Politics and Perception

Here in Canada we have just finished a federal election while the US presidential election has three more weeks to go (it seems that it has been going on for ages). One characteristic that stands out in these election campaigns is the tremendous amount of negativity in the campaigns. Here in Canada the Conservatives ran attack ads that said that Dion (the Liberal leader) was too much of a risk. At the same time the Liberals and the New Democrats ran ads that said much the same thing about Harper (the Conservative leader). It seems to me that things might be even worse in the US campaign. Generally, it seems to me that each side (not always officially) seeks to portray their opponent as being incompetent or corrupt. Experts tell us that these kind of attacks in fact work. Attack ads are able to move voters from one opinion to another. The problem, I think, is that at the same time these ads create a public perception of politicians in general. In other words, if during an election campaign both sides spend huge amounts of money trying to convince the public that their opponents are incompetent, corrupt, or possibly immoral then at the end of the campaign politicians in general should not be surprised when the voting public is generally of the opinion that all politicians are incompetent, or corrupt, or immoral. Another problem of course is that this negativity has an impact on politicians ability (it seems to me) to work together to solve serious problems facing the country. Sure, they talk about putting negativity aside but why, for example, would Prime Minister Harper want to work with Newfoundland premier Danny Williams when Williams has called him every name under the sun and actively campaigned against the Conservative party in the election. Politics, ideally, is a competition of ideas. When politics start to be about character assassination this has to effect the ability of the political system to function in the interests of the whole country.

Appeasement?

American media are busily discussing a speech by President Bush in which he (Bush) said that anyone (Barrack Obama) who would meet with Iran or Hamas would be engaged in appeasement. Appeasement gets its negative connotation from the Munich Conference of the 1930's where Chamberlain from Britain and Daladier from France gave in to Hitler's demands in order to avoid another war. The most obvious thing that should be pointed out is that Hitler's subsequent aggression did not come from the fact that the French and English talked to him. The aggression came because Hitler came to the conclusion that Chamberlain and Daladier would never go to war and therefore there was no obstacle to his ambitions. The point is that "talking" is not the same as appeasement so the Bush allegation is way off base.

Another relevant example here is the confrontation between Kennedy and Khrushchev in the early 1960's. Initially Khrushchev concluded that he could push Kennedy around and hence he adopted a very aggressive posture. When, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy convinced Khrushchev that he was prepared to go to war to stem Soviet aggression Khrushchev was forced to back down. The result of this confrontation however, was increased talking and this increased talking resulted in considerable progress in US - Soviet relations in following years. So again, the key is not the refusal to talk. In the same way during the 1970's Nixon, who had made a name by being an anti-communist, made progress in Sino-American relations by abandoning the policy of isolating China. Instead Nixon became the first president to visit China and again much useful change was the result. Something similar happened during the 1980's in US - Soviet relations. Reagan, who again made a name as an anti - communist, made great progress by in fact being willing to talk to Gorbachev. The result led ultimately to the end of the USSR.

The examples show that talking to an opponent is not the same as appeasing them. When dealing with aggressors it is clearly vital to make clear that force will be used at some point to repel aggression. This is what went wrong at Munich. Hitler came to the conclusion that force would never be used. Once you make it clear that you are prepared to use force it seems clear that talking to potential aggressors can lead to positive progress. For Bush to misuse the word appeasement as he did simply does not provide anything useful to the issue of how to deal with Iran and its clients Hamas and Hezbollah.

Political Karma?

There has been much talk in the media recently over the "fate" of New York governor Eliot Spitzer. Mr Spitzer who made a political name for himself as a zealous prosecutor, including prosecution of crimes relation to prostitution, has been identified as a customer of an expensive call - girl. Faced with this evidence Spitzer resigned his position and presumably lost any chance he might have had for higher public office in the future.

