Liberal is not a four letter word.

I have spent a lot of time in various Catholic forums where I often spend more time arguing about language than about ideas. Life is not a simple concept. Liberty is not a simple concept. Happiness is not a simple concept. I would take great pleasure in immersing in the ambiguity of each, but I'll hold off for now.

Liberal is the word I want to play with. Liberal is a word bandied about like a deft and deadly sword. In those forums, it often holds little meaning.  

Many insist that there is no such thing as a liberal Catholic. That is something of a shock to those of us who identify as liberal Catholics. Pressed they explain: there are Orthodox Catholics who cling to the truths of the Church and there are people who reject those truths. Heterodox. Or more strongly, heretics. If liberal means, "rejecting or redefining truths in opposition to the Church" one cannot truthfully claim the faith and be liberal. You cannot accept the Church when it is easy and popular, reject Her when it hurts, and still claim a faithful relationship.

I started to try to make my stance more clear. I am not a liberal Catholic, by which I mean a Catholic who thinks the Church should change. I am a liberal who is also Catholic, by which I mean, my politics are liberal and my faith is Catholic. They are not separate and I do not want to separate them, but they are different. My Catholic faith both informs and trumps my politics.

What does liberal mean? In these Catholic forums which I have enjoyed, the word is not easy to define, though it is used frequently. It is certainly negative. It seems to mean something like stupid. To some it means elite, people who think they are smarter than everyone and should make decisions for them. Sometimes it means placing new ideas over the old, history be damned. Does liberal mean "pro-choice and anti-church?" Does it mean enthralled by massive government and regulation?

If the goal is communication, is worthwhile trying to understand how a person is using a word.

So, what does the word mean to those who would claim it?  Progressive?  Democrat?  Protecting the marginalized from the masses?  Protecting the little guy from the bully?  Open-minded?

I joined a group an facebook a few months ago called "Catholic Democrats."  I was so excited to find a group of my people: people who identify with the Church and the democratic party!  People who want to talk and learn about their faith as it relates to modern politics.  People who still cling to the notion that the left is a more natural fit for Catholics than the right because the left prioritizes people where the right prioritizes wealth.

When I joined the group I joined because I am a Catholic and I am a democrat. The tension between these identities has been a source of discomfort for my whole adult life. On many of the issues most important to me, my party does not go my way. Why not defect? I vote on issues, but it would be a lie to claim a conservative identity. Issues aside, where is my heart? Do I think that a government should essentially stay out of my way or do I think the government has an obligation of justice to protect and amplify the smallest voices?

I am a democrat. Still, it did not take me very long to find that I do not fit in in the group.

In the group it became quickly clear that there is a lot of pain and a lot of anger.  Many have suffered abuse, and identify with the marginalized voices because they have been those voices.  Most have been subjected to attacks for their politics.

I began to see, for the first time, some of the stereotypes that my previous Catholic forum experiences had decried.  For the first time, I heard a perspective that both claimed a love for the Church and a deep and angry mistrust of Church authority- which found expression in many ways. I could almost hear the voices from the other forums: They do not understand gender, and reject gender roles. They reject Church authority. They point to human nature as a reason to denounce doctrine. They ignore and belittle bishops and priests. They reject the pope. They hate the Church.

They do not hate the Church.  Defiantly, they cling to the Church and our Lady as a mainstay.  Some found the group as they were thinking of leaving the Church and in the group found refuge.  

I nearly left when I found such a vocal apparent opponent of Church authority. Who do they think they are? But I saw glimpses of a faith formed in pain and a faith which, though challenged, is not broken. Who do they think they are is not the question. Who does God think they are?

"You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye."  Matthew 7:5

We are imperfect and imperfectly following a path to God.

The authority of the Church is important. So too is the heart. It is my fervent prayer that these strong liberal Catholics can find a joyful home in the heart of the Church. It is my fervent prayer that the most vocal of the "orthodox" voices find the charity to welcome and learn from this other half. The Church is a grand collection of sinners. Mary Magdalene and the Pharisees. The Truth is not second to Love, but Love is not second to Truth either. Each is servant to the other. The Mother loves and corrects. The child is, at times, rebellious and self righteous.  Mom is wrong. Mom is not listening.  Mom does not understand or care. I know better than Mom.

