The Trump Election

I was in a daze the day after Donald Trump won the 2016 election for President of the United States. How could this have happened? Hillary Clinton was ahead in virtually all the polls. I’ve read and listened to many analyses of what happened. I’m sure the analyzing will go on for many more years. Here’s my take on what happened.

I think Donald Trump won the electoral college vote because of convergence of a number of different groups voting for him. Initially I thought of using the word “coalition” instead of “convergence’. But I decided to not use that term because I don’t think he established a coalition. I think different groups decided to vote for him for their own particular reasons and the sum of all these groups together brought him enough votes to win the election. One group included white nationalists, Americans who believe we should be a nation controlled by white men. These people cheered his condemnation of Mexican immigrants, his call for a ban on Muslim immigration, his promise to deport all illegal immigrants, and his denunciation of a judge of Mexican descent as not able to be objective in hearing a lawsuit against Trump.

Another group that supported him are white evangelical Christians. More than 80% of those who voted from this group went for Trump. You would think that the many things that came out during the campaign about his crude language and behavior would have led to them rejecting Trump. But, apparently, his pro-life position and his pledge to appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court trumped all the rest (pun intended).

Trump also got the votes of the die-hard Republican voters. He got the endorsements of many Republican elected officials, even those he disparaged and told lies about (e.g., Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan).

Finally, he got the votes of many working class Americans who believe the system is not working for them. These folks came out in big numbers to give Trump wins in states like Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. In some of these states, Republicans had not won the popular vote for President in many years. In many states, working class people who don’t usually vote came out and voted for Trump. He hit the right chord with these folks. He called for change and this was very appealing for working class people whose real wages have gone down considerably over the past few decades. For some, their wages have gone down because manufacturing jobs, which paid good money, have now been replaced by service jobs with much lower wages. For some, the issue goes beyond the replacement of high-paying jobs with low-paying jobs.

In the September/October issue of Mother Jones magazine, Arlie Russell Hochschild wrote an article about Donald Trump’s appeal to working class voters. Hochschild’s article is based on interviewing and spending time with 60 people in Louisiana over a period of 5 years, in an attempt to understand supporters of the tea party. One paragraph struck me as providing a good insight into his appeal.

She says that the “deep story of the right goes like this: You are patiently standing in the middle of a long line stretching toward the horizon, where the American Dream awaits. But as you wait, you see people cutting in line ahead of you. Many of these line-cutters are black – beneficiaries of affirmative action or welfare. Some are career-driven women pushing into jobs they never had before. Then you see immigrants, Mexicans, Somalis, the Syrian refugees yet to come. As you wait in this unmoving line, you’re being asked to feel sorry for them all. You have a good heart. But who is deciding who you should feel compassion for? Then you see Barack Hussein Obama waving the line-cutters forward. He’s on their side. In fact, isn’t he a line-cutter too? How did this fatherless black guy pay for Harvard? As you wait your turn, Obama is using money in your pocket to help the line-cutters. He and his liberal backers have removed the shame from taking. The government has become an instrument for redistributing your money to the undeserving. It’s not your government anymore; it’s theirs.” Hochschild says she checked this story with the people she interviewed for her article and they agreed it was their story.

You may read the description above and say that it’s not an accurate portrayal of what’s going on in America. Whether it is or not, it’s an accurate description of how some Americans see their situation. We can’t just dismiss it out-of-hand. We have to acknowledge it. The failure to recognize what’s happening to the working class and lower middle class may be what caused Clinton to lose the election.

Here are some additional thoughts about the election:

American voters wanted a change. Hillary Clinton got almost 17 million votes during the Democratic primaries. Donald Trump got over 14 million votes in the Republican primaries. He beat out 16 other candidates (mostly career politicians). But we should not forget that Bernie Sanders also got more than 13 million votes in the Democratic primaries – these were also votes for change. In the general election, Clinton was seen as supporting the political status quo; while Trump was seen as an outsider and an advocate for major change in Washington. During the primaries, polls generally showed Bernie Sanders doing better against Trump than Clinton against Trump. We’ll never know whether he would have beaten Trump. But I believe his outsider/change message would have appealed to many of the working-class voters who went for Trump.

