Tag: Philosophy

Humpty Dumpty Had A Great Fall…

I’m not sure why, but as I was thinking about a title for this commentary, one of my childhood nursery rhymes Humpty Dumpty popped into my head. It was almost as if I were having a mystical experience. But why Humpty Dumpty I thought? What does he have to do with despair or hopelessness for in the Church? Then I remembered as kindergartener I could never figure out why Humpty fell off the wall in the first place. Did someone push him or was it his own fault that he fell, and why couldn’t they ever put him together again?

Then in my adult mind it dawned on me, perhaps Humpty Dumpty is an analogy for the situation the Church is in. There are many who believe the is at a breaking point or already has “had a great fall” and can’t be put together again. An increasing number of us no longer have the energy to “fight the good fight”, and are ready to admit defeat, and move on. The question is, can Humpty Dumpty be put together again? This commentary will consider whether the hopefulness for renewal in the Church that I covered in my last commentary, makes me a Cockeyed Optimist, like the song in the Broadway musical, by Rodgers and Hammerstein, South Pacific. Or is it time to join the increasing numbers of what Tom Roberts calls ‘had it’ s? [LINK].


I believe that many of the reasons for our hopelessness for can be traced to actions or inactions of the hierarchy. Since there are so many examples of our leaders stonewalling adult dialogue, and examples of their own misbehaviors, I decided to limit the sources of hopelessness to a few fairly recent sources.

I’ve been reading Brian Lennon S.J.’s book published in 2012; Can I Stay in the Church?, with the hope that it would provide new information for how we decide our standing in the Church. Here’s a website, Building a Church without Walls, [LINK] with information about his book and links to other articles that he’s written, as well as links to articles by the website’s editor. Lennon clearly identifies the most logical reasons for leaving the , and seems to be incensed by the behaviors of our leaders. He asks the question, “So why do I choose to remain in the ?” I don’t mean to spoil the suspense but, his final decision is to remain in the . I respect his decision, but I was surprised in the way he arrived at it. Lennon replays all the scandals over the centuries, from slavery which was “…imposed in the Third Lateran Council of 1179 on those helping the Saracens.” [LINK] to the crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries, to the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century, up to the scandals of present time. When you come right down to it, I believe that he uses all the past scandals to confirm his thesis that eventually, the Holy Spirit will intervene and the will bounces back magically from the current discontent, as it has in the past, but that change might take decades or more.

To me, it reminds me of playing baseball in grammar school, before we came up to bat we’d pray, “Hail Mary full of grace, let me get to second base” and expected divine intervention. I don’t mean to dismiss the Holy Spirit or prayer, but Lennon is basically making the argument, that because other incidents of malfeasance by our leaders have eventually been resolved, or faded from our memories, that’s the way the Holy Spirit works. It just doesn’t fit with my understanding of outside intervention by the Holy Spirit.

Episcopal John Shelby Spong wrote an essay recently that I believe is an example of why the majority of the catholic laity doesn’t buy the ’s position on . The title of the essay is, You Are Profoundly Wrong: A Response to the Archbishop of Newark and Others.[LINK] Spong answers a lengthy article by Archbishop John J. Meyers, When Two Become One: A Pastoral Teaching on the Definition, Purpose and Sanctity of Marriage. [LINK]

He starts his essay in a very civil fashion by acknowledging that he has no reason to believe that Meyers is not a good and sincere person but, he advises the Archbishop that “…one has a responsibility to be well-informed on the issues about which one speaks.” He suggests that it is not acceptable to just quote the authority of the of one’s to support ideas or “…to quote traditional religious conclusions, as if they are viable or still acceptable in academic and intellectual circles.”

