One of the common refrains from the left and from those not religious is the separation of church and state. The general idea is that politics gets perverted by religion. Centuries of history teach us this and in the grand tradition of our own country, the first immigrants were those escaping religious persecution.

It has been 50 years since Roe v. Wade and also nearly that amount of time since the Christian Coalition and Religious right got its start. Even without going into the origins of the movement and the potentially cynical motives behind it, we can look at what this movement has wrought.

So, I’m reversing it. We shouldn’t be worried about religion perverting our politics but about our politics perverting our religion. Let’s ignore the cynical adoption of abortion as the most important issue of the day. Let’s take most people at their word and assume they are deeply concerned about the issue and want to see it become truly rare.

History has clearly shown that deeply religious people can accomplish great things independent of the government. The Catholics have the Gabriel Project. Unfortunately, it is not as common as it used to be, but it essentially took scared mothers to be and offered counseling, financial assistance, and prayerful options that did not include abortion. Instead of making it illegal, condemning these young women, or preaching against it in the pulpit, they simply eliminated the need by helping them.

Our faith or lack of faith has a direct impact on our beliefs about how government should resolve or not resolve our problems. Jesus even said the poor would always be with us. The only possible way to remain sane is to separate those religious beliefs from our political ones. How can we best assist the poor? What standard of living should every human be guaranteed? How can we possibly mandate and make sure everyone is getting this standard of living?

These are all valuable and important political questions that should be independent of how we individually approach the problem. It is possible to be personally generous and politically selfish. It is possible to be personally pro life and politically pro choice. So, these opinions cannot be the full content of our character. We cannot allow it to define us. We must get back to a world where what we do and what we say matters much more than who we vote for in November.

It shouldn’t be boiled down to a singular issue. In the 1990s, the battle cry of the Republican party was that character matters. No matter what you think of Joe Biden politically, cognitively, or personally, there can be no doubt that he wins a character competition with Donald Trump. Even if Joe Biden isn’t a good man he still wins easily. It’s hard to imagine too many people on this planet that Trump would win a character battle with.

When you allow your fervor over one issue to blind you to the glaring gap in character you have allowed your politics to overwhelm your religion. When you allow one issue to overshadow all of the other ones your faith holds dear you have allowed politics to overwhelm your religion. When you allow your political beliefs to cause you to hate others that have opposing political beliefs then you have allowed politics to overwhelm your religion.

I will not presume to speak for God, but I am reasonably certain he will not ask me who I voted for. A wrong vote is not going to keep me out of heaven or anyone else for that matter. The bigger test is how I treated those around me. If our politics causes us to treat others worse it is time to separate ourselves from politics. So, others might say separate church and state. I say separate state and church.

I did not send this direct response to my deacon, but it fits pretty well with how I am feeling in the moment.

I firmly believe anyone that is ordained in any Catholic or mainstream Christian sect has earned authority. You went through an ordination process. In the case of the Catholic church, you were discerned and went through a discernment process for seven years or more. That’s earned authority. All that being said, I have some earned authority as a teacher and a volunteer catechist. My words and deeds have power when I am acting in those capacities.

It is incumbent upon me to exercise that authority with discretion and grace. Certainly, priests, deacons, and ministers are permitted to have their own viewpoints of how the words in our sacred scripture should be lived out in the modern world. Each church teaches its own way and each individual within that framework interprets those words for themselves. While I am acting in a position of authority it is not my place to insert my own interpretations into my teaching. Those in more direct ministry should do the same.

This brings us to the political side of the conversation. Most texts I know define economics as how we distribute scarce resources. There are so many people. There are fewer homes. So, how do we determine who gets the home and who doesn’t? A market economy is just one answer to that fundamental question. Depending on your point of view it might be the best answer.

We can extend this out to nearly every good you can think of. You can extend it out to services as well. If we are looking at the sanctity of life then one needs to determine what that all entails. Are we narrowly defining it as simply allowing someone to be born and to keep breathing? Do we attach any qualities to that? If one were to talk about dignity as it pertains to life then wouldn’t the inclusion of these basic needs be included in our discussion about life itself?

Therefore, any discussion of life must move beyond birth and move towards these more complex questions. What are the basics everyone must have in order to maintain their dignity? Once we agree to these principles then what is the most efficient and effective way to make sure everyone has access to these things? Does that mean everyone has access to three meals a day? Does it mean everyone has a warm bed and a roof over their head at night? Does it mean that everyone is clothed or has access to affordable health care?

I say all of this as a way to illustrate that just the issue of life itself is not easy and not settled. Even if we were to agree as to what dignity and sanctity looked like we would still not agree on the best way to achieve those ends. Therefore, any opinion on the matter cannot be labeled as sin. As long as people are entering into a conversation or dialogue recognizing the issues and making a good faith effort to solve them then they are not committing sin. In fact, the very notion of assuming we have all the answers is committing the sin of hubris.