Also, Donald Trump lied. At times, he said one thing and then later said the opposite. At other times, he asserted things that were contradicted by facts (e.g., that President Obama was not born in the United States, that Ford was taking jobs from the US and sending them to Mexico, that the murder rate in our big cities has increased). He frequently denied that he said certain things that audio or video tapes could prove that he had indeed said. My wife, Pat, read an interesting analysis of this. The author believed that Donald Trump was not concerned with whether the things he said were true or false. The most important thing to him is winning. He emphasized during his campaigns that he is a winner and would make America a winner (we would win so much that we will get bored of winning). Thus, he said things he believed would help him win. Truth or falsehood was beside the point. Based on what I saw and read during the primary and general election campaigns, I think this is a pretty good analysis of how Trump operates. And now that he has won he is moderating many positions that probably played a big part in convincing people to vote for him (e.g., a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary, repealing Obamacare).

We also cannot overlook the voter suppression effort that Republicans have engaged in over the past half-decade. Under the guise of fighting voter fraud, Republican legislatures in a large number of states have enacted laws that have made it more difficult for traditionally Democratic voters to cast their votes. One Pennsylvania legislator admitted on camera that the purpose of that state’s voting fraud law was to help Republicans win elections. In Alabama, the new law required a voter ID. The state then closed more than 30 Motor Vehicle offices (where the IDs could be obtained) mostly in rural, majority-black counties. In Wisconsin, a federal judge ordered the state to provide voter ID to applicants within 6 days of receiving the appropriate documentation. But Motor Vehicle agencies in the state did not comply with the order. These voter ID laws were enacted despite the fact that actual fraud at the voting place is almost non-existent. A study by Prof. Justin Levitt at Loyola University found that from 2000 to 2014 there were only 31 instances of voter impersonation fraud out of one billion votes. The Nation magazine described voter suppression as the most under-reported story of 2016. Ari Berman’s article describes the results of these voter ID laws.

OK. We have to face facts. Donald Trump won the election. He didn’t get the most votes in the general election. But he did get the most electoral college votes. And that’s the way our system currently works. We have to live with him being our president for the next four years.

I have two take-aways from this election. One, there are a lot of people who are saying and writing that we have to give him a chance, we have to wait and see how he will govern. I agree with that. But, I also believe that we have to be vigilant. We can’t allow him and the Republican Congress to enact laws that violate human rights, foster discrimination, or violate the Constitution and say “Let’s wait to see how these laws play out.” We need to act quickly if these things occur and make our voices heard through letter writing, protests, etc. Two, the Democratic party abandoned the working class, which used to provide the base of its support. Bernie Sanders recognized this and there are other prominent Democratic politicians who also understand it (e.g., Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Keith Ellison). The Democratic party has given lip-service to addressing the plight of the working class; but it has not translated into meaningful action. In order to win future elections, the Democrats must return to their roots.

Money in American Politics

In 2014, the website The Hill reported on a study done by Martin Gilens and BenjaminPage, titled “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens”. The Hill began its reporting with: “A shattering new study by two political science professors has found that ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country. The analysts found that rich individuals and business-controlled interest groups largely shape policy outcomes in the United States.”

I recently read Dark Money by Jane Mayer. Her book provides a very detailed picture of how a small number of wealthy individuals and families has gained undue influence over our political system and our election process.

When I began the book, I expected that it would mostly focus on Charles and David Koch (co-owners of Koch Industries) whose combined wealth is estimated to be over $80 billion. A Center for Responsive Politics report stated that in 2012 Koch PACs spent $4.9 million in disclosed contributions and $407 million in undisclosed contributions (dark money). But Mayer doesn’t focus only on the Kochs. Her book chronicles many other wealthy individuals, foundations and corporations that have used their enormous resources to influence American politics.