While I don't favor prostitution I would like to point out that the "rules" have been very unevenly applied in the past. For example, the historians I have read suggest that one of Spitzer's predecessors as Governor, Franklin Roosevelt, later to be president of the USA, had a mistress at least occasionally during his life. Plausible suggestions have been made that even Dwight Eisenhower had a mistress during the war (his female driver). John F. Kennedy seems to have been well known as a "ladies man" yet nothing was made of this during his lifetime. Senator Gary Hart, at one time a prime candidate to be president virtually disappeared from public view when it was revealed that he had spent time on a yacht with an attractive model who was not his wife. Henry Kissinger (its hard to imagine him as a ladies man) once famously said that "power was the ultimate aphrodisiac". Of course we have the story of Bill Clinton and Monica. In Clinton's case it seems that the politicians sitting on his impeachment decided that his sexual adventures were not serious enough to justify depriving him of office.

Moving outside of the USA just over ten years ago Princess Diana complained about the relationship between Prince Charles and his mistress (now wife). Looking back in British history you could almost say that with minor exceptions (Like George VI perhaps) it was accepted that the monarch would have a mistress. Far back in history, the tale of Henry VI wives was basically a story of the politics of the king's mistresses and wives. A limerick still exists which celebrates one of the mistresses of Charles II.

So, I think that the question is, does good leadership demand a particular ethical standard? More particularly, is sexual immorality incompatible with leadership? In scripture we find the story of King David's "sin" with Bathsheba. David remains chosen by God, but possibly only because of his repentance. We know that some leaders, John A. Macdonald in Canada and Winston Churchill in Britain to name two would likely be hounded out of office today because of their drinking problems. So, it seems to me that human imperfection is not an impediment to leadership and extravagant sin is not a sign of greatness. What is different is that in the past leaders could have a more or less private life. Today, with the tabloid press, this is not possible. Leaders who expect people to follow them have to set an example.

A One Party Democracy

Here in the province of Alberta where I live we just finished having an election. The governing party gained a massive majority by winning more than 85% of the seats in the legislature. The reason I refer to a one party democracy is because the same party has formed the government in this province since 1970. Prior to 1970 another party had held power since 1935. So Albertans do not change governments on a very regular basis at all. How does this relate to the ideals of democracy?

First of all I suppose its important to note that elections here are always free and democratic. People choose to vote for the governing party time after time. One thing worth pointing out is that the percentage of the popular vote won by the governing party does not accurately reflect the number of seats gained by the party in the legislature. In this election the governing party with about 50% of the popular vote gained 85% of the seats in the legislature. This is one of the effects of a single - member plurality system. If we had some kind of a system of proportional representation the dominance of the governing party would not be as pronounced.

Secondly I would observe that opposition politicians tend to have a pronounced charisma deficit. This election was made to be won by the opposition. The governing party had recently changed leaders from a popular charismatic leader to someone not as telegenic. The government had irritated a number of important constituencies in the province. Despite this the opposition parties actually lost seats in the legislature. One possibility is that the voters who wanted change did not see either opposition party as a potential government and so chose to accept the promise of change from the traditional governing party.

So, is it possible that Alberta will have a change of government any time in the future? It is true that traditionally Albertans are quite conservative in the sense that they are reluctant to change. Change might be possible if the opposition can find leadership that captures the attention of the electorate. Change might also become possible if the government "loses its touch" and provides the opposition with possible election issues. Still, with Alberta in the midst of an economic boom, the prospect of many more years of rule by the same party remains.

American Politics

I have just been watching U.S. senator John McCain speaking (now as the presumtive Republican nominee) to a conservative political action group in Washington. Since Romney had already announced that he was suspending his campaign the McCain talk took the tone of an election speech with the Senator attacking the two leading Democrats and attempting to establish his conservative credentials. Now McCain seems to be a straight forward plain speaking sort but there is one thing his talk still had in common with most political speeches.

Politicians of all sorts during election time want to tell the voters that they will both increase spending and cut taxes at the same time. This is all the more amazing considering the huge size of the american budget deficit at this time. To be sure McCain did not specifically talk about increasing spending although given his continuing support for the Iraq war it seems a given that he would at least increase spending for the military. Also, to give him credit he did say that he would try to control the increase in budgetary spending due to entitlement programs and to the special spending provisions attached to ordinary spending bills (commonly called "pork"). He did say though, that he would make permanent the Bush tax cuts and would have further tax cuts especially for business.