It is especially sinful if I use my position as an authority figure to shove my views on these debatable issues to the people under my authority. That is an abuse of my authority. Now, certainly private citizens should debate these issues and those in government should as well. It is more that fair to ask us to do more or do our fair share to bridge these gaps in dignity.

Our faith or beliefs on ethics and morals should absolutely play a role in how we answer those questions, but at the heart of it all we must understand that a differing opinion is just that. It is not a sign of moral superiority. Earned or given authority in one domain does not make us an authority in another. It is wrong to use that authority as a way to leverage behavior in another.

I’ve probably mentioned this before. Unfortunately, essays blend together and memory isn’t what it used to be. I serve on the pastoral council at my church. Essentially, we just serve as a sounding board for the pastor as he makes decisions that impact the entire parish. The general idea is that we come from different walks of life and different demographic groups so that the needs of the parish are met if all of us are able to throw in our two cents. These are generally well-meaning people that have the best interest of the parish at heart.

We generally lead off the meeting with special intentions that we would like the council to pray for as a whole. Usually, these are personal requests on behalf of ourselves, our family, friends, or people we may know. On other occasions they may be generic pleas for comfort and relief to those suffering such as earthquake victims, victims from the recent tornados in the area, or public mass shootings that happen daily. One of the members always prays for teachers and kids, but does so because we apparently are teaching students about critical race theory, grooming younger and younger kids for a life of lesbianism, homosexuality, transgender, or anything else that I suppose might be imagined.

This person is well-meaning and otherwise very nice. One of my failings as people here have noted is that I am usually a nice and agreeable person. I’m not sure when the right time is to correct people like this. I’m certain it’s not during the group prayer. I’m not even sure it is during the meeting itself. Furthermore, I’m not even sure that anything I would say would have any bearing on anything he might believe.

Leaving personal belief or non-belief aside for a moment, I reckon there are two kinds of people as far as this exact point are concerned. There are well-meaning people that heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another that we were teaching this stuff. It’s the REO Speedwagon method of verifying information. The sad thing is that they will accept as gospel (pardon the pun) what others that have nothing to do with education may tell them. If someone like me in education tells them differently then it is just us trying to save face and make ourselves look good. Of course, the second kind of people are the ones that know full well that they are lying, but continue to lie because it serves their interest.

The second plank of fascism was a disdain for human rights. The insidious nature of fascism dictates that one cannot simply peddle in outright discrimination against particular groups. We need some sort of pretext to make it palatable. So, we pervert religion to act as if God has somehow sanctioned and sanctified this discrimination. This is where Christianity turns into Christian nationalism. This is how Jesus of Nazareth somehow turns into Republican Jesus. God and Jesus become weaponized as a way to justify discrimination in our minds and hearts. This is how normally well-meaning people become bigots and zealots.

What is incredibly sad is the assumption that anyone can be taught to be who we want them to be. At our core we are essentially who we are. Whether we identify as male or female, gay or straight, or anything in between the notion that anyone can choose that for us is absurd. The liars know its absurd. The rest should know better but complain about grooming when hate is being groomed before their very eyes.

Last night I was sitting in mass minding my own business (my personal favorite phrase) when our pastor announced that there would be an informational meeting about critical race theory this week. It wasn’t going to be a debate, but Catholics should go because they need to be “informed” if they have school age children.

Of course, he couldn’t help get in the dig that the school attached to the church was never going to teach critical race theory, but the public schools can obviously do what they want. Obviously, I’m not optimistic about the level of information that is going to be offered at this meeting.

I’ve written about matters of faith here before and even though this involves the church this isn’t really about that. The church has stances on discrimination and racism and for the most part they are on point. However, those stances come from a purely faith perspective and that is an area where one either believes or doesn’t believe.

Far be it from me to dispute learned theologians and Biblical scholars on the fine points of faith. They have far more training than I do. All I have is my near perfect score in my Bible course in college and a few decades of private study that goes along with my time as a catechist. That can’t compare to nearly a decade of intense study and then a lifetime of working within the faith.

However, the church has long inserted themselves into opinions on science as it combines with faith. While they clearly understand the faith implications of any number of issues, they clearly are not up to date on the science. They have done this with stem cell research as well as other things that pertain to health and science. Critical race theory is an academic theory that is not being taught in public high schools or junior highs. There is certainly no reason why it would be taught in elementary schools.

So, what the church is likely to present has little to do with critical race theory. They are likely to present a perversion because that is what has been bandied about elsewhere on Fox News and other conservative outlets. A narrow and focused concept has been somehow bastardized into a catch all debate about whether we should tell our kids that they are racists.

