There are rules written, and rules uwritten. . .

Continuing the theme from yesterday, from John Lennon's Imagine:

. . .and no religion, too.

Lennon's position on the existence of God would have been either agnostic or atheist, depending on which day he was asked. (I think his view would be "agnostic, leaning toward atheist," but any summary of an individual as complex as Lennon risks oversimplification.) In this passage, I think he was presenting a view of a world in which religion is not used as an excuse or a tool for one person or group killing another person or group. In Lennon's time, that would have included Protestants vs. Catholics in Northern Ireland, Muslims vs. Jews in the Middle East, among others. In almost every instance, religion has been used as an excuse - a chosen mask for the real reason for the killing, which is more material - a fight for land, or for oil, or money. Consider the persecutions of the Latter-day Saints in Missouri and Illinois - was it because of the religious differences, or because, in each instance, the Mormons had become large landholders and vulnerable targets? The Jewish view of Christians is varied. Some Jews are rather proud that Jesus was one of them. Others hold to the view that Jesus' followers have spilled more innocent Jewish blood than any other group or individual.


Are they wrong in saying that? Sadly. . .


There's another interpretation of this. The word "religion" means rules. Imagine there are no religious rules.


That's a bit hard to deal with. I had a friend who made a statement: "Love Jesus. Hate religion" - i.e., hate rules. I think this person was referring to all the nonsense rules that some folks would impose. I'm not fond of those, either. But you can't separate Jesus from rules. Jesus was a Jew, and from a family that was quite observant. And Judaism, in the Torah, has rules. Lots of rules. Jesus reinterpreted many, butt he ditched none. There are rules about what you may and may not eat. There are rules about how priests are to dress when presiding over ceremonies. There are rules about sex and divorce. There are rules about how to handle it when you have to urinate or defecate in the middle of the night.


You shall have a  designated area outside the camp to which you shall go. With your utensils you shall have a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole with it and then cover up your excrement. (Dt. 23:12-13)


Because the Lord your God travels with you, and you wouldn't want him stepping in it. Funny - I've never heard a sermon preached on that passage. If someone mentions that we are to observe every word of the Hebrew Scriptures as written, you may want to mention this. "Hey, man, you have a trowel, and when you have to go in the middle of the night you drive out of town, dig a hole. . .?"


And why the observance of the rules? It wasn't for health reasons. They knew nothing of the dangers of undercooked pork. If they did, they wouldn't have been big on beef or chicken, either. No - the reasons that the rules are observed is because that's what God said. That's it, and that's all. God said, and that's what you need to know.


In the Catholic church we have our rules and regs too. And sometimes, rules and regs lead us into legalisms. Example: When we attend Mass and take the Body and Blood of Christ (and if you don't think that the  wafer of unleavened bread and that cup of wine are the actual Body and Blood of Christ, why would you be Catholic?), it should be the first thing in your stomach that day. If you attend a Sunday morning Mass, no problem. In fact, society largely owes the delight of the Sunday brunch to our observing this. But, at some point we started having a vigil Mass on Saturday afternoon, late in the afternoon. Would this mean that you couldn't eat anything all day Saturday until the Mass at 5:00? The rule was adapted to the circumstance. Now, it's "Don't eat within an hour of the Mass." But there are legalisms with that, too. If Mass is at 5:00, the Eucharist isn't usually distributed right at 5:00; it would be about 5:35 or 5:40 before you receive the Host. So, can you eat right up until the time you leave home? This is the sort of thing that happens when you take a good rule and get legalistic in a detailed way. Most of us just don't eat within an hour of the scheduled Mass start time, but that's not written anywhere.


Many of our Protestant friends adhere to a saying Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the only normative source of truth. The problems with this position: 1) It discounts the role of the Holy Spirit and turns Scripture into a "paper Pope"; 2) the Scriptures themselves never say Sola Scriptura; this expression imposes an extra-Scriptural standard on the Scriptures.


I wear, usually, a polo shirt to church, with either jeans or a pair of semi-dressy slacks. The kids in my classes have noted that I'm kind of casual about this. I wore a suit and tie to their Confirmation Mass last spring, but they know that that's not me. One of them asked, "So next week you'll be back in jeans and Converse?" Yep. But there are churches I could go to that have no written dress code, but if I showed up there in my jeans and Converse and polo shirt, soon enough someone would feel obligated to advise me that the normal attire is shirt and tie, in honor to the Lord.