So, I suggest that this is again a case of "you can have your cake and eat it too". If the American government could operate on any other basis the population would have been told that there was a price to be paid for the Iraq war. There would have been new taxes to pay for the huge costs associated with the war and the draft might even have been re-instated in order to provide the troops needed for the war. Instead people were told that they might have to endure a restriction on their civil liberties as part of the "war on terror" and not much else. Of course in that case people might have turned against the war even sooner than they did. Anyway, I wish that politicians would be honest with voters.

Culture Wars?

I have just finished reading a book by Bernard Goldberg titled 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (it was in the bargain bin at the bookstore). The book is basically an attack on those people (mostly liberals in this case) who do not share the political viewpoints of the author. I have read a similar book by Rush Limbaugh and another from a liberal viewpoint by Al Franken. The purpose of each of these books is to ridicule and attack people who are political opponents. To a certain extent such a way of thinking is understandable. I recall a story told of the long time rivalry between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor (When Lady Astor said that if she was married to Churchill she would put poison in his tea Churchill's retort was that if he were married to Astor he would drink the poison). However, because of the intensity of these attacks I think that these books point to a malaise in American politics (and to a lesser extent in Canadian politics) that seems to be carrying over to "politics" within the Catholic Church in the USA.

The reason that denigrating attacks on political opponents is damaging to the political process is simply because such attacks make any kind of political compromise less and less likely. The people who were attacked in such a way are not likely to want to cooperate in any way with the attackers and nobody is likely to want to be seen as "soft" on the political opposition. This is damaging to the political process because the basic mechanism of democracy is compromise. In a "pure" democracy citizens would discuss a question of what ought to be done until some kind of a consensus was reached. Citizens might not get exactly what they wanted but would still get something that they could agree on. If this consensus was not possible, only then would the majority rule theory be applied. This suggests that the ability to seek consensus - to compromise - is key to the democratic process. Now, I am not an expert on American politics but it seems to me that what we are seeing is increasing polarization between "liberals" and "conservatives." It seems to me that this polarization is making it increasingly unlikely that the American government will be able to deal with the important issues facing the nation in the future.

When I read religious blogs by Catholic "liberals" or "conservatives" I think that I see a similar polarization. Here the damage is not to a process but rather to the very idea of what it means to be a Church. Jesus prayed "that they may be one," and Paul over and over again urged unity in the Church. Anything therefore that damages the unity of the Church would seem to be a bad thing. The Church is like a family in the way that just as you do not choose who is in your family so you do not choose who is sitting next to you in Church. At the same time in both the family and the Church our faith requires us to accept everyone (maybe especially those we might not agree with).

However, it is true that there are some times when compromise is not possible. The issue of abortion for example, polarized as it is between the issue of respect for life and women's rights, does not seem to readily allow for compromise. Here is where there are no easy answers. Jesus did not send people away. Think for example of the story of the rich young man. The young man clearly wants to follow Jesus and Jesus gives him the invitation with one challenge - to sell what he has and give it to the poor. The young man went away because he was rich and unable to respond to the challenge. The point is that Jesus did not directly send the man away - and neither should we do so with people who dissent from the church. The Church (and those in the Church) does not need to act as a "gatekeeper" to the sacraments. What the Church needs to do is to faithfully proclaim the challenge of living a life that is faithful to the call of Jesus.

Politics and Religion

"So, can someone who is Catholic vote for the Liberal Party of Canada anymore"? I was asked this question recently by a neighbor while we were having supper. The truth is that the nature of liberalism has changed considerably in the past number of years. In the past lots of people related to the themes of liberalism found in the "New Deal" of Franklin Roosevelt. It seemed proper to stand up for the poor and to try and find ways to help improve their lives. But it seems to me that other themes have come to dominate liberal agendas. Abortion is one issue that seems to identify liberals now. Gay marriage is another issue that liberals seem to have adopted. So the question asked is a good one. If the Liberal party consistently adopts positions that are contrary to Catholic social teaching does it follow that a Catholic voter should refuse to vote for a Liberal candidate? This issue has drawn a great deal of attention in the US where the support of the Democratic party for abortion has led many conservative Catholics to suggest that voting Democrat should be unthinkable. Recently the Boston Globe quoted the archbishop of Boston on this issue:

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."..."I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

A complicating factor here is the nature of democracy. Is the role of the elected representative to follow the "party line" in his voting or is it to follow the wishes of constituents (as nearly as they can be perceived) in voting. It seems to me that the American system tends to more closely follow the second option while more emphasis is placed in Canada on following the party line. This aspect of democracy is what leads some politicians to claim that they are personally opposed to abortion but their votes reflect the wishes of their constituency. Besides, how much influence can one legislator have?