Obviously, the approach varies depending on how nuanced the presenter is. The most common sophisticated approach is to point out that racism and discrimination used to exist (it’s impossible to deny Jim Crow) but that it no longer exists because we are better now. So, there is no need to burden our children with the sins of our parents. After all, it might make them feel bad.

Where CRT comes into play is that many of these discriminatory practices were codified into law. These laws have long-lasting effects even if the intention wasn’t there. We can erase those laws. We can change those laws. We can speak out against those laws, but those laws have a lasting effect. Those effects can last generations.

We have somehow taken these simple truths and somehow perverted it into an overly simplistic “white man evil” message. That is the conception that has somehow been attached to CRT. It’s purely an academic theory that was perhaps only somewhat related to other social commentary. Something primarily taught in undergraduate programs and law school programs has suddenly become the bogeyman that the church now appears it needs to address for some reason.

We have the usual caveats about keeping politics out of religion and religion out of politics but this is somehow worse than that. This involves taking something we don’t understand, hastily throwing something together, and then rendering an opinion that has the weight of the church behind it. I’m not attending this informational meeting. I already know what’s coming and I need to keep my blood pressure down.

This is one of those topics that I hesitate to write about. It’s a personal topic that some people have difficultly relating to. This is also not a space where we wallow in our own stuff. So, we walk a fine line between talking about our own issues and looking at issues dispassionately with no personal connection whatsoever. I have to admit that I got inspiration from another spot.

I realize that around these parts the topic of faith and Christianity in general might be taboo, but I drudge on anyway. The phenomenon Pavlovitz noticed has actually been going on longer than that. When I sat on the pastoral council of my old parish we noticed that church attendance and donations were down. This was long before 2016 when Pavlovitz’s writing began to take off and he began addressing this malaise more directly.

As a council, we suggested that we conduct exit interviews (or a survey) to get to the bottom of why church attendance was dropping. Our pastor wouldn’t hear of it. He asserted that people were simply moving away. This was in spite of the fact that they are continually building new neighborhoods and new homes and people are moving into those homes faster than they can build them.

Statistics clearly show that church attendance and faith in general is on the decline. Obviously, for some this is not an issue at all. For some of us it is an issue felt deeply. I certainly can’t speak for everyone, but what I see is a schism between the beliefs that most Christians have and how the faith is practiced in most denominations in the American church. When one can no longer reconcile a benevolent God with all of the hate being spewed by people that call themselves Christian they no longer go.

Complex problems have complex solutions and any number of people to blame. While religious conservatives have played the biggest role in this problem, I don’t think progressives can get off without blame. Jesus was a progressive. When you read the gospels there is no way to come out with any other conclusion. The values of helping the poor and showing compassion to all are clearly progressive planks.

Yet, we have allowed Christianity to be hijacked by conservatives. So, progressives that are also Christian really have three choices. They can stop being progressive and give into the conservative message. They can stop being Christian so they can adhere to a progressive message. The final possibility to continue to be both. However, that requires that they bang their head against both walls. I often feel like that is where I’m at.

The problem with allowing the numbers to get smaller is that those remaining have abandoned progressive ideals. It’s similar to what is going on in the Republican party. Think of it as the Liz Cheney problem. If Cheney gets primaried then gets primaried by a guy that impregnated a 14 year old when he was 18. It seems nice to just assume a Democrat would win, but that’s not likely in Wyoming. So, you replace an ultra conservative with someone more conservative and less reasonable. Multiply that a few dozen times and that’s what’s happened to Congress.

If the same things happens to the American church things will just get worse. I’d rather have a good portion of the church stand up and say in one voice that Jesus was a progressive. Jesus loved his neighbors and condemned no one. Jesus fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and healed the sick. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, transgender, or any other wedge issue. He spent more time on social justice issues than railing against sin. Maybe if we say these things we can save more Christians from leaving the flock. Maybe if we say these things we can attract more people to the progressive side because we can convince them that voting progressive is a full expression of their faith and not something they do in spite of it.

Yeah, he said that and I suspect it goes for Baptists and Methodists, too.

“There are those who say ‘I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association’,” the head of the 1.2 billion-member Roman Catholic Church said, according to a Vatican Radio transcript.

He said that some of these people should also say “‘my life is not Christian, I don’t pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, (I lead) a double life’.”

Honey, that ain’t just good, that’s chicken-fried good!

Are Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Chris Christie, Clarence Thomas, and Paul Ryan paying attention?

Do you want to know who the hypocrite Catholics are?  Well, they’ll tell you who they are by condemning this statement.

I wonder if it’s better to be a agnostic than a hypocritical atheist?