Many churches and denominations forbid the use of alcohol. When asked about Jesus' use of wine, their reply is, "It was grape juice." Grape juice? Where do you get that?


Rabbi Hillel, who lived during a time of conflict between Hellenistic Jews and Hebraic Jews, had a conversation with one of the Hellenists. The student posed what he thought was an insurmountable challenge to the Rabbi: "If you can recite the entire Torah while standing on one foot, I will study Torah." I can only imagine the student's shock when Rabbi Hillel stood on one foot. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you, do not do to others. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary.


"Now go study."


There's the rule and reg.

The children displaced

Imagine there's no countries; it isn't hard to do.

I saw an almost miraculous change last week. A good friend of mine, in answer to a question that I posed about immigration reform, asked a question: "What if we just quit worrying about nationalism and borders? Free access!" (I'm paraphrasing.) That was quite a change from where she was some years ago when, as part of a discussion she asked her uncle, who had been in law enforcement in Arizona for a lot of years, what he thought should be done with "illegal aliens": "Give 'em a fair trial and hang 'em high!" And she wasn't out of sympathy with that. Now, it's "Let's not worry about borders so much."






I agree. She has always stated that she's a libertarian. I have always maintained that, no matter how libertarian one claims to be, there are always holes in one's libertarianism. That was hers, and she has done nicely about fixing it. No borders. . .hmmmmm. . .




Even with all that, we are and have been good friends. We disagree on much, but it is always civil, always issue-oriented, and never personal. For both of us the touchstones - the motivators - of our lives are faith and family, and that makes it all cool.






I'm not quite ready for the "no borders" thing, and it's really just a thought experiment. This whole discussion leads to thoughts about all those kids that have come across the border.




If you want to play the blame game there's lots to go around. As usual, the right wing talking heads get it wrong. To them, it's about the open door that the Obama administration has created and encouraged. They say this, innocent of any data, law or information, even anecdotal, and my response to this was a wide-eyed, "Really? You actually seriously think this? " I think they are saying this because of a mindset that everything can be blamed on Obama. "It's a rainy day in Seattle? Obama's fault!" There is some blame to be fixed on the administration for this - more later - but you can't say that the man called "The Deporter In Chief" has an open-door policy.




And, really, what does the blame game have to do with these kids?




One item where the blame belongs with the U.S. Administration: in 2009 there was a coup in Honduras. The government removed was a left-wing administration, and the coup had the (at least tacit) support of the U.S. administration which was, apparently afraid of another Hugo Chavez. So we supported a coup that removed an established, functioning government with - well, nothing really. There was a vacuum, and gang filled it. Gangs pressure these kids: "We know where you live, and you will do (whatever) for us. If you don't, we will kill your brother and father. Your sister looks like she'll be fun, and your mom just might be. Then we kill your mother, sell your sister." And the gangs could well do all this. Want to report to the police? The gangs own the police.




The gang violence has no limit, really; businesses pay tribute, and the gangs really don't care if your business has made money - you have to come up with their protection money or (see the threats of violence mentioned earlier.) Even city bus drivers have to pay tribute.




And so, folk in Honduras - and a couple of other Central American countries - make an incredibly difficult decision. They decide that the children have a better chance at a decent life by sending them to El Norte - the U.S. Surely those kids would be safer here, no? But Central America isn't on the U.S. border. The youngsters have to cross the length of Mexico to get here. Often the journey is on the tops of railroad cars, and gangs take over the railroad cars. Boys who don't comply risk being sliced and diced and dumped. Girls, compliant or not, risk being raped and or sold into sex slavery. The lucky ones who get to the U.S. are transported. The housing available is deplorable, but in fairness, we've been caught off guard by all of this. We have this huge influx, and no clue what to do with it.

Nothing to kill or die for. . .

Send them back? Just keep them in these putrid conditions?




I had thought and hoped that our hearts were bigger than that. Do you want to be the one who sends a 12-year-old girl into slavery? Do you want to send a 7-year-old boy to certain death?




