Mitt Romney has a simple explanation for the frustration of those who complain about the increasing gap between the rich and the poor in this country: they complain because they resent the success of the wealthy and are envious of their wealth. This very convenient narrative allows him to dismiss and ignore the chasm that separates the 0.1% from the 99.9%.

Fortunately, I have been blessed with doubt.

Such a blessing may be inconvenient; it is surely uncomfortable. But by testing everything–especially simple explanations for complex issues–and praying for wisdom and understanding, I may hope to retain that which is good: the truth.

What if the “the bitter politics of envy” or the “resentment of success” is really a question about economic justice?

Now, whenever I think of justice, I think of my dog.

Whenever I come home, my dog is there to greet me with the excitable joy of an anxious husky. No matter how bad my day has been, her wagging tail brushes my cares away. I spend a few minutes playing with her. I get down on my hands and knees and we chase each other around the couch; she shove me with her but, and I push her gently away. She drops down into a play-bow, and I run away. She chases me, and I wrestle her to the ground, roll her to her side, and rub her belly. For those few minutes, we are no longer “owner” and “pet.” Rather, we are two young pups at play. Of course, she is not always a good dog. Sometimes, our play gets a little rough, and she nips at my hand, biting a little too hard.

“No!” I say, in a stern voice. Play time comes to an abrupt end.

“Sit!” I command. She sits.

“Down!” She lies down. I command her to stay, and she remains in a down-stay for a few minutes while I ignore her. She is being punished.

At the end of her sentence, I call her to me. She walks slowly to me with her head hung low and her tail between her legs. I pet her and give her a hug and tell her she is a good dog. Her tail wags, and I give her a treat. We resume playing, and she never nips at me again.

My relationship with my dog helps me think about the three different aspects of justice. As I played with my dog, we played as equals. This is commutative justice–a reciprocal relationship among equals. But when she misbehaved, she was punished and corrected. This is retributive justice. But then, after the punishment, I re-established the bond between us. This is restorative justice. The bond between us has grown stronger because of respect, communication, and understanding. We have a right relationship between us. This is justice.

Perhaps this is why Mitt Romney’s statement makes me sad: He does not see the issue of income or wealth inequality as an issue of justice, and by doing so, he fails to enter into a right relationship (or any relationship) with the poor or their advocates. The cries for economic justice are dismissed as the bitter complaints of people not his equals: they are envious, they are resentful. Lacking the desire to succeed, they are flawed. It is a very binary world view: “I am successful, and they are envious.”

I must continually challenge myself to see things not in terms of right or wrong, or whether I agree or disagree. I must try to see the world–in all its beauty and ugliness, in all its joys and sorrows, in all its awesome wonders and mundane familiarity–in terms of relationship. And I must continuously ask myself, “Do I live in a right relationship with it?”

This is hard. It is hard because if I want to answer that question in the affirmative, then I cannot simply dismiss anything I disagree with or anything I find objectionable. It is also hard because I realize know what the answer is: “I don’t.” My relationship with the world should be one based on love, and it frustrates me that I do not love as I should.

As Pope Benedict XVI explained in his encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, “love becomes the criterion for the definitive decision about a human life’s worth or lack thereof . . . . Love of God and love of neighbor have become one: in the least of the brethren we find Jesus himself, and in Jesus we find God.” (Deus Caritas Est, paragraph 15)

When we hear people cry out out against the injustice and suffering inflicted upon those living in poverty, may we hear their cries with a loving heart, and not dismiss them as mere grousing. Rather, let us listen to them with a loving heart. And when we are confronted with ignorance and intolerance of our brothers and sisters, let us not turn our backs on them, but restore our relationship with them.

Let us all seek right relationships based on kindness, patience, endurance, and hope. And as we seek this, let us avoid jealousy and arrogance.

“Thank you,” she said. “That was very courteous of you.”

I paused. “Courtesy had nothing to do with it. I’m just trying to stay awake from my desk for as long as possible.”

Thus, a new rule to surviving the corporate world emerged: “Rule #23: Be courteous.”

Yesterday, I read a wall post on Glenn Beck’s Facebook page:

I don’t know anything about sports. And I don’t presume to know everything God’s currently working on. But here’s what I do know: more people are thinking about God today because of Tim Tebow. Not because he’s winning games – but because he’s a man of unusually exceptional character & a Godly man. We need more like him!

 At first glance, I have to agree with what Mr. Beck had to say (which, again in the interest of full disclosure, never sits well with me). We do need more people like Tim Tebow who love God with all their heart, with all their soul, and all their mind. (Mt 22: 37) Indeed, as the psalmist says, “Let all the peoples praise you, O God, let all the peoples praise you.” (Psalm 67)

But we also need more people who love their neighbor as themselves (Mt 22: 39), and recognize the poor, the vulnerable, and the marginalized as their neighbors: “Amen, I say to to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” (Mt 25: 40)

What I find interesting about the attention given to Tim Tebow’s public expression of his faith, is this: Why does it take the public display of a celebrity’s faith to encourage us in ours?