A Franciscan prayer for unity:

O Immaculate Mother of God and Our Mother, Mediatrix of every grace and Corredemptrix of mankind: as Thou didst gaze upon Thy Most Beloved Son, filled with suffering and ignominy upon His Holy Cross, on account of His most tender and loving compassion for us poor sinners, deign in Thy great Maternal solicitude for us Thy children, to obtain from Him every grace and mercy, so that fortified in the unity of the One True Faith and restored to the bonds of charity and authentic worship, His Virgin Bride, Our Mother the Church, may once again offer to the Eternal Father, through the ministry of His sacred Priests, the holy, immaculate, and pure offering of His Body and Blood, in propitiation for our sins and those of the whole world. We ask this through Our Lord Jesus Christ, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Spirit, God forever and ever. Amen.

Gaudete!

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

Sunday was Gaudete Sunday!  Rejoice!  It is almost time!  Rose, not purple.   We get a brief reprieve from our preparations to focus on the joy of the season.  

I thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

As predictable as the sunrise, Christian men and women cannot contain our joyful excitement.  There are pageants and nativity displays.  We sing carols.  Everywhere, people are smiling, even at strangers.  Charities get more donations.  Everyone is focused on giving.  What will I give?  Who will I give to?  

And in despair I bowed my head:
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men."

Then the spell of the season is broken.  There is a display in Times Square,  New York depicting Santa, with the caption, "Embrace the Merry." Charming, right?  But the bottom of the same billboard depicts Jesus on the Cross and is captioned, "Dump the myth."   

Last year my town was the focus of a national battle over Christmas displays.  The short story is that the county courthouse has traditionally displayed a nativity scene and a Menorah.  Some few got mad and voiced the concern.  The county decided that to avoid an appearance of government sponsored religion, anyone who wanted could put up a display on the courthouse grounds.  Ten displays at a time and permits would be considered in the order the were received.  Last year there were a few different nativities displayed.  Some stunningly beautiful, some amusing.  (Star Wars Christmas?)  There was also a skeleton dressed in a Santa suit.  He was crucified.  I had to explain that particular obscenity to me then three year old daughter.  

Most painfully poignant this year, just a few days before Gaudete Sunday, there was a heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, CT.  Such astounding, incomprehensible violence has the whole country talking.  We want to make sense of it.  We have to understand it.  We want to talk about guns and mental illness.  We want to find someone to blame.  We want to pin our rage.  We want to find a way to keep the sorrow from consuming us.  Holy Mary, Mother of Sorrows, pray for us.  

Where is God?

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men."

This time of year it is easy to get wrapped up in the cute baby and our magical story.  Christ was born!  God humbled Himself to be born a man, and not a rich man but the son of a poor man.  The rich gifts He received from the kings must have seemed almost comical, juxtaposed with his humble surrounding.  Shepherds and Angels, mundane and celestial, worshiping and rejoicing together.  

In our preparation for the holiday celebrating that glorious event, we remember God's people waiting for the Messiah to come, just as we wait for His second coming.  The King of Kings will come again in glory.  "He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, for the old order has passed away.” Revelation 21:4 

When Our Lord came as man, He entered into our experience of a fallen world, His perfect creation, scarred by sin and death.  He experienced suffering and loss.  He watched people He loved die, including His father, Joseph.  He saw sickness and pain and abuse.  But in His death, He claimed triumph for life, forever.  And even now we can look forward, joyfully, to the coming of our King. When He comes again, our broken hearts will be healed. Rejoice even now; life triumphs over death. Gaudete!

Till, ringing singing, on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime,
Of peace on earth, good will to men!

Just a few days ago, an issue I have long hoped to duck was thrown in my face.  This issue has been on my mind, off and on, for about fifteen years.  My views have never been cemented.  Like Obama, on the subject of homosexual marriage, my views have evolved.  When he said that his views were evolving, he took a lot of flak from both sides.  What do you mean evolving?  Just tell us what you think so we can crucify you for it!