I would love to say I have a solution. A real solution would involve expense, work and time. Since we are dealing with children, that last commodity is sorely lacking.




Most of all, it will involve us digging into our hearts more than we have before. We can solve this, and we can be an enormous - even life-saving - help. But we gotta wanna.

And no religion, too.

More about that tomorrow.

Who IS this Jesus?

During the school year I have been teaching a Christian Education class at St. Mary's. My classes have consisted of middle schoolers (most of my 2012-13 class were seventh and eighth graders) and high schoolers (all of my 2013-14 class.) I have no clue who I'll be teaching next year, and I won't know until, probably, the week before class starts. It requires a lot of energy and preparation to teach, and my reading slows during the school year. I use summers to do some intellectual and spiritual restocking. I pray daily all year long. I say a Rosary daily, I say the Liturgy of the Hours, and I pray for the needs of friends and family. I do some reading during the school year, but not as much as I do during the summer.

Last year I frequently asked the class the question that is the title of this post: "Who IS this Jesus Christ?" One of the messages I left my students with was that we should all ask ourselves this question every day, and that we should not settle for the formulaic answers. "Son of God and Son of Man". . ."Truly God, fully human". . .we know all that. What we should ask is, "Who is this Jesus Christ TO ME?"

Just a (not-so-side) note: A faith that cannot withstand, and/or will not tolerate questioning or doubts, is no faith at all. A comprehended God is no God.

That's been the focus of my reading this summer. The book I started with was published this year: Jesus, a Pilgrimage, by James Martin, S.J. The book discusses Martin's thought about Jesus as it developed from his trip to the Holy Land. It's well worth the time it takes to read it. Most of the material in this post is from this book. Martin refers to other works, and I am now reading one of these: A Marginal Jew, by John P. Meier. I am reading Volume 1. Characteristic of literature with this academic orientation, the first part of the work is largely taken up with source material and methodology, and I'm still in that material.

I have purchased two other books: Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, and The Historical Jesus, by Crossan. I will be reading The New Testament World: Insights From Cultural Anthropology by Bruce Malina. I will also be studying The Gospel According to Mark fairly intensely. When I introduce students to The Bible, Mark is always my starting point, and when we look at pericopes in Mark, it's always with the question, "Who is this Jesus Christ?" in mind.

Who is this Jesus Christ?

Martin has an interest in the part of Jesus' life that is not presented in the Gospels. Luke devotes much space to the birth of Jesus, mostly from Mary's point of view. Matthew gives the birth of Jesus some space, and mostly from Joseph's viewpoint. Mark says nothing about it at all. Luke presents some events that are not mentioned in the other Gospels. One is the presentation of the infant Jesus to the Lord in the temple in Jerusalem. Subsequently it is said that Joseph, Mary and Jesus went to the temple every year. This would mark them as being very observant of their Jewish faith. Nazareth is not particularly close to Jerusalem; there were no highways, both Nazareth and Jerusalem are in hilly country, and much of the journey was on foot. It would not have been by the shortest available route (probably). Between Nazareth and Jerusalem was Samaria, and Jews of the time would travel a considerable distance out of their way to avoid going through Samaria (in later life Jesus showed none of the cultural animus toward Samaritans. Jesus' talking to a Samaritan woman at the well would have been utterly shocking at the time, both because she was a woman, and because she was a Samaritan. But then Jesus spoke to women with respect. Unheard of.)   Not everyone made that trip every year, but Mary and Joseph did.

On one of those journeys, when Jesus was twelve, when Mary and Joseph left Jerusalem to go home, they were a day into their journey when they discovered that they'd forgotten something: Jesus. This was not as shocking as it might seem. The travel would have been in a group, and they may well have thought that their son was with other family members in the caravan. They had to retrace their steps, and found their son in the temple.

All sources are silent about Jesus' life between infancy narratives and the incident at the temple. They are almost completely silent from the incident at age twelve to the beginning of his public ministry at about age thirty. For the interim period, only Luke has anything to say, and it's not much: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor."