Why do we not pay attention God’s presence in the love between husband and wife, between mother and child? Why do we not pay attention to God’s presence in the sympathy expressed between brothers? Why do we not pay attention to God’s presence in the compassion of a nurse when she comforts someone who was just diagnosed with cancer? Why do we not see God’s presence in the pure joy of a dog’s wagging tail?

We ignore the simple and the mundane. We seem to prefer to celebrate those with high status, fame, and wealth. We prefer celebrity over humility. We prefer ostentatious displays of faith to remind of us God’s presence, while ignoring the ubiquitous signs of God’s love in life’s banality.

In one of St. Francis’ prayers, he says, “Pure and holy simplicity confounds all the wisdom of this world and the wisdom of the body.” (A Salutation of the Virtues) If we keep our eyes looking up to those of high station, we will be disappointed, for they have other concerns:

One day the trees went out to anoint a king over themselves. So they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us.’ But the olive tree answered them, ‘Must I give up my rich oil, whereby gods and human beings are honored, and go off to hold sway over the trees?’ Then the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come; you reign over us!’ But the fig tree answered them, ‘Must I give up my sweetness and my sweet fruit, and go off to hold sway over the trees?’ Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come you, reign over us.’ But the vine answered them, ‘Must I give up my wine that cheers gods* and human beings, and go off to hold sway over the trees?’ Then all the trees said to the buckthorn, ‘Come; you reign over us!’ The buckthorn answered the trees, ‘If you are anointing me in good faith, to make me king over you, come, and take refuge in my shadow. (Judges 9: 8-15)

So let us not focus too much on Tim Tebow. Let us not crown another celebrity king. Rather, let us turn our hearts to the least among us, showing solidarity with the least of our brothers and sisters.

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.” (Mt 5: 5) Let us then imitate the meek and not Tim Tebow.

The Keystone XL pipeline is incompatible with my Franciscan view of the world. The pipeline presents serious environmental and health risks. The Keystone XL will transport thick, toxic bitumen from the Alberta tar sands. Extraction of oil from the tar sands fragment and destroy the Boreal forest, killing migratory birds and many other species. Toxic waste from mining operations are stored in tailings ponds that already cover 65 square miles, resulting in higher rates of cancer among the Fort Chipewyan First Nations community. The destructive effects of tar sands extraction are so great that Luc Bouchard, Bishop of St. Paul in Alberta concluded that “…the integrity of creation in the Athabsca oil sands is clearly being sacrificed for economic gain. . . . The present pace and scale of development in the Athabasca oil sands cannot be morally justified. Active steps to alleviate this environmental damage must be undertaken.”

The Keystone XL pipeline will only transport this destruction into the United States. Between 2000 and 2009, pipeline accidents resulted in almost 3,000 significant incidents and over 160 deaths. In 2010, Enbridge pipelines spilled over 1 million gallons of tar sands into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, 275,000 gallons in a suburb of Chicago, and 126,000 gallons in North Dakota. If the Keystone XL were to leak, the environmental effects would be devastating.

Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline is one step we can take in alleviating the damage to Alberta’s Boreal forest, preventing future disasters in the United States, and exercising our duty to be good stewards of the environment.

“The earth is full of the steadfast love of the lord.” (Ps 33: 5) In a spirit of reciprocity, we must return that love. As Pope Benedict the XVI explained in his encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, “The envrionment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. . . . The protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet.”

Scripture tells us that we are our brothers keeper (Gen 4, 9-10); the Lord instructs us that “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt 22: 39). Like St. Francis, I have come to understand the truth that all of Creation–the Boreal forest of Alberta, the waters of the Athabasca River, the migratory birds and other species, and the Fort Chipewyan First Nations–are our brothers and sisters. We have an obligation and responsibility to them that far outweighs any possible economic gain realized by the Keystone  XL pipeline.

“God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good” (Gen 1: 31) I hope after considering my words and the wisdom of St. Francis of Assisi, you will reconsider your position on the Keystone XL pipeline and block its approval.

Thank you for your service, and may you be blessed with peace and all goodness!

We see what we want to see, and it is that desire to see only what we want to see that blinds us from the truth.

Without faith, I cannot know God. I cannot know God only through philosophy. I cannot know God only through science. I cannot know God only by doing right by others.

Not that these things do not have value. Of course they do. It would be absurd to suggest otherwise. Everything can help see the truth–that is, to help us distinguish between reality and shadow–provided that we have faith. We see and understand to the extent that we have faith. A person’s lack of belief–his or her blindness–results simply from a lack of faith.