If you look at the references at the end of Meyers’ article you’ll see that most of them are quotes from the Catechism of the Church or what popes or early fathers of the had to say. It’s like me quoting something from an article I wrote years ago, to prove a point on a current issue. This doesn’t make any sense, unless you’re in the type of denial [LINK] that can make an otherwise intelligent individual behave in an unintelligent manner, because they are too threatened by the Truth, and are unable to process what is perfectly apparent to most people. Spong goes on to “…try to unravel this maze of incoherent conclusions.” The article is well worth reading if for no other reason, to see how a contemporary scholar responds to a clergyman stuck in the past, whose mission is to impose the teaching of the on the consciences of others, in this case sane sex marriages. Thus, denying us the primacy of our conscience.


This reference is hot off the press. It’s a response from Americans United for the Separation of Church and Stateto President Obama’s re-election on November 6, 2012. The title of the article, Election Outcome is Bitter Defeat for s and [LINK] is essentially a response to the s and their religious fundamentalist allies’ attempt

to control the outcome of the election. Many of us believed that the bishops’ casuistic strategies in their campaign to defeat the Obama administration, was an abuse of the power of the political pulpit. Attacks by some bishops and other clerics were blatant assaults on the President (like comparing him and his administration to the Nazis and worse). When the bishops were criticized publically, they tempered their rhetoric. They prefaced their statement by assuring their readers that they weren’t telling the faithful whom to vote for, but if you vote for a politian who supports legislation in favor of contraception or abortion etc., you are putting your immortal soul in jeopardy of eternal damnation. I questioned their approach in several commentaries on the a website, one was entitled Obama vs. Dolan, [LINK] challenges the way the bishops abused the ’s tax exempt status to surreptitiously promote the election of political candidates who didn’t agree with their positions.


Since the day that Hans Kung spent a pleasant four hours at Castel Gandolfo in 2005 with his former colleague, and newly minted Benedict XVI, Kung has reassessed his optimism for Benedict’s papacy several times. I remember when Kung came to Phoenix for a lecture about two weeks after his meeting with the pope, and I had the pleasure of having an “intimate dinner” with him along with a group of 30 or 40 members of the Jesuit Alumni Association of Arizona. He told us “privately” that he had decided to talk about things that both he and the pope agreed on to avoid any awkwardness. His immediate response after their meeting was that they had a cordial reunion talking about old times and issues they agreed on, and he was “cautiously optimistic”.

Fast forward to 2009 when Kung called for a Third Vatican Council, and listed a number of issues that had not even been discussed at Vatican II. [LINK] At the same time he recognized that “…another global council would not happen because the Vatican was afraid…and was trying to restore the pre-Vatican II …”

Kung’s next major announcement was a five page, single spaced letter addressed to all the Venerable s. [LINK] He first apologized for the open letter format, and adds that “…unfortunately I have no other way of reaching you.” After expressing how his hopes for the pope’s papacy along with “… so many engaged catholic men and women have been unfulfilled…”, he spends over a page pointing out the missed opportunities for rapprochement with every religious group that Benedict has estranged. He particularly highlights the Jews, when he “… reintroduced into the liturgy a pre-conciliar prayer for the enlightenment of the Jews…and the Muslins in his 2006 Regensburg lecture…(when he) caricatured Islam as a religion of violence and inhumanity…”

Kung gives his assessment of what he thinks were serious faux pas on the pope’s part, like promoting the medieval Tridentine Mass, and reinforcing the anti-conciliar forces in the by his curial appointments. He goes on to discuss some major crises that were poorly handled by the pope. At the top of his list “…comes a scandal crying out to heaven-the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents …and to make matters worse, the handling of these cases given rise to an unprecedented collapse of trust in leadership.” He concluded the letter with six proposals for the bishops to consider.

I’m not sure if any of the Venerable s personally responded to Kung’s letter but the Vatican responded on the front page of its official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, under the headline, Dear Hans, followed by a bit of tactless sarcasm from the author, Pier Giordano Cabra. [LINK] He told Kung that “…perhaps if your letter had breathed a bit more of the hymn to charity, it would have turned out to be a more elegantly evangelical gesture of congratulations” for Benedict’s 83rd birthday and fifth anniversary as pope, as well as “a more fruitful contribution to the that is suffering for the weakness of her sons.” The weakness of her sons, indeed!