Although Mayer describes a number of wealthy individuals and groups that have exerted influence over the past 50 years, currently the most significant wealthy individuals who have exerted influence over the political process are Charles and David Koch. Let’s look at them first. In 1980, David Koch ran for Vice-President of the United States on the Libertarian ticket. The Libertarian platform called for abolition of the following: campaign finance laws, all government health care programs (including Medicaid and Medicare), Social Security, all income and corporate taxes (including capital gains tax), the Securities and Exchange Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, laws impeding employment (i.e., minimum wage and child labor laws), public schools and compulsory education of children, the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, and all forms of welfare for the poor. The Libertarian slate got 1% of the popular vote that year. Despite the popularity of many of these ideas among some Republicans today, in 1980 they were far from the mainstream ideas of the Republican party.

After the resounding defeat of Libertarian Party ideas, David Koch and his older brother, Charles, decided that running for office was not an effective strategy. Instead they embarked on an effort to bring about support for the ideas behind the Libertarian Party’s platform. They did this by funding conservative think tanks (e.g., the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation), which produced studies to support their ideas. These studies sometimes did not rely on scientific and factual evidence (e.g., denial of climate change). They funded programs in colleges and universities, that were designed to foster free-market and anti-regulatory economics (e.g., the Mercatus Center and Institute for Human Studies at George Mason University).

The Koch brothers influence in this process is due less to their own donations (though they are substantial) than to their coordination of the donations of a large group of wealthy individuals, foundations and corporations. To advance their agenda, the Koch brothers sponsor twice-yearly meetings with potential donors to their conservative causes. The first donor summit in 2003 was attended by only 15 people. But, after Barak Obama’s election in 2008, the summits began to attract many more wealthy donors. Because of the secrecy enforced by the Kochs, the names of people who attended these summits are mostly unknown. The secrecy of the summits reflects the secrecy of the Koch donor network and of donations made by the Koch brothers themselves. Many donations are made to organizations that do not have to reveal the source of the donations. These organizations then donate to other organizations that may have to disclose their donors; but the disclosure only reveals the name of the organization they received the donations from. The original donors' identities remain a secret.

In Dark Money, Mayer traces the influence of money on politics back to the Scaife Family Charitable Trust. Richard Scaife, whose money came from his mother, a member of the Mellon family, was the largest funder of the Heritage Foundation from 1975 to 1985. Mayer points out that, along with other wealthy individuals, Scaife was reacting to a situation many corporations found themselves in during the 1960’s and 1970’s, following the “birth of the environmental and consumer movements”. Later, Scaife also funded the launching of ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), which has helped spread the conservative legislative agenda throughout state legislatures.

Mayer reports on many other wealthy individuals who have poured money into American politics. In many instances, it appears that their motivation is to influence the oversight of their business operations by the government and resulting fines. Mayer reports that the Olin Corporation was involved in controversial environmental practices involving the production of DDT and the dumping of mercury into the Niagra River in New York State. In an effort to influence government policies affecting corporations, the Olin Foundation funded the establishment of Law and Economics courses in law schools. These courses stressed “the need to analyze laws, including government regulations, not just for fairness but also for their economic impact.” The courses were a back-door way to get conservative principles into the law school curriculum. The Olin Foundation provided 83% of the funds to support this effort from 1985 to 1989.

Some of other examples Mayer describes include: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which drove the early “school choice” efforts; Randy Kendrick, who led the fight against Obamacare; the DeVos family (of Amway fame), which funded efforts to undo campaign finance laws; and Art Pope of North Carolina who, with $2.2 million spent on 2010 state races by his family and groups backed by him, helped turn North Carolina into a state dominated by the Republican party.

