposition 21 which held that marriage was exclusively between a man and a woman. Here is what the dissenting opinion, written by two of the state’s justices concluded: “A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.” Where, they ask, is the distinction between the judiciary and the legislative branch of government. As Justice Carol Corrigan noted in her dissent: ““If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.” That clearly did not happen in California and it sets a dangerous legal precedent. Other states, of course, will use this decision as a basis for similar rulings. And the question remains, “Where is the voice of the People?” It is something for us to think seriously about. Hopefully, in November, the ballot box will overturn this ruling and once again make heterosexual marriage the only standard for marriage in the state. But it is a matter of grave seriousness when the judicial system attempts to override the voice of the People. Nothing could be further from the true spirit of American democracy. --Father Paul Keenan, Office of Communications Subsidiarity and Solidarity May 7, 2008 On a broadcast following the Holy Father’s speech at the United Nations during his recent visit, I had the opportunity of serving as a commentator for ABC News Radio. I remember speaking with Aaron Katersky, the anchor for the broadcast, about the Pope’s reference to two fundamental principles of Catholic social teaching – subsidiarity and solidarity. It was impressive to hear the Holy Father refer to these principles and to use them as the springboard for his speech to the United Nations. Now in the aftermath of his visit, the Holy Father has continued his reflections on these two important topics and relates them to the Trinity. What exactly are subsidiarity and solidarity? Subsidiarity means that in any relationship, the lower entity must be allowed to do as much as it can without interference from the higher entity. For example, in the United States, the federal government must allow the states to regulate their life as much as possible without interfering with their rights. Similarly, the United Nations must help individual nations without interfering with their sovereign right to govern their people. In a family, the parents must rule and guide their children without squelching their innate freedom. What is solidarity? Solidarity means that the members of the various nations in the world or states in a country such as ours must work together in unison for the common good. Why are these two principles important? All too often we have seen large entities try to take away the individual freedoms of those who belong to them. To have peace in the world, it is necessary that each country have the opportunity to do what it needs to do to govern its people, and by the same token that country must respect the needs of its people and to treat them with dignity and respect.