“Comes the revolution!” On October 5, 2012 an article appeared in The Guardian entitled, Theologian Preaches Revolution to end Church’s ‘Authoritarian Rule’. [LINK] Guess who the theologian was? You got that right! Apparently Fr. Kung’s letter to the bishops and all his previous strategies of , revival, or renewal didn’t have the effect on the Vatican that he hoped for, and he proposes a new strategy, revolution. He’s following an old dictum “If the strategy you’re using is working do more of it, if it’s not working, do something different.” This was not the first time Kung mentioned a more aggressive approach for change in the , for example, the comprehensive transcript of an interview by Anthony Padovano presented at the meeting in Detroit of the American Council [LINK], and an article in Der Spiegel [LINK] entitled the Putinization of the Church, both in 2011. It’s apparent in reading these articles that Kung was getting more and more impatient with the hierarchy, not only for their digging their heals in, but if push comes to shove, they would take a laissez faire position and settle for a much smaller .


The title of an article in the News Service on October 26, was Faith in Jesus Means Being Optimistic about the Future, Synod Message Says. [LINK] I’m sorry, I have faith in Jesus, but I don’t have the same faith in the 260 cardinals, bishops, and priests who attended the synod. Unlike the optimism that the documents of Vatican II inspired in many of us fifty years ago, I found the end results of the synod disappointing. Although the New Evangelization at times seems like talking points prepared by a Madison Ave. PR agency, there are some encouraging words. For example, an article entitled, Message of the Synod: Look with ‘Serene Courage’ to the Future of Evangelization, [LINK] is mostly positive. They point out issues of families, poverty, the importance of parishes, need for dialogue and how they “…want our communities to harness and not suppress, the power of their enthusiasm.” They talk about dialogue, dialogue, dialogue! [LINK] But given their recent history dialogues is not their best suit. We need actions not just words. The bishops know how to “talk the talk, but not how to walk the walk” as they say in the twelve step programs. I’d be more hopeful if they had added a sentence with a touch of humility, something like, “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, we realize we haven’t always been open to dialogue, nor have we been consistent in being transparent, but we promise to be more transparent and committed to dialogue in the future.”

They reflect on Vatican II as, “the great Council of the Church”, which proclaimed the need for the faith to be communicated anew to the modern world.” This doesn’t match their recent rhetoric and actions. They acknowledge Lumen Gentium, for setting “…the groundwork…by laying out the Church’s mission; Gaudium et Spes, in which the Church dedicated herself to “dialogue,…changes in the social order and shifts in attitudes to morality and religion….”; Ad Gentes tell us the how of evangelization…” etc.

Much of text in The New Evangelization’s document reminds me of a song that Frank Sinatra sang in the early 1940ies, I’ve Heard that Song Before. Some of you might remember, the first line: “It seems to me I’ve heard that song before, It’s from an old familiar score, I know it well, that melody.”Now don’t get me wrong, I love nostalgia and I believethat some of the content of the New Evangelization can be helpful, but not as it’s presented in the synod documents, where they don’t mention the faithful having any role in the governance of the . They are clear that our role is to evangelize, to spread the faith, “not that there’s anything wrong with that”, but they apparently plan to continue to dictate to the faithful what they must believe, without listening to what the sensus fidelium has to contribute to their decisions.


In the space available for this commentary and my last one in a, Hope Springs Eternal …, [LINK] I’ve provided examples to help balance the pros and cons for whether to remain, leave, or take a sabbatical from the Roman Church. But, I don’t think it’s enough for us to just add up the pluses and minuses to make a decision. I wish it were as simple as it is for someone like Bill Donahue, “…the chronically peeved president of the League…” as Bill Keller referred to him in an article in the New York Times, The Rottweiler’s Rottweiler. [LINK] In Donohue’s new book Why ism Matters, his characteristic response to someone who disagrees with the ’s teaching, on say gay marriages, would be, Shut up or go! Would that it were so unequivocal!