The influence of big money over our political system was given a big boost by the Supreme Court Citizens United decision in 2010. For the 2010 elections, Americans for Prosperity (a Koch brothers' organization) pledged to spend at least $200 million, American Crossroads (a Karl Rove group) $52 million and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $75 million. The focus of this money is to influence politicians to look favorably on the interests of big business and limit the government oversight of companies and corporations that, for the most part, if left to their own devices, will put corporate profits over the welfare of the American people. What influence can the average American have, compared to wealthy individuals and large corporations? One answer, of course, is that we can have greater influence if we join together. Remember the large amount of money that Bernie Sanders was able to raise for his Presidential campaign, with an average donation of $27 from individual donors?

In Dark Money, Jane Mayer documents the influence of dark money and of wealthy individuals and corporations on our politics. She does not offer recommendations to resolve the decreasing influence of average Americans on government policies. But, her comprehensive description of the problem we average Americans face provides a valuable contribution to our knowledge of how much the deck is stacked against us.

Changes in the Catholic Church since the 1960's

A lot of changes took place in the Church as a result of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). I’ve written about Mass being celebrated in the language spoken by the people attending it, rather than in Latin, and the altar being moved so the priest was facing the people instead of having his back to them. But these were only a small part of the changes. There was an emphasis on making the Church more relevant to the people. There was less emphasis on following the rules and more emphasis on understanding God’s love for us and bringing God’s love into the world. There was an increased emphasis on caring for God’s children who live in poverty, or are hurting or disabled. There was involvement in the Civil Rights movement and ministering to those living in the inner cities and poor rural areas of our country. I’ve written before about Fr. Brian McCormick and his ministry to the Wilbur section of inner-city Trenton (see my July 16, 2012 blog). I think his ministry there was very symbolic of the changes in the Church begun by Vatican II.

However, even soon after Vatican II some in the Church wanted to roll back the changes being made. During the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, there was a big focus on orthodoxy and compliance with the doctrine of the Church as interpreted by the Pope. There was an investigation into the practices of American nuns who saw their mission as ministering to the poor and needy. Fortunately, in my opinion, we now have a Pope whose focus is more on the pastoral care of Catholics (and people in general) and less on adherence to doctrine.

Often, the focus of the Church hierarchy is demonstrated through seemingly small actions, that are symbolic of the vision of the faith that they are pushing. For example, during the papacy of Benedict, there was a change in the translation of prayers used in the Mass that was ostensibly to make them more in line with the actual wording of the prayers in Latin. However, one of the results was to remove language that was simpler and easier to understand and replace it with language that most people will find less understandable and harder to relate to. For example, during the Creed at Mass, instead of being “born” Jesus is now “incarnate” of the Virgin Mary; instead of “one in being with the Father” he is “consubstantial with the Father”.

In Practicing Catholic, James Carroll writes about how, in the Church in which he grew up, before Vatican II, a main theme was our unworthiness as human beings (“Domine non sume dignus”; “Lord, I am not worthy”). With Vatican II, the focus changed to the love God has for us, that we are all his children. We see this with  Pope Francis and his emphasis on Mercy. But some prayers at Mass focus more on our sinfulness than God’s love and mercy. At the beginning of Mass, we pray the Confiteor, which begins “I confess to almighty God …” Until recently we recited “that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and what I have failed to do …” This has been changed to the more severe wording “that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault …” The emphasis is back on our unworthiness. Frequently, during this prayer, I think “I haven’t greatly sinned” and it’s not “through my most grievous fault” (emphasis mine). I also think about the seventy and eighty year olds around me and have a hard time picturing them greatly sinning.