Another issue to consider here is the existence of other important issues besides abortion. So, for example, if candidate A was opposed to abortion but was in favor of using nuclear weapons to deal with the problems in Iran (an American issue, I know) it might be possible to vote for candidate B, even though they favor abortion, because they oppose the nuclear option for Iran.

Generally, then, it should be difficult for a Catholic to vote for a Liberal because of the party policies that are contrary to Catholic social teaching. It might be possible to do so, however, to avoid some kind of greater evil.

Politically Correct

Heterosexism is the latest addition to my lexicon of politically correct words. Google the word and you will find almost 600,000 entries. The ending of the word is intended to connect it with words such as racism. Heterosexism apparently is an ideologically motivated opposition any kind of non-heterosexual behavior. In practice it seems to be the sin of saying or implying that monogamous male-female relationships with children are in any way normative.

This is an interesting development. Back in the early 1980's when I was still teaching social studies we had an incident involving an individual teaching promoting his own version of history that happened to be highly prejudiced against the Jews. One of the outcomes for social studies teachers was that we were supervised more often (to catch anyone else who was promoting anti-Jewish ideas). Another outcome in this province was the promotion of tolerance and understanding as a key to a multi-cultural society. We were told that we needed to understand the basis for the differences in our society and to respect the rights of all groups to their own way of life. This is a bit different than the notion of heterosexism. Now the minority group does not seek to be understood or tolerated. Instead it seeks to make non-heterosexual behavior into a lifestyle that is equal in every way to any heterosexual lifestyle.

What has clearly changed here is any notion that there is a particular lifestyle or way of life that is "normal." This notion of society telling its members which behaviors are desirable and which are undesirable has been the basis for social organization (at least according to some sociologists). Clearly there still are some behaviors which we are still not prepared to condone as a society. (Think for example about pedophilia.) So the question is, does this new way of thinking about sexual lifestyles represent a new stage of enlightenment for our society? Or is this another step on the road to the disintegration of our society? Does my difficulty accepting this new way of thinking reflect homophobia on my part or does it reflect my socialization? If we used the "slippery slope" argument here does it follow that any choice regarding sexual lifestyle should be accepted as "normal" including those which we demonize today? I hope not.

Wounded Knee

Last night I watched the HBO film Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee based on the Dee Brown book of the same title. I thought that the film did a good job portraying the central dilemma facing First Nations people in both Canada and the USA during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Essentially the problem was that in the clash of cultures that took place during those years the First Nations people were not likely to gain any kind of advantage. The attitude of the dominant European culture was that the native inhabitants of the land should be assimilated into the dominant culture - or become extinct. The problem was that those First Nations people who did try to become "white men" as a result of their experiences in the "white man's" schools soon found that they lost touch with their own communities and culture and at the same time were not fully accepted into the dominant culture.

Charles, the main character in the film, has such an experience. We first encounter him at the time of the battle of the Little Big Horn. In the aftermath of this battle his father takes the path of assimilation and he, Charles, (I forget his Sioux name) is sent east to school. He returns to his people years later as a doctor but finds that corruption,bureaucracy, and indifference make it impossible for him to have a meaningful impact on behalf of his people. The film culminates with the massacre at Wounded Knee where the members of the US 7th Cavalry (Custer's unit at Little Big Horn) open fire on a mostly unarmed group of Sioux.

The story illustrates a very real tragedy. I can not imagine any alternative situation (given the culture of the 19th century) that would not have had a tragic outcome for the First Nations inhabitants of this land. There were, of course, many other outcomes that were far more tragic. It appears for example that the native inhabitants of the Caribbean islands were driven to extinction quite early in the period of European contact. The Beothuk, inhabitants of Newfoundland were also driven to extinction, mostly as a result of European contact.