I was sympathetic.  Not to the attacks, of course.  I have rarely been attacked for my views on the subject, largely because no one knows them.  But the idea that an issue so current, and currently relevant, in a culture which itself is evolving would need more than a thumbs up or thumbs down made good sense to me.  I admired what I perceived as intellectual honesty: I do not know.  I am pondering.  

So what happened?

My precious, innocent, beautiful daughter has been obsessed with weddings since last summer when we spent more time attending and planning weddings than in any other practice.  She is a girly girl.  She likes dressing up and princesses.  She wants to wear make-up.  (I don't wear make-up!  She "borrowed" mine once, and it took me almost a month to realize it was missing.)  

"Girls marry boys and boys marry girls."

"Well, actually..."

That was actually the whole conversation. An alert Aunt intervened before my daughter was introduced into the massive cultural gender and sex discussion and confusion. 

Like ice water in my face, it woke me up.  

How will I address this when it comes up, as it will inevitably, sooner than I would like?  

Where will I start?  I don't even know where to start here, talking to adults.

I guess I start with my faith.  My faith is the foundation of my beliefs, and I claim it as the foundation of myself.  The Church does not teach that same-sex marriage is immoral.  The Church teaches that sexual relations outside of marriage is immoral.  The Church teaches that same-sex marriage is impossible.  Marriage is a sacramental union of a man and a woman.  That is what it is.  When we married, my husband and I went to the Church and in the presence of the community we offered ourselves to each other in a sacrificial love, and we became one.  Marriage is often used as a image for understanding the Trinity.  There are two, and in their relationship, they become one.  The love they share is creative; the love itself is or becomes a third.  It is imperfect, as any image of the Trinity must be.  Our minds struggle against temporality. What does "becoming" mean outside of time?  I will not delve too deeply into the mystery of the Trinity, except to note that that analogy claims an understanding of marriage.  The beauty of the sacramental, sacrificial love, the complete offering of self, the new unity, and the creative power of love... that is marriage.  

With this understanding of marriage never really wavering, how can I claim my views to be unstable?  For a time, I insisted that no marriage, outside of a Christian marriage, was sacramental. Thus, no marriage outside of a Christian marriage was real.  Couples with courthouse licences had a fundamentally different definition of marriage, and in my eyes were not married at all.  

Then I thought that maybe they were married after all.  Marriage is the only sacrament (I am pretty sure) which does not require a priest or deacon.  I should be careful in my phrasing.  The Church does ask that couples marry in an actual Church, with a presiding priest or deacon, but the sacrament is conferred one spouse upon the other.  So, if you do it outside a Church, you broke a rule, but you are still married.  (Assuming, of course, proper matter and form.)  Yay!  Non-Christians can be married, truly.  It should have been obvious all along, of course.  The Church does not ask married couples to remarry when they enter the Church.  

But all this is in the eyes of the Church.  Does the state share the Church definition of marriage?  Can it?  What the heck does "sacramental" mean outside of the Church?  I know what the Church is doing when it recognizes or does not recognize a marriage.  What is the State doing?  Here lies my confusion.  

What is the State's interest in marriage?  Why is the State recognizing marriage?  I do not mean my questions to be challenging, they are genuine.  I do not necessarily advocate the State stepping out altogether, but I wonder.  Can I, or should I, demand that the state share my admittedly theological definition of marriage?  

The State has vested interest in healthy families.  Children who have parents who are alert to the educations, do better in school and stay off the street.  Children who watch parents work hard to support the family, grow up with a good work ethic.  Is there a State interest in marriage that does not involve children?

When the Christian right talks about why homosexual marriage should be illegal, they like to talk about the breakdown of the family.  Without delving too deeply into the question of whether that fear is founded, I want to know if the fear is relevant.  The divorce rate is unbelievably high, there are areas where there are more children born to single parents than couples, and there are long lists of children who can not find either foster or adoptive homes.  You think that sanctioning more commitment is going to cause a breakdown?  What would that even look like?  The response, of course, is that the fact that all these things are happening, along with the fact that we are even discussing homosexual marriage, is the point.  These issues are symptomatic of the same problem: society has stopped clinging to morality as a universal standard and instead claims sex.  Our culture is more and more sexualized.  Even children's Halloween costumes are frighteningly sexual.  In short, yes.  This symptom is another step, a big step, away from a culture that prioritizes sexual morality.