Another effect of Vatican II was an emphasis on simplicity. After my six years in the minor seminary at St. Charles College, I would go on to the major seminary (two years of studying Philosophy and then four years of studying Theology). In our minds, moving on to major seminary was a big deal. And there were symbols of this important step. In the minor seminary, we wore jackets and ties to chapel, classes, meals, etc. In the major seminary, we would wear cassocks (with a white surplice added when we went to chapel). During our last year at St. Charles, we would be fitted for and purchase cassocks and surplices. I remember specifically wanting to have a surplice that had a simple design. The one I purchased was made of heavy cotton, with no decorative aspects. I think this idea of simplicity was also reflected in changes to liturgical garments and vessels. Chasubles (outer garment worn by the priest during Mass) started to be made out of less silky-looking material and had a plainer design. Many priests ordained after Vatican II chose chalices (the cup used at Mass) that had a plainer design. I remember some of the chalices of the younger priests having a ceramic outside (gold on the inside) that more resembled a cup.  These newer designs reflected the concept of the priest being a humble servant of the people. Simplicity replaced the more elaborate designs that in earlier days emphasized adoration of a transcendent God. These days, we seem to be moving back to an adoring mode. For example, I’ve noticed that seminarians coming to our parish seem to be wearing surplices with decorative lace designs at the bottom of the sleeves and at the waist.

Here are links to some elaborate and simple styles of chasubles, surplices and chalices to illustrate:

Simple chasuble

Elaborate chasuble

Simple surplice (this is very similar to the surplice I chose for myself)

Elaborate surplice

Simple chalice

Elaborate chalice

I realize that there are those who believe that God is primarily a transcendent God (that is, that God is greater than human beings and our world and therefore our relationship to God should be one of adoration). One way of showing our adoration is to include in our worship services objects of great beauty to reflect how awesome God is. Others (I include myself here) believe that, while God is in fact greater than all we know and can imagine, he became a human being in the person of Jesus Christ, to show God’s love for us and that God’s presence remains among us. Fr. RichardRohr, founder of The Center for Action and Contemplation, has written that “Jesus does not ask us to worship him. He asks us to follow him.”

In many ways the spirit of Vatican II has dissipated over the years. Pope John XXIII emphasized the principle of collegiality (bishops sharing in authority with the Pope). The Second Vatican Council was a shining example of collegiality. But John XXIII died before the end of the Council and was succeeded by Pope Paul VI. In Practicing Catholic, James Carroll writes that Paul VI ordered the Council to not take up the issue of birth control. It would be handled by the Pope. Paul VI later issued an encyclical reaffirming the Church’s prohibition of artificial contraception. The windows opened by John XXIII have been gradually closing. But Pope Francis seems intent on opening them up again. He emphasizes serving the poor. He condemns the lavish lifestyles of some “princes of the Church” and has had showers built in the Vatican for homeless people to use. I was pleased to read an article in “Network Connection” (a publication of Network, a Catholic social justice lobbying group) that included an interview with John Gehring, author of The Francis Effect. In it, he said “I heard from these seminarians that the pope is challenging them to encounter people, to recognize that their most significant challenge is not to preach doctrine, but to attract people to the faith and tap into what he calls the ‘freshness and fragrance of the gospel’. They were touched that he didn’t move into the Apostolic Palace, for example.” He also said that they understood that “their job as seminarians is to learn about the doctrine of the faith, but they see a pastor who is pope challenging them to recognize that the greatest doctrine of the church is good news for the poor and mercy.”

A while ago I received a bookmark from the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) that featured a Pope Francis comic strip (this is a regular feature in NCR). I thought this comic strip provided a good visual representation of the outlooks and focuses of the last few popes.

I am grateful that we have a Pope who is looking forward and is preaching a gospel of love and mercy for all men and women.

Keeping Christ in Christmas

On Saturday December 12, I walked ten miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Pennsylvania) with about 135 other people in the 56^th Annual Christmas Peace Pilgrimage. I’m not certain when I started participating in this yearly walk, but I’ve been doing it at least since 2002 (I remember hearing the speaker listed for that year on their website). I have only missed a couple of the walks since that time.  We walk on the shoulder of Route 191 most of the way. Some drivers beep to show their support; others call out positive comments. This year, just before our first rest stop, one driver called out “I hope you’re keeping Christ in Christmas.” I guess, for some people, if they see a large group of people with signs that read “Peace”, they assume those folks must be liberals, radicals, or socialists and most likely atheists. If there had been time, we could have told him that the walk is sponsored by a lot of Christian churches and religious groups; that we stop at three churches along the way to rest and enjoy some refreshments; that we end the walk at the Central Moravian Church in Bethlehem, where we sing a couple Christmas carols. Here’s a picture of the group getting ready to move on from the second rest stop at First Baptist Church, which provided us with hot chocolate.