The problem I have in my way of thinking is regarding what to do about this tragedy. Very real damage was done to some people. (I have already written regarding my sympathy for those students in residential schools who were the victims of sexual or physical abuse). The question is what can or should be done for the First Nations people? Is there a way for them to maintain their culture and exist in the majority society without having some measure of economic sovereignty? Will there ever come a time when the majority society does not "owe" them for what was done by our forefathers to their forefathers?

High Prices

Two related items caught my attention in the news lately. First of all is the issue of gasoline prices. On CNN much was being made of the fact that US prices had passed $3.19 per gallon (for the record, the equivalent current price where I live is about $4.65 per US gallon. The second item that caught my attention was the editorial headline "Cheap rent is not a public right." In the editorial the author was attempting to make a case for preserving the free market in rental accommodation in the face of increasing pressures for rent controls to deal with dramatic inflation in rental costs recently.

Both of these items are related in some way to the free market system. In both cases we are told that the shortage (or apparent shortage) of gasoline and rental accommodation has caused the price increase. We are told that the only thing to do is to maintain the free price system and that the market will eventually correct itself. So, for example, in an ideal system an entrepreneur might find high gasoline prices attractive enough that he would invest in increased refining capacity. This increase in capacity would relieve the shortage and result in a decrease in prices. The same is theoretically true for rental accommodation. So why is this unlikely to happen?

The problem I would suggest is that the capitalist system as it exists now is not the "perfect" system of the theoretical model. Take for example the issue of gasoline prices. I've already said that in the pure system high prices would motivate someone to invest in increased production which would drive down prices. The problem is that this would only happen where there was perfect competition - which we don't have. First of all, the government (for good reasons) imposes lots of regulations on the building of refineries. This decreases the motivation for anyone to want to build these things. This results in a situation where a relatively small number of companies dominate the refining capacity of Canada and the USA. A competitor is unlikely to build a new refinery and the existing few refiners are certainly not going to do so. What this means is that the price issue can only be solved by decreasing demand. As prices escalate some people (the poorest) will eventually withdraw from the market thereby lessening demand. The problem with is is that the sting of high prices falls disproportionately on the poor. The second point about this is that the huge profits that go to the oil companies are truly "windfall" profits. They are unlikely to invest these profits in anything that might alleviate short-term prices. The only thing the average person can do about it is to hope that he has oil company stocks in his retirement portfolio. This is one "flaw" in our current capitalist system.

The second "flaw" has to do with the issue of the pursuit of self-interest that is central to capitalism. This idea comes from Adam Smith who prior early in his career was a lecturer in Moral Philosophy at Glasgow. As such I suspect that Smith would have seen a distinction between the pursuit of self-interest and greed or avarice. This is a central problem that capitalism faces today. At what point does the unrestricted pursuit of self-interest deteriorate into something that harms instead of helps the people and therefore becomes criminal in nature? We know from Enron and the Savings and Loan scandals (among others) that this descent into criminal behavior can happen. Now, I'm not saying that a landlord doubling the rent for a senior citizen living on a pension is engaged in criminal behavior but such an action would certainly seem to be immoral from my point of view. The landlord is entitled to an increase but at some point increasing the rent just because you can is simply greed and the harm that it might to in individual cases is what could make it immoral.