I think the major reason why it so difficult for many of us to buy into Donohue’s shut up or go philosophy, is that the decision to leave the is not just a black and white cognitive decision. It involves emotions that we might have struggled with for years. Looking back on my , there have been a number of occasions when I had to make a decision to stay or leave. I remember how I agonized about leaving the active ministry. It took me at least five years before I wrote Paul VI a letter requesting a dispensation (It took him two years to answer me). Then there was the dilemma of my divorce. In some ways leaving the is similar to getting a divorce. My personal experience of getting divorced, and my professional experience as a therapist, where I counseled couples and families through their divorces, and gave workshops on divorce recovery, supplied me with ample anecdotal and empirical information of just how heartrending it can be. Leaving the , despite its many moral weaknesses, is not an event as much as it is a process. No matter how much reflection, how much support, how much praying we do, when push comes to shove, only the individual can make that decision, we are the deciders; not the pope, not our bishop, not our confessor, not our parents, only we can make that decision. But that’s a whole other commentary.

As I’ve said a number of times, I believe change in the institution of the has to come from the bottom up. I don’t belong to the same Roman Church of my youth. I don’t kowtow to Rome or its minions. I follow the mantra of “Keep the Faith, but question the beliefs”, and have eliminated those beliefs that no longer make any sense to me. I intend to continue to be part of those lay movements that are working from inside the for change, as I have for years. Will all the changes I’d like to see, happen in my time? I doubt it! In the meantime unless they kick me out of the community, I don’t plan to change religions. Living in a retirement community, where the good Holy Cross fathers preside at the liturgy every Sunday, meets my need for a sense of being part of a spiritual community. But I am open to the sharing responsibilities for the disenfranchised with other spiritual and religious communities.

So, as a former professor of mine used to say, “We shall see what we shall see!” 

Social Justice, Social Change and Charity: “Everything Old is New Again”

Positive is one of the major headings on my website. Before I focus on social  justice, which is the underpinning of , I want to give an example of how “everything old is new again”, by sharing one of the activities that I was involved in back in 1976, when I was president of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.  I wrote the following article for our monthly newsletter, and also published it in my 2010 memoir, From Blind Obedience to a Responsible Faith.

The of the article was to rally the social work community to put pressure on our state legislators to pass a Medicaid Bill.  At that time, Arizona was the only state in the union that did not have a Medicaid program. The legislation for Medicaid was created by the Social Security Amendments of 1965 which added Title XIX to the Social Security Act. Each state had the option to legislate and administer its own program, but after 11 years of political bickering in the Arizona legislature, they had not reached an agreement. In the meantime thousands of families in Arizona, were not able to afford health insurance. I started the article with a quote that is the underlying concept for the belief in society’s responsibility for assisting the disadvantaged.

To keep the article up to date, I’ve changed the names of several of the possible authors:

“Health of mind and body is so fundamental to the good , that if we believe that men and (women,added) have any personal rights as human beings, then they have an absolute moral right to such a measure of good health as society and society alone is able to give them.”

For $64,000, which of the five listed below was the author of that statement?

  1. Mitt Romney
  2. John F. Kennedy
  3. Aristotle
  4. Barack Obama
  5. Ayn Rand

If you chose Aristotle, you win. That’s correct, the same Aristotle who was the pupil of Plato, the tutor of Alexander the Great, who lived between384-332 BCE, and who spelled out societies obligation to provide health care for all its citizens over 2,300 years ago.

Cultural Lag? Meanwhile, back in Arizona, forces seemed to be mounting to keep the medically indigent as second hand citizens. Although Medicaid was and is far from a perfect system, it does offer access to health services, and recognizes that health care should be available to those who can’t afford it. Unlike Medicare, which is an insurance program, that people who are covered by it are entitled to receive, Medicaid is a “means tested” program that is based mainly on income.

We Can Make a Difference! If Medicaid is to be a reality in Arizona, the voices of professional social workers must join other concerned citizens to be heard above those of the ultraconservative politicians and media who oppose its implementation. Rather than just deploring the fact that we are the only state without a Medicaid program, our committee will be asking each one of us to express our concerns to our individual legislators that this legislation be passed. This is our opportunity to join with Aristotle and other progressive thinkers to operationalize our professional philosophy.