Every year when I get to the end of the walk my feet, legs and hips are hurting quite a bit and I wonder whether I should do the walk the next year. And as the date approaches for the next walk (2^nd Saturday in December), I wonder if I really want to put my body through that again. But, I always push those thoughts aside and head out for the walk. I do it for 3 reasons. First, more than 100 people walking down Route 191 just before Christmas carrying signs that read “Peace” is a good witness to the Christmas message of “Peace on earth, good will to men [and women]”. It was especially relevant this year with all the political talk about bombing ISIS and refusing entrance to refugees and all the fear being spread by some politicians. Second, as I walk, it is an opportunity to think about the importance of peace in our world and to consider ways that I can help foster that peace. Third, it is an opportunity to get together with others for whom bringing about peace is important. I always see people whom I recognize from previous walks. But there are also people participating for whom this is their first time doing the walk. During this year’s walk, I spoke with people I know and people I had just met. Here’s a link to the Christmas Peace Pilgrimage website. You can see pictures from this year’s walk by clicking on the Gallery link.

On Sunday, my wife Pat and I spent much of the day at the Christmas Market at Assumption Church in Morristown, NJ. This was another good Christmas season event. Pat had been asked by our friends, Sergio and Johanna Burani, to come to sell some of the books she has written. The catch? Vendors were asked to donate 50% of their profits to Africa Surgery. Sergio and Johanna are regular fundraisers for Africa Surgery and all the profits from Photos bySergio go to support Africa Surgery. Pat and I had read information about this charity on its website, so we knew that the organization helps coordinate surgery for children and adults living in Sierra Leone. On the website, we watched the video “The White Man on the Bicycle” about Tom Johnson, the founder. And at the end of the Christmas Market, we had the opportunity to talk with Tom about his organization. Tom had spent time in Sierra Leone as a Peace Corps volunteer. We usually think of Peace Corps volunteers as being right out of college. However, Tom told us he was 38 years old when he joined the Peace Corps. After leaving the Peace Corps, he returned to Sierra Leone a number of years later and at the end of his trip, he left some money to help a couple people obtain surgeries they needed. That was the beginning of a mission that has helped hundreds of people there. Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world and has been devastated by years of war. Tom showed us pictures of a child with a severe curvature of the spine related to tuberculosis. Untreated, this condition could result in paralysis. But, with the help of Africa Surgery, this young man will be able to lead a pretty normal life. Tom spends most of his year in Morristown, raising money and obtaining supplies for Africa Surgery. But he told us he spends 4 to 5 months a year in Sierra Leone, coordinating resources to provide the needed medical services. In fact, he told us he was leaving within the week to go there. Africa Surgery provides essential services to some very needy individuals. I like the idea of donating to a charity that I have a direct or indirect connection to. At the Christmas Market, Pat donated all of her profits to Africa Surgery. Although the Christmas Market is a relatively small operation, it raised $8000 for Africa Surgery. I encourage you to take a look at Africa Surgery’s website.

It’s now less than a week until Christmas day. We’ve done most of our shopping. Practically all the credit for that goes to Pat, who has spent a lot of time on-line ordering gifts, shopping in stores and wrapping gifts. While giving gifts to our loved ones is an important part of the season, I’m happy to have had the opportunity to spend some time thinking about the more spiritual aspects of Christmas and to be reminded that we are all God’s children and that Jesus came to show God’s love to all of us. Merry Christmas to all.