What would his teenage and early adult years have been like? Nazareth was in Galilee (think of Galilee as the state, Nazareth as the town.) The record indicates that Joseph was a carpenter, but it would not have been a carpenter that builds houses. Wood houses would have been all but nonexistent; there would not have been enough trees, and wood would have been much too expensive for most. The houses were small, built of stone or brick, with thatched roofs and floors of packed earth. Wood would have been used for the beams. The houses would have been organized as pods, a few of the houses arranged around a courtyard that would have been used for common usage - cooking, among other things. The town would consist of a number of these pods. While Galilee wasn't a backwater sort of province - just a few miles from Nazareth was a major city, Sepphoris - Nazareth was certainly a backwater town, with a population of maybe 200. Sepphoris was a major city of, maybe, 30,000. That city, and a lot of the rest of Galilee, had some significant building going on. It's not hard to conclude that Joseph found much of his work in those projects and, society being what it was, soon enough Jesus would have accompanied Joseph, and thus learned the craft.

And then the day came that Jesus, after his baptism, after his temptation, returned to Nazareth He went to the synagogue, and opened the scroll and began to read. There is considerable doubt that Nazareth, a poor town of maybe 200 people, could have afforded a building for their synagogue - very likely, they met in the open air - and it's doubtful that they could have afforded a scroll of the Tanakh. Jesus may have been reading off a piece of paper. His being able to read at all would have been surprising. But, no matter. The text he read was about the deliverance of the Lord, and he then threw a grenade into the assembly: "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

Do what?

Isn't this Joseph's kid? Isn't this the guy we'd see every morning, trudging off with his dad and his tools in a bag, trudging off to wherever? And he'd always come trudging back at night, bone tired? And he's the fulfillment of this scripture? Seriously?

And the question: Who IS this Jesus? This carpenter, son of a carpenter, who claims - THIS?!

Addiction, alcoholism - "I can quit anytime I want to"

There was a fellow in his 60s. He lay dying in a hospital bed. He maintained vehemently that he was no alcoholic - that he could have quit anytime he wanted.

He had gone through three families. But, he saw no reason to think that his drinking had interfered with his family relationships.

He had lost numerous jobs. He had started a business, and experienced some success. But that, too - gone. But - no, boozing was not an issue.

And, even in his hospital bed, he continued to deny that drinking was a problem - as he lay dying of cirrhosis. OK, drinking wasn't a problem for you. Staying sober was.

STEP ONE: Admitted we were powerless over alcohol, that our lives had become unmanageable.

I'm Rick, and I'm alcoholic. I've heard the stories, and met some of the people. I have more familiarity with addiction than I ever wanted to have. I've lost friends. One of my alcoholic friends that is no longer with us died of AIDS. What - AIDS? The virus isn't transmitted by a bottle or glass? It is, however, transmitted by unprotected sex, and alcohol lowers inhibitions like few other things.

I'm limiting myself to alcohol in this post because it's the form of addiction with which I'm most familiar. It's been my battle. But the addictive process is the same, whatever the chosen addiction is - heroin, meth, tobacco.

The starting point is genetics. There remains little doubt that there is a genetic component in addiction. This shows in any number of types of studies, including separated twin studies. However, we really have not identified the gene, or the type of deficiency of that gene. Some studies seem to have gotten close. The genetic tie is strong enough that doctors have said "No genetics - no addiction."

If I were talking to someone who was considering that they may have an issue, I wouldn't bring this up. If the person with whom I was speaking could not think of any relative that showed the signs, I have provided a rationalization for their thinking that they do not really have a problem. But, they may think they have no family issues when, in fact, their family is shot through. This is a subject that, even within family, is often just not talked about. Just. Not. Talked. About. Seems odd - alcoholism is a condition, just like cancer is a condition, just as diabetes is a condition. But, if Uncle Bob dies of cancer, hiss family will discuss all the gruesome details of the treatment, and will freely discuss the cause: "You know, all those years he smoked like a potbelly stove." (Never mind that smoking is an addiction, too.) But, if Uncle Charlie dies of cirrhosis:"Well, you know he was really sick."

Genetics is the one factor no one can change, and if the alcoholism of family members is off-limits, then anyone in the family is defenseless.