It is from a lack of faith that inspires an atheist to argue against the existence of God from the problem of evil. (On the contrary, the argument makes no sense to a person with faith.) It is from a non-believer’s lack of faith that evidence from the fossil record suggests that the story of Creation is a nothing but a myth. (To me, evolution illustrates that God’s creation is a work in progress.) It is a physicist’s lack of faith that leads him to conclude there is no God, not string theory. (In fact, is our pursuit of science nothing more than man exploring Eden as described in Gen 2: 19-20?) It is a lack of faith that leads people into immorality, not Lady GaGa.

Thus, it is not reason that leads one away from God. It is a lack of faith that leads one away from God. And reason cannot diminish a person’s faith, since faith and reason derive from the same source.

Faith gives man sight. But, given the frailty of the human condition, our sight can go bad. Even those who can see need glasses. Fortunately, we have reason, science, the arts, philosophy, and so many other great gifts that help us maintain the spiritual vision of our faith.

Hence, there is no need to repeal the Enlightenment.

Peace and all goodness!

Not so much unlike ourselves. Nature then is a mirror of who we, as a species, are. Are we compassionate neighbors? Rich benefactors? Or fearful overlords? The way we look at Nature, then, is a reflection of our values. What values prompt someone to approach Nature as a loving neighbor, full of compassion? What values prompts someone to approach Nature as a resource to be exploited?

Nature is humanity’s spouse, in a sense. Nature is our eternal companion given to us so that our pilgrimage would not be such a lonely one. If Nature is our spouse, how should we treat Her? With love and respect, cherishing every moment with her? Or do we abuse Her? Do we rape her?

If a spouse, then Nature has human goods that need to be nourished. Health is first and foremost. Do our policies promote the health of the environment? When we pollute the air and water, we poison the health of the environment. Would we poison our spouse? Would we poison ourselves. When our spouse is sick, would we not seek healing?

We see the beauty of our spouse. To us, our spouse is the most beautiful thing we see. So too, then Nature. She is stunningly beautiful. She is magnificent. We treasure that beauty. But when we disfigure Nature, we rob Her of that treasure.

Nature is strong and resilient. Her strength gives us strength. When our spouse thrives, do we not also? But strength is dependent on health. If Nature is sick, then she is weak, and the water we drink and the food we eat will make us sick; the air we breathe will choke us. For us to be strong, Nature must be strong. For Nature to be strong, Nature must be healthy.

Our spouse is rich and wealthy, and She shares her wealth abundantly. But do we covet her wealth? Who would steal from one’s spouse? But we do it everyday when we strip Nature of her wealth for our own material gain. “No blind god Plutus is, keen of sight, but only if he has Wisdom for a companion.” Plato wrote. But we are blinded by Plutus. We ignore our spouses beauty and granduer. We see only her riches, and we covet them. And in our greed, we lack wisdom.

We must act wisely with our Spouse. We must stand strong with her, and have the courage to protect her against those who would do her harm. Love requires nothing less. But love requires more, much more. To live in harmony with our spouse—to live justly, righteously, and peacefully—we must strive to understand, and to live in awe that someone would love us in return, despite all our faults and failings.

And this is the true beauty of Nature. That despite our abuse, our neglect, our destructive selfishness, she still provides for us. She still loves us. If we get to know Nature as our spouse, and if we act in a manner befitting a faithful spouse, then perhaps we will begin to make better decisions and offer better counsel regarding the way we treat Her.

We are lucky that we, as a species, have been given such a beautiful companion in Nature during our sojourn on earth. Let us then treat Nature as a beloved spouse. Let us vow to be true to Her in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. Let us love Her and honor Her all the days of our lives.

“I’d like to address the MacPhail family,” Davis said, according to The Associated Press. “Let you know, despite the situation you are in, I’m not the one who personally killed your son, your father, your brother. I am innocent.

“The incident that happened that night is not my fault,” he added. “I did not have a gun. All I can ask … is that you look deeper into this case so that you really can finally see the truth.

“I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight,” he said. “For those about to take my life, God have mercy on your souls. And may God bless your souls.”

I will have more thoughts on this later…

The State of Georgia will execute Troy Davis on September 21, 2011 for a crime he may not have committed. He was convicted of killing a Savannah police officer in 1989, based on eye witnesses testimony. Several of those witnesses have since recanted, claiming that they were pressured by the police to blame Mr. Davis. One of those who did not recant may have been the real murderer, and that he implicated Troy Davis to save himself. No physical evidence links Mr. Davis to the crime. Judge Rosemary Barkett of the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals offered her opinion of this case:

To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional.

Where a defendant can make a viable claim of actual innocence is facing execution, the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception should apply.

Yet the 11^th Circuit still denied his appeal, Mr. Davis awaits death, and the State of Georgia risks executing a many who may very well be innocent.