Easing My Way Back into "The World"

In previous blog posts about life in the seminary in the 1960’s, I wrote about changes happening in the Church at that time. Primarily, these were the result of Pope John XXIII and his convening of the Second Vatican Council to open the windows and let in fresh air, to bring the Church into the modern world. I wrote about how, before Vatican II, the emphasis was on our sinfulness and our unworthiness before God. But the Council emphasized how much God loves us. Before the Council, seminarians were kept separate from “the World” and its temptations. After the Council, seminarians and priests were expected to engage with the world and bring God’s love to others. I’ve also written about how not everyone in the Catholic Church was gung-ho about the changes.

During my last year at St. Charles College seminary (my sophomore college year), seminary life was in flux. For most of the men graduating from St. Charles, the next step would be two more years of college at St. Mary’s Seminary on Paca Street in downtown Baltimore. While we were still at St. Charles, we were in contact with seminarians we knew who had moved on to St. Mary’s. We heard from them how different St. Mary’s was from St. Charles – how much more freedom they had. Faculty at St. Mary’s seemed to have embraced the spirit of Vatican II more than the faculty at St. Charles.

Life at St. Charles was still very regimented. However, there was one significant change. During my freshman year of college, the faculty had allowed the establishment of a student council. During that year, we went through a process of identifying how the student council would function. Our sophomore year was its first actual year. Officers were elected to the Student Council and each class elected representatives. I was one of the representatives chosen by my class. With all the changes going on in the Church and our awareness of things going on at St. Mary’s, there was a lot of discussion at Student Council meetings about whether changes could be made at St. Charles.

The actions of the Student Council weren’t belligerent or revolutionary, but we did ask questions about why some things had to be done a certain way and why they couldn’t change. In other words, we were questioning Authority. And Authority (the Rector and the faculty) didn’t like it. At the end of the year, there was a banquet for the graduating (sophomore) class. The Rector (i.e., the priest in charge of the seminary) gave a memorable speech, the main point of which was that the graduating class should have been going out wearing clean white hats. But the hats we wore were stained with dirt because of our lack of commitment and dedication to the ideals of the seminary program of preparation for the priesthood. More memorable was the speech given later in the banquet by Ken Hallahan, the Student Council president. He talked about how individuals who are working to get things done and make a difference in life find it difficult to keep their hats white. (Most of us connected more with Ken’s comments than the Rector’s.)

I expected that the following year I would be at St. Mary’s Paca Street, like those in classes ahead of me. But, because of the faculty assessment that identified me as a troublemaker, instead the Bishop of Trenton sent me and a few other seminarians who also had bad recommendations to Christ the King Seminary at St. Bonaventure University. I would spend one year at Christ the King and then leave the seminary and finish my college career at St. Bonaventure.

Although I would have preferred to go to St. Mary’s with my fellow classmates, I think my going to Christ the King was good for me. Along with allowing me the opportunity to make some good friends in the seminary there, it also provided a nice transition from the sheltered world of St. Charles. We had our Philosophy courses at the seminary. But we also took four classes at the University with other college students. And we had an opportunity to interact with the college students at other times when we were not in class. So, I also made some friends there who were not seminarians. I continued to spend most of my time at the seminary. But I also had more interactions with non-seminary college students. When I left the seminary and transferred to the University for my senior year, the transition was easier. I also consider the next two years as part of my transition. Because my first year out of college, I taught religion at a Catholic High School just outside of Trenton. So most of my time was spent interacting with Catholic teachers and high school students. And most of my day was spent talking about religion. Following that year, I took a job working at The Bancroft School, a day and residential program for individuals with developmental disabilities. With that, my transition from the sheltered life of the seminary was complete.

Originally, I had planned to include in this blog entry some more thoughts about the changes inspired by the Second Vatican Council and how they have not borne the fruits that some would have hoped. But that will have to wait till my next blog entry.