If there is a genetic predisposition (and, remember, genetics is not destiny), then frequently item number two is some sort of mental illness. Counselors and treatment facilities often refer to "dual diagnosis" - the discussion of what issues confront the patient besides alcoholism. My issue is depression. I know well the feeling of being sucked into a black hole from which I see no escape. A lot of alcoholics don't even like the taste of the stuff, but we think that, at first, the booze served a useful purpose. It was anesthetic.

Depression is not the only condition that can lead to seeking some sort of chemical relief. We have a lot of bipolars among us, and quite a few social anxiety disorders. PTSD is not an area of my expertise, but I would not be surprised to find out there's a link between somebody's being a combat veteran and that person's being an addict.

I don't want these posts to get too long, so I'll resume the topic in subsequent posts. But there are two points that I would stress if I were making public presentations about this (and I have):

• If you are a youngster, the only drink that you can be sure that you can control is your first one. After that, who knows? Some alcoholics develop their addiction over years. Others are gone with the first drink. You don't know which one you are.

• If you already have this issue, DO NOT SURRENDER. Alcoholics have a huge suicide rate. So do their families. But - THERE IS HELP, AND THERE IS HOPE. But you have to accept it.

And make as your mantra: One Day At a Time.

STEP TWO: Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

Happy birthday, Church!

Tomorrow is the day that we observe the solemnity of Pentecost.

 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. ²And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. ³Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. ⁴All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

⁵Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. ⁶And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. ⁷Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? ⁸And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language?. . . ¹²All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” ¹³But others sneered and said, “They are filled with new wine.”  ¹⁴But Peter, standing with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed them, “Men of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to what I say. ¹⁵Indeed, these are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. ¹⁶No, this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: ¹⁷‘In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. ¹⁸Even upon my slaves, both men and women, in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. ¹⁹And I will show portents in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky mist. ²⁰The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the coming of the Lord’s great and glorious day. ²¹Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ ²²“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— ²³this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. ²⁴But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power. ²⁵For David says concerning him, ‘I saw the Lord always before me, for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken; ²⁶therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will live in hope. ²⁷For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption. ²⁸You have made known to me the ways of life; you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’ ²⁹“Fellow Israelites, I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. ³⁰Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. ³¹Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, saying, ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh experience corruption.’ ³²This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. ³³Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear. ³⁴For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, ³⁵until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ ³⁶Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”  ³⁷Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” ³⁸Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. ³⁹For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.” ⁴⁰And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” ⁴¹So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.  (Acts 2:1-41, NRSV)

And, thus, the birth of the church. The believers were only a few, but in one mighty outpouring, 3,000 were added.

A couple of interesting notes about that church:

The dominant thought about the relation between the individual and society was quite different from much thought in western civilization. We - particularly Americans - tend to think in terms of the individual. We have this romantic notion of the "rugged individualist." The rugged individualist was always just that - a romantic myth. There would have been no room for this thought in the New Testament. The emphasis was strongly on community. This, further along in Acts:

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ³³With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. ³⁵They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. ³⁶There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). ³⁷He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:32-37)

And they took this seriously:

But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; ²with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. ³“Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? ⁴While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!” ⁵Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. ⁶The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. ⁷After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price.” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” ⁹Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” ¹⁰Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. ¹¹And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things. (Acts 5:1-12)

In the Hebrew Scriptures community is also stressed: the people of Israel. Salvation is always portrayed as a communal affair. In the book of Amos, in which much was proclaimed about the sins of one part of the nation against the underprivileged, we see:

Thus says the Lord: As the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear, so shall the people of Israel who live in Samaria be rescued, with the corner of a couch and part of a bed. (Amos 3:12)

The idea of the rugged individualist is not Biblical. In fact, one of the notable proponents of such thought is Ayn Rand who, not so coincidentally, was loudly atheist.

Ayn Rand is not the only one, though. One contrast between Catholicism and the Protestant groups is the Protestant emphasis on individual sanctity - "you and me God" spirituality - as opposed to the Catholic stress on community. Neither individual sanctity nor communal faith can be ignored. "Outside the Church there is no salvation" was from a Pope, but both Luther and Calvin affirmed it. But through generations, and through European settlement of a new continent, the individualist thought developed. But, thus we got away from the church as portrayed in the New Testament. And, of course, we rationalize the getting away.