In truth, I see these things and I do not know how to address them.  I do not know how to think about them.   I tremble at the thought that my daughter will have a middle school experience with more emphasis on sex than I saw when I was in middle school.

Have I regressed?  Some would say I have stumbled far away from the issue.  Some would say this is not just relevant, it is the issue.  It is not an argument; we are having different conversations.

I have said too much on one side.  You can not hear my internal conflict.  There are people, deeply committed to their faith and values, who do not think homosexual relations are sinful.  There are churches full of devout who fiercely protect their homosexual brothers and sisters from the abuses which sadly remain inevitable.  There are people, loving, wonderful, thoughtful, faithful and intelligent people who are are homosexual.  There are people who do not share our Christian faith.  There are people of no religion at all.  What does marriage law look like to them?

To some, it looks discriminatory.  To some, with its foundation in religion, it looks theocratic.  It looks meaningless to some and violent to others.

Is it just to enforce my faith in law?

It probably is not, but to sort out whether or not that is happening, we need to have a discussion about what marriage means.  So, back to questions already posed.  What, in the eyes of the state, is marriage?

People like to talk about feelings when they talk about marriage.  "Love is all you need!"  Thank you, fab four, but in this case we will have to disagree.  Love is not all you need.  I honestly believe that that myth, alongside deep miscomprehensions about the nature of love, are a considerable reason for the high divorce rate.

Can we talk about marriage without talking about love?  Should we?  I do not want to try to legally define love, thus I do not want to try to legally define marriage by love.

Leading up to the election, there was a lot of discussion about marriage.  And by discussion, I mean something other than discussion which involved lots of words.  Religious preached that a vote for homosexual marriage was a vote against traditional marriage.  Advocates preached that only the loony religious would claim so intolerant a position as to oppose homosexual marriage.  As far as I am concerned, neither made a point.  If the religious want their religious definition of marriage upheld in law, they have to make a case other than theology.  On the other hand, attacking someone for having religious beliefs is pretty much the definition of bigotry.  I was startled by the number of times I saw people who advocated for homosexual marriage simply blow off other opinions as "intolerant."

"You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."

We don't have to look far to find examples of intolerance, bigotry and even hatred aimed at homosexuals.  Everyone has heard stories of bullying and violence.  We cannot pretend it is not happening, or that it is acceptable.

From the Catechism:

"2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

It is not intolerance to disagree with the newly mainstreamed idea that homosexual marriage is not only possible but a right.  It is not discrimination to reject a definition which defies history and theology.  Both history and theology evolve.  Citing change does not win the argument.  Neither, however, does pointing out that fact.  Change is not good for its own sake, it is good when it is good and bad when it is bad.  The notion that all old ideas are bad is just as illogical as the notion that all new ideas are good.

We can talk about rights without too much difficulty.  I am persuaded by arguments that are rooted in things like hospital visitation rights or inheritance law.  (I am less persuaded by arguments about tax breaks, but to sort that one out, we need to revisit and answer why they are being awarded in the first place.)  These are the emotional arguments, and this emotional being is persuaded.  These are questions which are in fact rooted in love.  Who do you want holding your hand at the end of your life?  Making decisions that you cannot make for yourself?  Undeniably, the answer must be whomever you choose.  Marriage does not follow necessarily.

Let us assume that there are rights which some people have access to, and others are categorically denied.  Let us allow that this is unjust.  Let us respond by giving the second category access to the rights in law.  Everyone is happy, right?  No.  Liberals tried that some years ago.  Civil unions were rejected.  As it turns out, part of the demand is not access to rights denied, it is acceptance.  They want to say that the relationships are the same kind, that the second category should not be distinguished from the second category.  They want me to deny that I comprehend a difference in kind.  They want me to declare sameness, where I see difference because at root they want me to stop saying that certain behaviors are immoral.

And now we have arrived on the painful point of my unwilling entry into the discussion.  Must I raise my daughter in a world where the theology I intend to teach is not just ignored in her education, it is opposed?