Prophets and Pharisees

The blogger Morning’s Minion posts this Seven Step Program for Right Wing American Catholics that is only partly satirical:
If you want to be a successful right-wing American Catholic, you need to follow the following seven steps. It is extremely important that you master each step before you move on to the next one. Only then will everything fit together, and you will find total peace and enlightenment, and those pernicious liberals can't touch you....(1) Make friends with the evangelical right, and ignore the aspects of their theology that conflicts with Catholicism. At the same time, attack your fellow Catholics on the left. This is a good warm-up exercise, as it is not intellectually very challenging.(2) Tell Catholics that they are prohibited from voting Democratic because of their position on abortion and embryonic cell research. If you are feeling really zealous, throw in gay marriage for good measure. For bonus points, come up with some bogus theological justification (if in doubt, just crib from Catholic Answers).(3) Insist that the bishops deny communion to all Democrats. Feel free to denounce the 99 percent of bishops who do not follow your advice. The key to a success at this stage lies in displaying the right amount of self-righteous outrage.(4) Dismiss Catholic social teaching not mentioned in stage 2 as "mere trifles". Be as dismissive as possible, and don't forget to make condescending remarks about Europe. Make sure you have plenty of good anecdotes. Denounce high taxes, and talk about the long waiting list for hip replacements in Canada.(5) Adopt a zealous America-first nationalism. Make sure to note that anybody who opposes Bush's war is a Euro-weenie, and being a pope does not let you off the hook! To ensure that everybody knows how reasonable your position is, point out the fact that your enemies are inflicted with "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and are leftist moon bat loons. Make sure to denounce Euro-weenies and the United Nations. Bonus points if you can twist just war theory to support the Iraq war!(6) Time for consequentialism: the end justifies the means! Make sure you point out that America did no wrong whatsoever during the Second World War, and make those fools understand that nuking the hell out of those Japanese cities was the only way to defend lives. And point out to those "liberals" that torture may be needed to stop terrorists nuking cities (theological source: Jack Bauer on 24). If you are feeling really clever, you can try and argue that Pope John Paul did not really say what they think he said.(7) Disregard facts, including scientific facts. Dismiss evolution and global warming as liberal hoaxes. Now you are ready to create your own reality, and your task has been accomplished. Congratulations! (Note that before too long someone had posted a similar list for left wing American Catholics.)
This post illustrates an apparent polarization in the US Catholic Church that I have been following in my blog reading for some time. I should note that for some reason the blogs I read are mainly “right wing” – mainly I think because they have a greater presence on the Internet. These writers have been concerned with different things over time. Much was written in the past about the issue of the clerical abuse scandal with particular attention being paid to the alleged misdeeds of any bishops regarding their handling of the matter. More recently a prime concern has been with the liturgy. These “right wing” Catholics attribute much of the malaise in contemporary Catholicism to the liturgical changes that followed Vatican II. They seem to feel that restoring the liturgy of the 1950’s will somehow also restore the religious ethos of those days. They are partly right in that our liturgy needs to go back to emphasizing the sacred and the transcendent but I can recall some Latin masses that were not very reverential either.
I think that the most troubling characteristic of these blogs is their willingness to vilify those who they consider to be less than orthodox. Part of the basis for this seems to be the political culture wars in the USA. One of the accusations leveled by the author of the “seven steps” quoted above is that they have adopted the political agenda of the “right wing” including their tendency to personally attack political opponents. The archbishop of Los Angeles is a favorite target for these writers. This seems to me to be contrary to the prayer of Jesus in the Gospel of John (“that they may be one”) and Paul’s exhortations to unity in both Ephesians and Romans. The Catholic Church can embrace a wide variety of people (the original meaning of the word catholic) so why can’t we accept people who are Catholic but who disagree with us. Of course it is true that even in the Gospels we find the disciples fighting over who would be the greatest and in the Acts we find the early Church disagreeing about the application of Jewish law to gentile converts. So, nobody should expect blissful harmony in the Church today.

On one level I suppose these "right wing" writers could be (at least from their own point of view) trying to play a prophetic role in the Church. They certainly feel that the Church has strayed in recent years and are trying to call all of us back to a more fervent, more devout practice of our faith. In the minds of some they might even be trying to drive some “left wingers” from the Church in the belief that a numerically smaller but more devout Church will be more effective. Naturally playing a prophetic role involves alienating some people. Now, here is the tricky part. The other group that insisted on strict rules for their religion and was intolerant of anyone else was the Pharisees. What happened to them? So, I think that the prophetic elements found in some of these “right wing” blogs are good in that they call us back to some important things that have been “left behind” in the years since Vatican II. When these same blogs become so focused on vilifying individual “left wingers” and refusing to see any good in those who disagree with them then they run the risk of becoming Pharisees instead of Prophets.

Residential Schools

I've been watching a debate on the parliamentary channel regarding an opposition motion that the government of Canada apologize to the aboriginal people of Canada for its residential schools policy over the years. I found it interesting that a number of speakers used the phrase "the survivors of residential schools" in their speech. It seems to me that many of the speakers had a very simplistic view of a complicated issue.

