In a recent column in Commonweal (subscription required), Melinda Henneberger interviews Archbishop Chaput of Denver on the question of “Catholic” politics.
Related to politics, I only know of the uproar after Archbishop Chaput criticized John Kerry’s indifference to the abortion issue while claiming to be Catholic.
The interview gives him a much more balanced light than the secular media did after the comments. I respect Commonweal’s copyright, so I won’t go too into it besides this quote:
“I’ve never spoken about either candidate personally [Kerry or Bush], but I would say taht, theoretically, someone who says he’s against abortion is further along the road to doing something about it than someone who’s indifferent to the question… You can have good Catholics who say they’re not for the criminalization of abortion, or they want to take gradual steps toward eliminating it by convincing the public that this is a bad thing. Those are all legitimate political positions–as long as you’re really moving toward the goal of protecting unborn human life. You at least have to have the goal.”
All this from the Archbishop that was seen during the election as being one of the most hardcore right-wing promoters.
Another interesting point, the Archbishop makes earlier in the interview:
“One thing I do hope flows from [the Catholic-political question of the 2004 campaign] is that we all come to understand that labeling ourselves as Catholic doesn’t mean we are. It isn’t a heritage we recieve from our families; it’s a choice we make personally… I’ve never been convinced that the fact that someone says, ‘I’m a Catholic,’ or ‘Gosh, I was an altar boy,’ qualified him to claim that he’s Catholic. And we’re all sinners, of course, but its a different kind of violation of God’s law to claim that the law doesn’t make a difference than [it is] to break the law.”
If you’re interested in receiving Commonweal and you’ll be a current student next academic year at UT, let me know. For next school year, they usually offer a very limited number of subscriptions to college students.
abp. chaput and the political football of abortion
could you go back to class?
In light of Monday’s shooting at Virginia Tech, their Provost announced a few decisions that I feel were good.
First, classes will resume on Monday. Students, on a course-by-course basis, can have their grades determined by one of three methods. First, the grade could be determined based on coursework completed up until April 16th. Second, all of the previous material plus some that the student wishes to complete. Third, the course would be graded as normal with all requested coursework.
This allows the greatest flexibility for the students and staff as they begin to recover. The procedure does not hurt students who were hoping to bring their grade up during the last weeks of the semester while also allowing students the option of heading home and not returning for the semester.
Also, they decided to award degrees to all of the students whose “lives were taken”. I assume that excludes the shooter, as he “took his own life”. It is a fitting tribute.
If you read this today, don’t forget that the UCC will be holding a prayer service at 7:30 p.m.
2007′s HB 28
In the Texas House Committee on State Affairs rest House Bill 28, a measure that would deny American citizens equal treatment due to their parent’s immigration status at the time of their birth.
This is a horrible bill.
HB 28 would restrict from American citizens the ability to be employed by the State or any political subdivision of the State, any loan, grant or license granted by the State (anything from plumber to barber to peace officer), retirement from the State, welfare, food stamps, health care benefits, disability assistance, public housing, public education or unemployment benefits.
The public education aspect includes ALL public education. Pre-K through Higher Education. An American citizen, born and raised in the United States, could not attend a public university or junior college under this law. I don’t believe this is what UT wanted when asking for restrictions on the Top 10% law.
Furthermore, there is no end to the penalty. There is no provision allowing benefits after any amount of time. If you’re 80 years old, even though you’re an American citizen, so be it- the State wouldn’t grant you any of what I mentioned above.
Again, this is not referring to undocumented immigrants (or “illegal aliens”, whatever you prefer). This bill only applies to the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States, in other words, American citizens. It is beyond me why anyone would write such a bill that obviously would be found unconstitutional.
I’ll be keeping an eye on this and if it goes anywhere, I’ll post it on here. Pray that our leaders remember the inherent human dignity of each and every person from all corners of the world and that whatever laws they pass concerning them reflect their understanding of their dignity.