 "1601 The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament." Catechism of the Catholic Church

It has been suggested that we have already lost the word marriage.  The word has already evolved into something  unrecognizable.  Something having vaguely to do with love, sexuality and commitment, but something undefined and undefinable.  If so, the whole debate on definition is moot, as some have claimed all along.  Words change, and that is OK, as long as we understand and respond when they change.  Do we let the word go and pivot to a different way of explaining this sacrament?  In the above definition, the word is not used, so it is certainly possible- though it does not solve the problem since a pivot on language will not end the fight any more this time than it did on a proposal of civil unions.

Separating what the state is doing from what the Church is doing would end some of the confusion.  It would also force those who want to reeducate my daughter to admit that it is not just rights they want.  It could even (she suggests hopefully) end the debate.  It won't sooth the feelings of those who want me to teach my daughter that all relationships are just the same.  It won't sooth the feelings of those who want a Christian nation with Christian laws.  But it would force everyone to be honest, and that has to be a positive step.  

There is a horrible story making waves in social media.  In Ireland, a woman died because she was denied an abortion, which in her case would have been life-saving.  The story calls for a response. 

Pro-choice advocates are screaming.  "See!  This is what we have been saying all along!  They are not really pro-life.  They are pro-fetus.  They do not care about women!"

If you took offense, be careful that indeed you do not fit into the mold. 

Pro-lifers have been arguing for years about what it means to be pro-life.  Pro-life like Romney, and most "pro-life" politicians means pro-life except in extreme, and extremely sympathetic cases.  Rape.  Incest.  Health or life of the mother. 

Then the extremists.  There cannot be exceptions.  If you admit exceptions, you admit that the fetus is not a child.  Abortion, all abortion, is evil all the time. 

Then there are grand view pro-lifers.  Pro-life cannot be limited to refer to abortion.  You cannot call yourself pro-life if you support the death penalty or unnecessary war.  You cannot call yourself pro-life if you do not support women in crisis.  You cannot call yourself pro-life if you ignore the poor and the immigrant. 

There are incrementalists, who think that any law restricting abortion is a good law.  Restrictions mean fewer abortions, and that is good.  There are purists, who reject the incremental laws, arguing that they condone some abortions, even as they prevent some.  There are common ground advocates, who hope to work with pro-choice advocates to protect women, thereby reducing abortion rates. 

And, there are lunatics.  (Some might argue that we all belong in that category.) There are people who believe that the assault on the unborn is a violence so great that it is justly and necessarily met by violence. 

Unity among pro-lifers is a myth.  But, as a single voice, we should be able condemn this violence. 

The story in Ireland reveals some of the undercurrents in the battle.  There is anger.  There are lies.  There are people on both sides who genuinely believe that the other side wants to hurt them.  There are people on both sides that genuinely want to hurt the other side.  Why can any political discussion be sidelined by raising the issue of abortion?  Because by its nature and history, it touches a hundred raw nerves.  It hurts to discuss it.  Anti-abortion advocates believe that children are being murdered for the sake of convenience!  Pro-abortion advocates believe that blobs of cells are being given priority over women!  Is it about male chauvinism so deeply rooted in a patriachal society that we still cannot shake its desire to keep women lower than men in fact and in law?  Is it about a societal acceptance of sexual immorality which elevates birth control not just to a right but to a right which supercedes the right to live? 

Are you angry yet?  Are you hurt?  Sad?  Scared?  Protective? 

And then there is Ireland. 

Sidestep:
In my last pregnancy, I found out reletively early that something was not normal.  The ultrasound showed abnormalities which were ultimately diagnosed with a prenatal genetic test.  In the middle of all the wondering about what was wrong, and how we were going to face it, there was one possibility which was particularly frightening.  Without too many details, there was a chance that upon birth my daughter would need a surgery which was dangerous to both her and me.  For a terrifying month, my family had to consider what we would do if  we had to risk my life for a chance to save hers.  We met with our pastor.  We prayed.  It did not come to that.  Her birth was relatively normal, with relatively normal risks to me.  She was complicated, and required immediate intervention, but that is another story.  People who knew all had ideas.  I got stories about a Saint who gave up her life for her child.  I got accused of being selfish for considering putting my unborn child's life above my own.  All I can say is, I praise God that it did not come to that and Back off!  The most difficult weeks of my life were not made easier by the well intending judgments coming my way. 