Don Fausel, President

I’m happy to report that the legislature passed the Medicaid bill that session. The legislators chose to call it the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (ACCCS) rather than Medicaid. I suspect they wanted to let the rest of the country know that we weren’t liberals like that Aristotle guy.

We did use a version of the strategy that has recently been called, Occupy Wall Street (OWS), i.e. joining with other groups to march and demonstrate at the state capital, and other places, placards and all, but our major strategy was to focus on individual legislator for their votes. The demonstrations were mainly to get their attention.

Aristotle’s statement was clearly not suggesting “handouts” for the health of mind and body; he was addressing society’s responsibility for those who could not provide for their own medical needs. In some ways our own Declaration of Independence echoes Aristotle’s wisdom. Just as his statement secures our rights to health of mind and body, so the signers of the Declaration echoed those same rights, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” If indeed these rights are unalienable, how could we live our lives, be free, and pursue happiness, if we didn’t have what Aristotle identified as “…an absolute moral right to such a measure of good health as society and society alone is able to give them.”? The hungry cannot eat retroactively, nor can the sick be healed retroactively! I suspect that Aristotle and the founding fathers were including the 99% of our fellow citizens, not just the 1%, who are billionaires and millionaires.

In our society ever since the social legislation passed during the first term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935, there has been an ongoing battle between progressives and conservatives of how much responsibility government has to meet the needs of the poor members of our society. In general, the Democrats favor more government intervention with programs for the disenfranchised, and more government regulations to protect all of us from the avarice and exploitation of the greedy, while the Republicans rely on a laissez-fair economy, and to let the private sector and charities take care of the poor. Basically, it’s the difference between one’s view of social justice and charity.

This was apparent in the way Herbert Hoover tried to handle the devastating unemployment of the Great Depression that stared on October 29, 1929, just 24 days before I was born. Hoover did not believe that the depression would last. “Prosperity is just around the corner” is what he said to businessmen in 1932 when things were just about at their worst. Squalid cardboard campsites were created in many cities. They were called “Hoovervilles”. The nick-name of the soup given out by charities for the unemployed was “Hoover stew”.

Hoover also had an archaic expectation of the principle of subsidiarity, when he said “It is not the function of the government to relieve individuals of their responsibilities to their neighbors, or to relieve private institutions of their responsibilities to the public.” Despite an economic crisis of unprecedented magnitude, Hoover and the government stood detached. The president limited himself to offering rhetorical encouragement to local charities to come to the aid of the poor and unemployed. What action he did take was directed at supporting and stimulating bankers, railroads, farmers, and entrepreneurs that traditionally made the economy run, to make it run again. Unfortunately his exhortations were impaired by his doctrinal beliefs about government interfering in the economy. In the perfect world that Hoover lived in, the principle of subsidiarity as he interpreted it, makes sense. However, in the real world of the Great Depression, and ever since, it’s apparent to me, that neither: individuals, families, neighborhoods, states, cities, the private sector, or non-profit charity or religious organizations, can meet the needs for: food, shelter, clothing, health care or, , liberty or the pursuit of happiness, that many of our citizens, who are living below the poverty level have.

Hoover’s reluctance to acknowledge this reality prompted mass demonstrations in the streets of cities throughout the country. (Sounds familiar?) In addition to the tent cities previously mentioned, one of the most famous demonstrations was the so called Bonus Expeditionary Force. It drew national attention, when over twenty thousand veterans of World War I, from all over the country camped on the banks of the Anacostia River in Washington, demanding that congress give them an earlier payment of a bonus for wartime service, due to them by law, but not until 1945. Congress refused to grant an early bonus to the veterans. The Hoover administration ordered the army to clear the camp with cavalry, infantry and tanks. Even though the veterans and their families didn’t resist, they fled as their shacks were burned behind them. So much for peaceful demonstrations!