With so much doubt as to Troy Davis’ guilt, how can the State of Georgia proceed with his execution? “As I Live, says the Lord, I swear I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked man’s conversion.” (Ez 33: 11). Indeed, “God did not send his son into the world to condemn, but that the world may be saved through him.” (Jn 3: 17) If, then, God does not wish to condemn the wicked, then who are we execute someone who may very well be innocent? Should we model our behavior on the instructions that Cain’s descendant Lamech gave to his wives?

Wives of Lamech, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a boy for bruising me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold. (Gn 5: 23 – 24)

Or should we model our behavior on Christ?

Then Peter approaching asked him, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him, As many as seven times?” Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.” (Mt 18: 21 – 22)

The State of Georgia has the duty to inflict punishment in order to provide for the common good of its citizenry. The friends and family who mourn Officer MacPhail have the right to see the interests of justice served: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.” (Mt 5: 4). But punishment also serves to correct the guilty party; the finality of death penalty precludes this hope:

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. (Bl. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56)

Troy Davis, a man who may very well be innocent, will be executed by the State of Georgia. His execution will serve no purpose, other than to condemn ourselves and our society. “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, “You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.” (Mt 5: 21)

The reliance on the death penalty as the “ultimate form of justice” is one that we as a civilized society need to reject. Rather, we should embrace the vision of justice that Saint Francis of Assisi showed to us in dealing with the wolf who terrorized the city of Gubbio:

But, Brother Wolf, I want to make peace between you and them, so that they will never be harmed by you, and they will dismiss all your past offenses, and both men and dogs will no longer pursue you….But, Brother Wolf, for me to obtain this favor for you, I want you to promise me that you will never harm any animal or person or dare to harm anything.

I am Troy Davis, because I share with him the same beginning. You are Troy Davis because you share with him the same end; we are all Troy Davis because we are made in the same image (Gn 1: 26, 27; 2: 7; 3: 19). Now is the time for clemency; later will be the time for justice.

Now you understand. Now you can act.

To read more about Troy Davis and his case, you can read these articles from Forbes, The Atlantic, and Mother Jones provide excellent background and opinion.

To take action, the Innocence Project and Amnesty International provide opportunities for you to stand in solidarity with Troy Davis.

Peace and goodness!

Proponents of such an amendment often point out that 49 states have some sort of legal requirement for a balanced budget (either in the form of a constitutional requirement or a statutory requirement) to support their argument. Perhaps a useful question to ask is, “How well have these balanced budget requirements worked for these states?”

Let us consider Illinois as an example. According to Article VIII, Section 2.b of the Illinois Constitution,

The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.

Illinois’ total debt is currently over $120 billion. There are other examples:

• California has a constitutional requirement as well (see Article 4, Section 12, and Article 16, Section 1), its debt is over $375 billion;
• Minnesota’s state government was shut down for two weeks over its debt level despite a statutory citation requiring a balanced budget; and
• Article 7, section 2 of the New York Constitution did not seem to prevent New York from amassing over $280 billion in debt.

From these examples, I am likely to infer that a Balanced Budget Amendment would not do anything to curb our spending on a national level.

Another question a person might ask regarding a Balanced Budget Amendment is, “How would such an amendment be enforced?” Would the President be impeached if he signed an unbalanced budget into law? Or, should the House of Representatives be held responsible? Should the Speaker of the House or the Chairman of the House Budget Committee face fines and/or imprisonment for violating the law of the land?

Perhaps we should again look at the states for guidance. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, requirements for an enforcement provision are not the norm (State Balanced Budget Provisions, p. 9). Alabama, according to the NCSL, has the most rigorous enforcement provisions: A treasurer who violates the provision is subject to a $5,000 fine and up to two years in prison, as well as impeachment. (Fortunately for Young Boozer, the State Treasurer of Alabama, it is not clear if this provision has been enforced–Alabama’s debt is currently at $26 billion.) So much for state guidance.

A final question must be asked, “Is a Balanced Budget Amendment really necessary?” I tend to concur with the  conclusion of the NCSL:

For the majority of states, however, the most important factor contributing to balanced budgets is not an enforcement mechanism or a provision specifying how a shortfall will be resolved. Rather, it is the tradition of balancing the budget that has created a forceful political rule to do so. Although states with enforcement provisions emphasize their importance, the expectation that state budgets will be balanced is the most important force in maintaining a balanced budget. (State Balanced Budget Provisions, p. 9).

Legislation reflects our societal values, but legislation is incapable forcing behavior (the noble experiment of the 18th Amendment provides a useful example).

Perhaps the motivation behind a Balanced Budget Amendment–to create sustainable budgets–is wise. However, I wonder if the reality of such an amendment would restrict the options of policymakers during periods of economic stress that are endemic to our economic system and only hurt the common good.