The Church does not require mothers to give up their lives for their children.  The Church requires only that she carry the pregnancy as long as it is safe.  If that is three weeks, then the baby has no chance, but the mother did what she could.  If it is twenty weeks, the baby has a chance, though difficult, but the mother did what she could.

Can she get an abortion if her life is at risk?  The simple answer is no, but it is not simple.  If she delivers a baby so premature that he cannot survive, is that different from an abortion?  It is.  It is the difference between killing and letting someone die. 

So what happened in Ireland?  The story, as I read it, is that a pregnant woman came to a Catholic hospital because with what was suspected to be a miscarriage.  During the next few days, she went into labor, but did not give birth.  The baby died.  It was not until after the baby died that the hospital intervened in any real way.  They removed the body.  They treated the woman for a severe infection, caused by the ordeal.  There are hundreds of obvious questions.  Why didn't they deliver the baby earlier?  Why didn't they treat her infection earlier?  If they knew the baby was going to die, as they seem to have known, why didn't they remove the baby to try and save it?  Why didn't they remove the baby to try and save her?  Is it true that there was nothing that the doctors who worked in that hospital could do without breaking regulation?  She requested and abortion, and it was denied- thus the outcry.

I have only read one article, and the article I read wanted to make the point that abortion access should never be restricted.  In the opinion of the article, the tragedy is not that the woman died, but that she was denied abortion.  That is not just an overreaching manipulation of fact to support a premise, it is degrading to women.  She did not want an abortion until she believed that her baby was past saving.  To hold her death as a totem for the tribe of pro-abortion-on-demand, is to belittle her tragedy.

I do not have the answers.  I hope that some answers come out.  If it is true that the doctors hands were tied, I hope that the hospital has the sense to give the damning regulations another look.  I hope that just this once, the pro-lifers can unify, to cry out against this tragedy.  The pro-choice and pro-abortion crowds have already begun to claim the tragedy.  It is an arrow pointed at us.  We must answer and answer with love and quite possibly contrition.  Is an extreme position on the subject of protecting pregnancy, a policy of absolute non-intervention at fault?  If so, even if the intent was to prohibit abortion, the tragedy is ours.

We cannot place the life of a child over the life of a mother, at least not if we hope to claim shelter under the pro-life mantle.

Yop!

I am tired of reading that I don't exist.

I am a Catholic.  I am a liberal.  I am a woman.  Sarah Palin does not speak for me, but neither does Nancy Pelosi.

When I read about the dismissive attitude of the far left, I am troubled.  That is my club.  Am I being ejected?  What do they mean when they say no one who would have voted for him disagrees.  


I care about birth control.  I do not think it should be illegal or deliberately inaccessible.  I do not think Catholics should be forced to fund sin.

I care about abortion.  Anyone who thinks this is a simple black and white issue is cold-hearted or a lunatic.  I believe children are dying because women all too often feel boxed in.

I care about immigrants.  Did you hear that?  I said immigrants, not aliens and not immigration.  That's right.  Those people.  I care about them.  Any discussion of immigration in my book will always be centered on those people and their dignity.

I care about the health care.  This issue is dear to me, and I hate to see it used as a political ping pong ball.  Simply, no one should be bankrupted because they get sick or have a sick child.  Mental illness is an illness.

I care about prison reform.  I cannot understand how we are going so wrong here.  Prisoners can, on the one hand, expect amenities that exceed what they could afford before imprisonment.  On the other hand, rape and other violence is a national joke.  If that is not cruel and unusual punishment, I don't want to imagine what is.

I care about the homeless, the poor, the unemployed.  I care about the abused and the bullied.  I care about free speech and free exercise of religion.  I care about the 99% , and I try to care about the other 1%, but gosh darn it, sometimes they make it hard.  I suppose I am almost your typical bleeding heart.

Except when I am not.  Which might be pretty often, because who knows what typical means.

My own experience may skew my sense of reality, but I refuse to believe that there are so few of us, Catholics who lean left but are faithful to the Church, that we can be ignored.

We are here!  We are here!  We are here!  Yop!!  (Yeah.  I broke out the Dr. Suess.)