 It was only during the Roosevelt Administration that legislation offered some immediate assistance to the millions of folks who were suffering the most from Government not recognizing that Charity was no longer able to meet all the needs of the poor and that the government needed to be more responsible than relying on “the free market”.  At the peak of the Depression, it’s estimated that 35-40% of the workforce was unemployed.

Unfortunately, 82 years after the start of the Great Depression, the Republicans still claim to be the party of free market economy capitalism, and don’t have the intrinsic distrust of markets that the Democrats do. As a result we find ourselves in a situation where one party favors strategies that believe that the government needs to protect and reward the 1% of population that are billionaires and millionaires, and hope that the 1%’s financial rewards will trickle down to the poor and middle class; or that es and other charitable organization will be able to take care of the disadvantaged.  In reality, the 99% which makes up the middle class is shrinking, and while the rich get richer, the poor are getting poorer. It should be no surprise that we have the same kind of economic problems now, but worse; the same kind of demonstrations now, only more widely spread by the OWS movement, as we had when Hoover was president.

Eight decades later, we are still expecting the private sector to do what the government should be doing. I’m not suggesting that the humanitarian work that es and other charities provide for the victims of disasters, or that their donations to organizations are not important; but we are no longer living in a rural or industrial society, where economic problems were not as complex or devastating as they are today. It’s time we recognized this, and elected representatives that are willing not just to make speeches about inequality, but are committed to work hard to pass legislation that meets the needs of 100% of  “we the people”. This is what our founding fathers laid out in the Declaration of Independence, when they courageously recognized our unalienable rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 

The Gospel According to Ayn Rand – The Voice of the Religious Right

Sixty-three years ago, when I was in my first year of college, our English professor required us to read and write a book report on Ayn Rand’s novel the Fountainhead. As I recall, I received a grade of C+ for my efforts. The professor gave me credit for identifying Ms. Rand’s writing skills, but harshly criticized my inability to articulate her philosophy of “”, the morality of rational self-interest, that has influenced generations of her faithful followers.

Over the years, I became more familiar with Ayn Rand’s philosophy and her ’s story. I reread Fountainhead, searched for articles by or about her, registered with her website, the Ayn Rand Institute, and digested her last novel Atlas Shrugged, her magnum opus that was published in 1957.  The novel has elements of mystery and science fiction, and at the same time includes a detailed description of “” in a length monologue delivered by John Galt, the hero of the book. 

Without going into all the details, the plot takes place in an imaginary time and place, when the United States is suffering from a collapse in its economy and its social structure (sounds prophetic).  Galt emerges as the leader of a strike by industrialists, scientists, heads of corporations, etc. who sequestered themselves in a secluded mountain hideaway, where they built an independent free economy.  Rand’s intention was to demonstrate that without these rational and productive entrepreneurs, these “job creators”, the plan for the new economy would collapse and society would fall apart without them. 

In a 1959 interview by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, he asked Rand to outline her idea of that Galt articulated in Atlas Shrugged.  She replied that it was a system of morality, “…not based on faith or emotion, but on reason.”  She went on to complain about what she called “…the gradual growth of social protective legislation, based on the principle that we are “our brothers’ keepers.” She also told Wallace, she was an atheist and rejected all religion and called it “…a weakness, even a parasite—one that convinces people their is to work for the betterment of others. In fact, for man, the truth is just the opposite. ..Man’s highest is the achievement of his own happiness.”  She also stated that it was religion that was responsible for “moochers”, a derogatory label for those who live off the government, and the hard work of the “job creators”. Unfortunately, the term “moochers” is often used to cover everyone who seeks government assistance, no matter what their circumstances are. Apparently it wouldn’t include crooks like Bernie Madoff , or Kenneth Lay the former CEO of Enron.

