 |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
November
7, 2005 
VOL.
43, NO. 19Oakland,
CA
COMMENTARY
•Prop. 76 and Prop. 73 pose critical questions for Calif. voters
•It is time to change how we allocate this nation’s resources
•The prayer of silence before the God beyond all names
Prop. 76 and Prop. 73 pose critical questions for Calif. voters
A tech expert I know has a great saying: “Computers
make very fast, very accurate mistakes.” Why? Because decisions
are based on input that follows preset rules. The computer will do what
the input tells it – that just might not be what the user intended.
Prop. 76 on the November 8 ballot follows a similar vein. It triggers
certain actions when preset conditions occur. It only takes into account
the input – not the intention – of the users, who in this
case are the people of California. It aims for fiscal responsibility –
an admirable goal – but its predetermined path may not be what voters
really want.
Under Prop. 76, California governors would be able to declare a fiscal
emergency whenever they wanted, and additional spending limits (many are
already in place) would be put on budgets if revenue forecasts were off
by only 1.5 percent. Such a margin of error is extremely small –akin
to fortune telling is some circles.
About 80 percent of California’s budget is preset by past initiatives
and legislation – no new discretion is involved. Much of health
and human services spending – which supports the poor and vulnerable
in our state – is in the non-programmed 20 percent.
When cuts need to be made, where do you think they will be made?
History has shown that all too often programs for the poor and vulnerable
are the first cut. First, because they are on the discretionary list;
and second, because few people stand up for the poor in Sacramento.
Catholic Charities’ concern with Prop. 76 is not its goal of fiscal
responsibility – we fully support that – but the introduction
of more autopilot functions in the budget.
For instance, one of the first automatic cuts is expected to be in assistance
to aged and disabled people. They could see their $779 monthly assistance
reduced by $150 per month when new limits are imposed by a governor or
an inaccurate forecast.
Responding to a 1991 fiscal crisis California shifted responsibility for
programs such as mental health and child protective services to counties.
Funding from the state for those critical programs could also be among
the first cut.
Fiscal responsibility is critical for people, organizations and governments.
As non-profit agencies, for example, Catholic Charities must carefully
steward resources in order to continue serving clients.
We should accept no less from every branch and every level of government.
Instead of putting decisions on autopilot, let’s demand more accountability
from elected officials.
Prop. 73 is another critical question on the ballot. Simply put, should
parents know if their daughter is contemplating an abortion?
People overwhelmingly support such a common sense proposal. It affirms
the vital bond of parent and child. And it empowers families, be they
poor or rich, to take an active role in the life of children.
Prop. 73 requires that parents be notified 48 hours prior to a minor receiving
an abortion. It places faith in the parent-child relationship, but also
recognizes that sometimes such communication isn’t possible and
provides for exceptions.
Existing law says that the teen’s judgment or that of a doctor,
counselor or abortion provider supercedes that of a parent or guardian.
Under this interpretation a child as young as 12 years old has a “right
to privacy” that prevails over every other matter including the
love and compassion of parents.
However, that same teen can’t go on a field trip without a parent’s
permission, can’t get her ears pierced, and can’t go to a
tanning salon. The law says that a minor teenager cannot be trusted to
make the responsible choice on these matters, but she can be trusted with
the decision to undergo an abortion.
Which will have the greater long-term impact on her life?
As a final, unrelated note, let me brag a little about Catholics’
response to the disasters in the Gulf States. Catholic Charities, schools
and healthcare around the nation have responded to the hurricanes in remarkable
fashion.
Thousands of refugees have found their way to California, not with government
help, but via family, churches and friends. And they have been welcomed
with shelter, jobs, schooling, medical care and more by virtually every
ministry of our Church.
When you count the thousands of evacuees in California, add it to the
work done by many other organizations, then multiply it by 50 states,
you can get some idea of the magnitude of the need and the assistance
provided.
As faithful citizens, we must respond to the exceptional disasters –
like hurricanes – and the “routine” matters of governance
such as elections with our moral and ethical values of compassion, love
and care.
(Steve Pehanich is the executive director of Catholic Charities of
California. He supports public policy and other initiatives for the twelve
Catholic Charities agencies in the state.)
It is time to change how we allocate this nation’s resources
As I share with you what I have encountered in my ministry
at St. Mark Parish in Richmond and St. Anthony Parish in Oakland, I want
to begin by highlighting one family’s experience. It speaks to the
communalities of many families within these parishes, while illustrating
how public policy shapes or destroys our communities.
Maria came to church looking for assistance to fill out paperwork for
child support because her husband had left her and her three young daughters,
and she did not speak any English.
During our conversation, she informed me that she was not documented.
Her husband had physically abused her and threatened to call INS (now
Homeland Security) if she called the police. He was only providing her
with $400 a month.
He had purchased a home while they were married, but refused to put her
on the home title; according to him, she was ineligible because of her
undocumented status. After leaving her, he put the home for sale.
Though she only came seeking help for one of her problems, I realized
she needed so much more assistance.
Since she didn’t have documents, it was difficult for her to get
a job. And if she found one, she needed to place her 8-month-old daughter
in daycare, which she couldn’t afford.
She needed to get a restraining order on her abusive husband. And most
pressing, she needed legal help to stop the sale of the home to avoid
becoming homeless.
Maria was obviously distressed, but I couldn’t send her to get any
help through county mental health services because they would not attend
to her without a Social Security number.
During her court sessions she was instructed to bring a translator because
county court translation was unavailable to her.
