Saint Dorothy Day?

The essential components for being considered for sainthood is an investigation into the life of the person and his or her works by the Vatican, and the accumulation of two miracles. Miracles usually involve the inexplicable medical cure/healing of a person after use of a relic. A candidate must have 1 miracle attributed to him or her to be named "Blessed", and 2 miracles qualifies them for canonization. I was a little surprised at first that the Archbishop so openly supported Dorothy Day's canonization since he is considered a particularly "conservative" Catholic, and Dorothy Day was such a thorn in the conservative Church's side for being so outspoken. However, I was not surprised once I thought that he probably put aside the "politics" aspect and just looked at Dorothy as a human being. She made mistakes, but those are greatly outweighed by her achievements and ardent service to the poor. So while at first I was surprised, I later thought that it made sense the Archbishop would support her canonization cause. I think it's great that Dorothy Day is being considered for a saint. I think saints should be determined by a well-rounded group of people from many backgrounds and also lay people. The saint shouldn't have to be "perfect"-- like the saints that often come to mind-- but a real person who made a great commitment to God. It's ok that that person may have made mistakes-- we all do. We are human, after all. I think that having a saint who did make some mistakes is a good thing because that means we can relate to them. It's a reminder that God can work through anyone and that he loves everyone-- even if you did make some mistakes in life. Being a saint isn't about being perfect. It isn't about being a completely holy, untouchable person. Many saints had sketchy pasts before they had a miraculous life turn around. What it means to be a saint (at least to me) is to recognize people for their devotion to a cause and to God's mission.

Circles of Protection

This July, a group of religious leaders, who called themselves the Circles of Protection, posed questions to the 2012 presidential candidates: What will you do to help the poor? Both of the candidates made video responses to the group, and having watched them I will consider the strong points, weaknesses, and relativity to the Catholic Church's teaching for each of the candidates. First, Governor Romney talks of bringing new jobs. He says that by stimulating jobs, the economy will improve, thus improving the poverty situation for many Americans. Romney highlights his 5-point economic plan that he believes will help to create up to 12 million jobs by the end of the year. Romney also states that he will stand with "faith-based organizations" and seek their counsel to help the poor. This statement is in line with the Church's teaching that one's faith must inform their political choices and that Catholics have an obligation to reach out to the underprivileged (even though Romney never formally states his own faith in the video). Some of the positives in the video included Romney's participation with faith-based organizations that help the poor and his dedication to improving the situation of those that live within our country. One of the negatives I found with Romney's video was that he neglected to address issues other than America's economy and hungry. While these are obviously very important issues, it seemed that there was a lack of focus also on foreign policy. Second, President Obama directly stated his own faith position and talked openly about the Bible and its role in shaping our lives. This is in line with the Church's teachings that as Catholics our faith should inform us in all aspects of our life and help us to become a better person, just as Obama believes he has "become a better father and husband." Obama says that he supports the basic dignities of workers, including good jobs, fair wages, healthcare, and retirement. He states his support for the equality of workers and rights to all no matter if they are rich or poor. His support of fair wages, private property (home buying), and healthcare are all in line with the Church's teachings. His support of education is especially in touch with the concept of Catholic Social Teaching, which often educates people in impoverished environments so they can learn about their own dignity and rights. He states that while we have a right to work hard for what we earn and keep that, we also have a responsibility to help others. Obama also brings morals into the issue, just as the Church advises us to do-- to not only think of political issues in a strictly analytical light, but also with compassion. He says that we are "all in this together as one people," which I believe is very much in line with the Church's support of community and dignity of all humans and with Jesus's teachings on loving your neighbor. One of the negatives I found with Obama's stance was that while he seemed genuinely concerned for the issues at hand, he did not directly address his plan to fix them. His direct address of Christian faith could also possibly be seen as a negative, since he did not address those of different faiths. He, too, did not seem to put a focus on foreign policy so much as domestic poverty. I personally found Romney to be more direct and solution oriented than Obama, who seemed more idealistic (however, the Church does talk about how one should strive for ideals). All in all, both candidates had pros and cons. Each has some policies in line with the Church's teachings and some that are not so aligned. In the end, it falls on the shoulders of each individual to inform their own conscience and make a decision based on their own set of morals.