First of all, I want to clearly state that those individuals who were abused physically or sexually while they were students in residential schools are indeed victims and deserve an apology and compensation. The question of whether every single student of a residential school is or was a "victim" is a much more complicated question. It seems clear that the objective of the residential schools policy over the years was one of assimilation. It also seems clear that the residential schools policy was wrong minded and created many problems for aboriginal communities and for some individuals. But was every residential school student a victim? Did the individuals (mostly church people) who staffed the residential schools have malice towards the aboriginal people they served?

Whenever I am in St. Albert, Alberta I like to visit the cemetery on Mission Hill. There, among other things I see the resting place of a huge number of Oblate (OMI) missionaries. Despite the sad reality that a few of them did commit acts of physical or sexual abuse the fact is that the majority of these men gave their lives to caring for the aboriginal people entrusted to them. They did this out of love and without hope of gain except in heaven. When I look at the history of some places in Alberta and the Northwest Territory it seems to me that often the best friends that the aboriginal people had were the missionaries. The missionaries in their letters and memoirs seem clearly troubled by the living conditions of the people they served and they constantly lobbied the government to do something. The original leaders of the aboriginal people in Canada over the last 40 or 50 years were graduates of the residential schools.

So I am saying that we know (with the benefit of hindsight and political correctness) that the residential schools policy was wrong headed and failed in many ways. But, it was carried out for the most part by people who thought that they were doing their best for the people they served. Finally, a cynical question: Do all "victims" of residential schools deserve financial compensation? I was also disturbed by the suggestion by some speakers in the parliamentary debate that an apology was needed so the communities could begin the process of healing. Well that might be but I would suggest that when something bad happens to you only you can recover from it. If your healing depends on someone else you might just be putting yourself in the role of perpetual victim. Like I said at the beginning; a complicated question.

Politicians and Morality

Recently, Nancy Pelosi, a member of the Democratic party from San Francisco, was elected speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. This position makes her a very influential politician. During the course of her taking office she made much of her "Catholic" roots and described herself as a "devout" Catholic. As part of her celebration of taking office she attended mass at a Catholic university. What made some conservative Catholic observers angry was the fact that Nancy Pelosi has a public voting record regarding the issue of abortion that is almost perfectly opposed to that of the Catholic church. These Catholic observers seem to feel that it is the duty of the local bishop (in this case the archbishop of Washington) to publicly admonish Pelosi and perhaps to ban her from public participation in the Eucharist.
What's going on here? Some people argue that if the archbishop does not take action he only encourages everyday Catholics to also ignore Catholic moral teaching regarding abortion and other matters. Conservatives disparage what they call "cafeteria catholics." These are (in their view) Catholics who "pick and choose" what they will believe. The result, say the critics, is a group of Catholics whose faith does not mean much to them and consequently is easily ignored. These conservative Catholics would like to see the "cafeteria" catholics out of the church (whatever that means). They would like to seek a Catholic church that might be smaller in numbers but would also be a church that has clear beliefs and a moral code that is practiced by all. Such a church, the conservatives feel, would be a church that present an effective message of evangelization to the rest of the world.
What do I think? It seems to me that the issue is more complicated than the conservatives believe. The issue of abortion is very polarizing. The notion that a bishop could dictate to a catholic politician regarding any issue could be a problem. John F. Kennedy handled the allegation of Rome's control over him by essentially introducing the idea that his private religious life and beliefs were separate from his political duties. This has been expressed recently as, "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't feel I have the right to impose my personal views on others." I myself think that this notion that a politician can have a private moral stance at odds with their public voting record is just a way of avoiding the issue. Still, since we are dealing with the conscience of an individual we have to be careful about public condemnations of their positions. Perhaps the Archbishop has chosen to deal with Pelosi by speaking with her privately. We don't know. Perhaps the Archbishop feels that Pelosi (with her flaws regarding abortion) is still capable of doing good things regarding other issues on the minds of Catholics. We don't know.
Conservatives, on the issue of abortion, as on other issues, have an important prophetic role to play in the Church today. We always need to be reminded of the importance of faithfulness to the traditions of our Church. Conservatives also need to be careful. Sometimes the more extreme conservatives sound a bit like the pharisees in the gospel. Their condemnations of others who they consider less "pure" than themselves seem to lack the charity we associate with Jesus. When a prophet becomes a pharisee their importance to the faith of the Church diminishes considerably.