Hers was not an isolated situation. If you speak to any person doing ministry
in any inner city community, he or she can attest to the prevalence of
problems such as those facing Maria.
As a response to the many requests for help from immigrants like Maria,
St. Mark Parish, its parishioners, community members and other social
service agencies created CASA de Esperanza (House of Hope) to accumulate
information and data on services, connect people to them, and advocate
for the poor at local, county, and state levels.
We also committed to working with other faith-based community organizing
agencies, such as CCISCO (Contra Costa County), OCO (Oakland), BOCA (Berkeley),
COR (South Alameda) and PICO, in order to change public policy.
CASA’s limited staff works out of St. Mark’s church offices
and receives its funds from grants and foundations, such as California
Endowment, San Francisco Foundation, Franciscan Charities, Catholic Charities
and others
For me, CASA became a crucial tool in serving a largely Spanish immigrant
population that is often denied help and has nowhere else to go.
These immigrants are no different from those whose images we see on television
of the displaced and suffering in other parts of the world. But this is
the United States of America, the richest nation.
After Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, we heard questions
about the nation’s lack of quick response to the tremendous needs
of evacuees and whether the slow response was because so many of the displaced
were African Americans.
What we should also be asking is how can we be at peace as a nation when
we allowed 30 percent of the people in New Orleans to live below the poverty
level. How can we continue to live with growing class inequalities? Inequality
is not natural, nor inevitable; it is created very consciously by our
social policy.
Our government’s lack of response then and now demonstrates its
lack of understanding and commitment to eradicating poverty. It chooses
to maintain the status quo of people going without food and housing. It
allows cities to be governed by criminals and its citizens to live with
the constant fear of their children being shot by a stray bullet while
simply walking to school.
It rewards the high achieving schools while punishing inner-city schools
for not meeting state requirements, a strategy that compounds the problem
by giving our schools fewer and fewer resources, and thus our youth a
low quality education.
We as a society living in the United States do not lack the resources
to feed, clothe, house, give medical care and take care of one another,
but we choose to allocate our resources where there is no life. Currently
we are using our resources for death.
The inequality that we see today affecting the people of the Gulf Coast,
our students in inner-city schools, and people living in low-income areas
is changeable. We must decide to choose differently. If we know that everyone
is not OK, we are called to set into motion a different vision and plan
for the future.
Make no mistake about it. It is how we choose to allocate this nation’s
resources that determines how our citizens live.
(Father Jesus Nieto-Ruiz, pastor of St. Anthony Parish in Oakland,
was a speaker at the recent public policy breakfast of Catholic Charities
of the East Bay, where he delivered this commentary.)
The prayer of silence before the God beyond all names
I am fascinated by Bernadette Farrell’s song “God,
Beyond All Names” every time we sing it at Mass. The melody flows
in embracing curves that remind me of the childhood wonder I felt when
standing in the middle of an energetic brook, the waterfall sounding above
me, water surging around my feet, water dancing on all sides in a joyous
movement of life, music, and beauty.
God’s living presence is all around us, Farrell writes, reflected
in creation, moving within our hearts, and found in the midst of living
and dying, laughter and tears.
“God, Beyond All Names” is also a brilliant song for its attempt
to put into words not only the intimacy of God with creation, but also
God’s transcendent side. Although God created us in the divine image,
God’s being is also far beyond our wildest imagination.
In the book of Isaiah, God says his thoughts are not our thoughts; God’s
ways are not our ways. “As high as the heavens are above the earth,
so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts,”
says the Lord.
Human reason can understand God only to a certain point. We can dream
about God, but, as Farrell’s song says, God is “beyond all
our dreams.” God’s dreams for us far outstrip anything we
can fantasize.
We have many names and images for God — loving parent, merciful
judge, good shepherd, the one who died for us, the Risen Lord, Yahweh,
the Great Spirit, the Almighty. Having so many names of God is good because
it speaks of God’s many dimensions. Words of prayer allow us to
enter into a personal relationship with God.
There is, however, a problem with naming God. Our words, invented by humans
and based upon the earthly realm, are very limited in their ability to
describe God.
For instance, the Good Shepherd image speaks of God’s love for us,
but it says nothing about God’s creative side. Shepherds nurture
sheep, but they do not create them. A shepherd has a physical body, whereas
God’s inner essence is Pure Spirit.
Another example would be the problem of calling God a lover. There are
certainly plenty of references to God in Scripture, Church teachings,
and the writings of Catholic mystics to back the image of God (or Christ)
as faithful husband and we, his people called the Church, as his bride.
Marital imagery helps us describe the depth of God’s love and the
intense intimacy he desires with us.
Yet, for some people, calling God “lover” brings up thoughts
of one who is here today and gone tomorrow, like a brief summer romance
of youth.
St. Augustine once wrote that if you completely understand God, it’s
certainly not God that you understand. In other words, if you think you
have God all figured out, categorized, and put in a handy-dandy box, guess
again. You may have understood something about God, but (as is said in
the Southwest) not the whole enchilada. We grasp God only to a point—we
do not have the complete picture. The deeper, inner being of God is largely
hidden from us.
In prayer, words serve us as a means of communication with God. We also
use words to gather our prayers together into one united prayer of believers.
But it is good to remember what the song says: God is “beyond all
names,” “beyond all time,” and “beyond all words.”
Sometimes the best prayer is a hushed, loving silence before the hidden,
mysterious face of God.
(Julie McCarthy is a freelance writer from Egan, Minn., whose syndicate
column on prayer appears in diocesan newspapers around the country. Contact
her at soulwriting@yahoo.com.)