Beyond the Swoosh

I think that if a cause is really important to you, than power to you if you want to boycott a company. However, if you're going to boycott a company because they don't provide labor rights, then you should boycott all such companies because otherwise there will be good intentions but not integrity in your act. However, boycotting a company isn't always the most effective thing to do. In mass quantities, boycotts can be very powerful-- the whole point of the company is to make money. But if it's only in small pockets of protesters, then it may not have the dramatic desired effect on the company. For example, many people chose to boycott Oreos after their public support for same-sex marriage. However, these people are probably supporting a large quantity companies who also support same-sex marriage-- including Google, Apple, Boeing, various snack food companies, and so on. Should these people who boycott Oreo also boycott every company that is adverse to what they believe in? Is it even possible? And does our faith call us to do so? It's a tough situation. As an avid supporter of marriage equality and LGBT rights, I decided to boycott Chick-Fil-A after I learned that the head of the company donated money to organizations that work towards the death penalty for homosexuality in Africa. After learning this, I clearly had to make a choice about whether I was okay with my money going toward this cause. I made the choice to not go there, and I haven't since this summer. However, this choice is my own, and other consumers have just as much a right to be informed and go or not go there as I do. I don't think my refrain from buying chicken nuggets once a month will really affect a lot of social change, but I continue my boycott for 2 reasons: (1) I might eventually be one in a large group that could affect change,and (2) it just makes me feel better morally to not go there. I think that everyone hears the call of the higher power in their life differently. If you feel that God is calling you or your religion is compelling you to boycott a company in order to affect social change, then that is your decision to do so. As a consumer, you have a right to know where your money goes-- or doesn't go-- and decide your patronage accordingly. However, instead of putting our energy into boycotting many companies, maybe we should put that energy into a campaign for justice in our society so that we don't have to boycott companies in the first place.

Church and Scripture

Many of the examples of the Church's teachings in pages 10-30 of our book are congruous with what I have learned growing up Catholic. Obviously throughout my Catholic childhood, I heard the classic stories of the Bible: Cain and Abel, the Fall, original sin, and the Paschal Mystery. However, my experience with the Church's teachings on social justice has been limited. Unfortunately in my experience the Church does not seem to "apply" its teachings enough to a modern context. Social justice is considered "the best kept secret" of the Church for good reason. The Church doesn't want to have to balance on the precarious slope of advocating for social change and becoming entangled in politics, which can end up turning into telling its members what to think on political matters. However, social justice is a necessary part of Christian tradition. Even though social justice has not been emphasized as important in my experience, I think it can be a especially bridging experience for a faith community.Working together for a good cause can bring people very closely together, as we can see in our own school community through service clubs and trips that facilitate friendships one might not have had before. You may not agree with your neighbors about everything, but one thing that many people can agree on is the care which we should give to the marginalized and that they deserve justice, charity, and basic human rights just as much as we do.

A "Messy" World

On an interview in the Jon Stewart Show, Jon Stewart and former secretary general of the UN , the conversation began like this: Jon Stewart: How's the world. Kofi Annan: Messy. When we hear stories of immense suffering or injustice in the news, we tend to feel sad for a few minutes and then move on with our daily lives. Unfortunately I have also taken part in the phenomenon. For many people, it's hard to relate to a problem like poverty or starvation when we are so blessed. Too often, even if there is great tragedy in the world, we are too used to hearing about awful things like genocide and war. It takes a tragedy on our own soil, as Andy Otto (http://bustedhalo.com/features/desensitized-to-a-messy-world) said, to get us to realize that there is indeed great suffering in the world. Though it's great to have compassion for people in suffering, we need to realize the we can't fight all the battles of the world. Like Romero said, we need to pick one thing and do it very well. I think when a friend tells us a story of their own suffering, it hits much closer to home even if the tragedy is on a much smaller scale because it is happening to someone we love. We are more predisposed to help those who are close to us, even if it's just by being there to listen, because we can more readily see the fruits of our labors (not in an entirely selfish sense-- rather, it is sometimes more rewarding to help someone whom we love than a stranger). The Gospel says we "ought" to respond with compassion. We should, like Jesus, alleviate the suffering of others-- especially those who are marginalized and beaten down. The Gospel's main message is challenging us to love others, especially those we wouldn't be as close with otherwise. I think this can be applied to a contemporary context by trying to love one's neighbor regardless of characteristics, values, or views. Whether it is someone's race, religion, ethnicity, orientation, gender, political views, socioeconomic class, or other, we should act as dear neighbor to all. I think living by the Gospel message is putting one's heart and soul into helping others-- whether this is working to end child hunger in Africa or just simply being a great listener for a friend in crisis. For example, I have worked in community service before-- like working at the zoo, which is supporting justice for our environment and creatures. However, just by being there for a friend, I feel I have done work that is just as great as my larger-scale service. By engaging the "messiness" of life, great or small, we are acknowledging its presence and working to change it.

Justice and Charity

Project HOME does both works of justice and of charity. They help the homeless in the moment by giving outreach, shelter, food, and clothing, but they also work towards long-term justice by advocating for the needs of the homeless. They work to break the cycle of poverty through having not only a bed but also programs for long-term improvement. Such programs include education, work experiences, affordable housing,and medical care. Project HOME is a better model than other homeless shelters because it is more well-rounded. While shelters that offer basic survival needs are helpful, Project HOME provides a holistic approach that eventually gets people off the streets. It is a more complicated model because it provides more than just basic survival needs (clothing, shelter, food and water)-- it also provides services such as medical care, housing, and opportunities for education and empowerment. I think that all of Project HOME's programs are very important. However, if I had to pick one that was the "best," I would have to say housing. Project HOME provides short-term and long-term housing. The reason I say that this program is the best is because going from homeless to home owner is a very empowering transformation. It can give people the boost they need to get back on their feet and can empower them and enable them to obtain an education and a job. (In most cases, it's pretty hard to be focused on school or get hired for a job if you don't have a home. This is one of the first, basic steps in the journey to improve one's situation.)