But it was not so at first. And we celebrate on Sunday the birth of the church, and the Holy Spirit moving through it.

Come, Holy Spirit.
Fill the hearts of your faithful, and kindle in them the fire of Your love.
Send forth Your Spirit, and they shall be created,
And you will renew the face of the earth.

Now - where we?

I noticed that almost a year has gone by since my last blog posting. 'Nuff of that already. Now that I have retired, I do have more time on my hands. I intend to write, partly because I don't really know what my views on a subject until I've researched and thought. My way of thinking usually involves writing about it. My intent: write twice a week. Midweek I'll write about something political/social/literary or whatever pops into my head. Saturday it will be some topic from my faith journey. If the students I have next year read the blog, they'll know what the topic is for the next day. Should I tell them?

I see that my last post was about a rally in Schwiebert Park in Rock Island. The park is between the Mississippi River (a lovely sight) and downtown Rock Island (meh.) The rally was for comprehensive immigration reform. It's an important issue for me. I attend St. Mary's Parish in Davenport. My parish is about 75% Latino. I have taught in the Christian Education program - Sunday School - for two years. My students, 19 of them, were middle school kids and high schoolers. They were the greatest kids I could ever have the honor of knowing and teaching. Every one of those kids is Latino, specifically Mexican-American.

My views on comprehensive immigration reform have, if anything, been given greater urgency by the tide of events. One such event was the deportation of one of our people at St. Mary's. We'll call him Vic.

Vic came north some years ago. Vic did some horrible, terrible things like, he got a job. Contrary to myth, immigrants do not take jobs away from American workers. They take jobs that American workers won't do. Some farmers out west tried running ads for work on their farms. Only those who could prove eligibility to work need apply. They offered a wage that was higher than that previously paid to the migrant workers. They got few responses. Among those hired, many did not last a day. None lasted a week. If you really want to deport the undocumented, then good luck finding a peach next year. Or an apple, or a tomato.

Vic got a job. I don't know what it was, but I do know that he held that job for fifteen years, until he was detained by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The next myth is that immigrants suck up government benefits. Vic never received any kind of government assistance. His attitude: if I didn't earn it, I don't want it.

Vic got married here, and stayed married. He and his wife had a couple of kids. Terrible thing to do, I know.

Then Vic made his big mistake. He tried to become legal. One would think that a family man who would hold down a job for fifteen years would be the kind of person we'd want. The really BIG mistake? He hired a lawyer to help him through the process. The lawyer had no competence in immigration matters - one wonders if this lawyer had any competence in anything, since he is no longer practicing - and said lawyer messed up the timing of the documentation. ICE does not give second chances. One day ICE knocked on the door. Eventually Vic was deported. His wife and kids - U.S. citizens, all - decided to keep the family intact, and they joined Dad in Mexico, where he now drives a bus.

I met Vic. He's a good man, and neither he nor his family deserved any of this. Being undocumented isn't even a crime. It's a status offense, and those two terms are not synonymous.

A couple of cautionary notes for those who may have this issue to deal with:

• If ICE knocks on your door, ask, while they are still outside, if they have a warrant. If they do not, DON'T LET THEM IN! No matter ho friendly they may act, they are not your friends.
• The first part of the Miranda warning is, "You have the right to remain silent." You also have that right. If you are detained, politely but firmly state that you will only speak to the lawyer representing you. No matter how friendly the detainers may act. . .

I have some hope that there may be movement on this issue. The Republicans have a demographic gun pointed at their heads, and some seem aware of it. In the 2012 election, Obama won the Latino vote by roughly 70%-30%.  If you lose by a margin like that among one of the largest demographics, and by far the fastest growing group, your days as a significant national force are numbered. Among the states with the fastest-growing Latino populations are two states that have been Republican strongholds: Arizona and Texas. Anyone who wants to be President needs to be very aware, as Romney apparently was not. (Self-deport? Really?)

In the House, I see no such awareness. House members are not aware of much of anything outside their own districts.

Thus, my passion for this issue. We'll be doing another rally in September, in LeClaire Park in Davenport. I'll be there.