Whether you or I agree with Ayn Rand’s philosophy is not my concern for this blog. I intend to go into the specifics of her dogmas in a future blog. What I want to deal with here is my on-going puzzlement about Rand’s fans:  how do so many practicing , especially Christian fundamentalist in high political positions or running for office, espouse her philosophy and still identify themselves as fervent followers of Jesus? I don’t wish to judge them. I’m assuming they are not just identifying themselves as to attract votes, and that they’re sincere, in what seems to me to be a paradoxical position. I would just like to understand how they justify their position of being followers of Jesus, while adhering to Rand’s teachings on the virtues of “selfishness”.  She even has a book entitled The Virtue of Selfishness. It consists of 19 essays, five of them written by her colleague and lover, Nathaniel Branden, (each of their spouses agreed to their affair).

For example, Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the author of the 2011 GOP budget proposal, is a zealous Rand fan. He even has been known to require staff members to read Atlas Shrugged to indoctrinate them into her thinking. He also describes himself as practicing . As a matter of fact he sent a letter to Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the bishop of New York and President of the United States s Conference, with the hope that the archbishop and the Conference would indorse his budget proposal. To his credit, the archbishop wrote a very carefully worded and respectful response, suggesting to Ryan that his budget proposal didn’t mention our less fortunate fellow citizens, those that Jesus was most committed to assist. In other words, there was nothing in Ryan’s proposal that focused on Rand’s “moochers”.  The archbishop reminded Ryan of Jesus’ compassion for the disadvantaged and as followers of Jesus our concern shouldn’t be just for the “job creators”. To put that in the OWS parlance, if we are really followers of Jesus, we need to be more concerned with the 99% who are in the middle class or below, than the 1%, the elite class, the so called “job creators”. By the way, where are all those jobs that “job creators” are supposed to be creating?

Another card carrying , who is a Rand fan is the Honorable Speaker of the House, John Boehner.  In a November 14, 2011 article, entitled On Capitol Hill, Rand’s Atlas Can’t Be Shrugged Off, Andrea Searbrook quotes Speaker Boehner as if he was speaking directly from Ayn Rand’s playbook. “Businesses need to be set free. Instead, they’ve been antagonized by a government that favors bureaucrats over market-based solutions. They’ve been demoralized by government that causes despair, when what we really need is to provide reassurance and inspire hope.” He was speaking to the Economic Club of Washington D.C. Later in his speech he used the language of slavery when he said, “We need to liberate our economy from the shackles of Washington.”  I just heard him on CNN this morning (12/21/2011)  standing up for the 1%, which he identified as “job creators”.

Jason Miller in a article on s United’s website on 12/15/11 described an ecumenical protest at Speaker Boehner’s office to hand-deliver a petition to remind him that “… people of faith want Wall Street to share in the sacrifice that so many American families are being asked to make.”  The article went on to state “…it’s time for Speaker Boehner to follow the social teachings of the Church and heed the advice of the and Benedict XVI to support greater Wall Street accountability.”

legislators and policies makers don’t have the corner on the market of preaching  Rand’s gospel. One of her fans who carried on her legacy was the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan. When he was 26 years old, and a rising star in field of economics, he became part of the “Collective”, her inner circle, and remained a supporter of her economic theory, especially her disdain for the regulation by the government in the markets, throughout most of his career. In an article entitled, Alan Shrugged, by David Corn in Mother Jones magazine, October 23, 2008, he quotes Greenspan’s apology to the members of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee as he acknowledges in his testimony that his view of a free and loosely-regulated market and the financial world failed. He humbly admitted, “I made a mistake in presuming that self-interests (a key concept of Rand’s) of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.” http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/10/alanshrugged

Not to belabor the point, but to mention just a few more fans: As far back as 1966, before he had entered politics, Ronald Reagan was an admirer of Ayn Rand; not surprisingly, Rep. Ron Paul, (R-TX) and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) who is even a bigger fan than his father. Then there is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, also a Rand follower, who was raised a and even spent several years in the seminary studying to be a priest.

Perhaps my perplexity, i.e., how can follow the teachings of Rand and Jesus at the same time, boils down to what Jesus is reported to have said in the Gospel of Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters. He will hate the first master and love the other, or he will be devoted to the first and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Wealth.” Amen!

I’d appreciate your thoughts on this issue.