Seminary Reminiscences from the 1960s - Part 4

I’ve written a number of blog entries about life in a Catholic seminary in the 1960’s. Here are some additional reminiscences about those years.

I entered St. Charles College Seminary as a freshman in high school. Like many boys of that age, I enjoyed playing sports. Since the seminary was a closed environment, separated from “the World”, the sports available to us were intramural. We had teams that competed against one another in all of the major sports (football, basketball, baseball and track).

Although basketball was my favorite, I enjoyed playing all the sports. For football, we played “touch football” where the play stopped when a defensive player touched with two hands the offensive player with the ball. Maybe not as exciting to some as tackle football but we had a good time. And the only equipment required was a pair of cleats. As I recall, basketball was played in a building that had no heat. Our high school yearbook refers to it as Tuberculosis Hall. Baseball was played in both fall and spring. For track and field, we had one meet in October and one in May.

For most of high school, there were four teams: Trojans, Vikings, Spartans and Crusaders. And, to accommodate as many students as possible, for each sport there was a “A” league, a “B” league and at times a “C” league. During my senior year, there were only three teams. I was the captain of the Vikings; Bill Reilly was captain of the Spartans; and Bob Callen was captain of the Trojans. Here’s a picture of the three of us with the two Masters of Games, Frank Benedetta and Joe Petryszak, who organized the teams and schedules. Each class had its own class colors. Ours were green and white. We are wearing our class’s football jerseys. I’m number 5 in this picture. Also, here’s a picture from a track race with my friend, Larry McAvoy, ahead of the field.

Along with the four sports mentioned above, we also had tennis and handball courts available. And, during the winter, there was an outdoor ice rink for those who wanted to skate. I spent a lot of time on that rink. The handball courts were very popular. They were outdoor courts with a front wall and two short side walls (maybe six feet long). I remember having handball gloves with padding in the palm. That little black handball was pretty hard and our hands were usually pretty red after a few games. We had pool and billiards tables and ping pong tables that got a lot of use.

We also had other activities for students to participate in. I remember that we had movies shown in the auditorium on some Saturday nights. Because it was a seminary in the 1960’s, the movies were all PG rated. I remember seeing a number of movies with Doris Day in them. It seemed that in each of them she sang Que Sera Sera (“Que Sera Sera/ Whaterver will be, will be/The future’s not ours to see/Que Sera Sera”). Each grade had a glee club that performed at concerts held twice a year (in the fall and spring). The glee clubs were led by a student conductor. And there were talent shows where individuals or groups could perform. We also put on plays, in which some of the students had to play female roles, Sounds strange as I think about it, but what choice did we have. I specifically remember some Shakespearean plays being performed. Here’s a picture from the play J.B., a contemporary version of the story of Job, from the Bible. And a picture of our sophomore college glee club.

After high school, we were at St. Charles for two years of college. The freshman college students were referred to as Poets and the sophomore students as Rhets (short for Rhetoricians). Rhetoric is “the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing”. One of the curious things I remember involves the grading of a college English term paper. This term paper came towards the end of the school year and counted for a significant percentage of the grade. In Father Eaton’s classes, our papers were returned with grades made up of two letters. But we did not know what the letters signified and he did not tell us at the beginning what they referred to. This caused a lot of confusion and anxiety among us. We eventually figured out from the pattern of the grades that he had substituted for the numbers 0-9 for the letters “blackwhite” (or perhaps “whiteblack”, I don’t remember for sure).

I previously wrote some things about the Refectory (Dining Hall). One of the things related to the Refectory that Larry McAvoy reminded me about is the many bets involving desserts that were placed on sports games or pool and ping pong games. This could be a bet of a single dessert or a bet of a week’s worth of desserts or even two weeks worth. You can imagine the dismay of some students when the dessert they owed because of a lost bet ended up being one of their favorites. Very unpleasant!

After graduating from high school, we moved into the newer college building. As opposed to the large dormitory rooms for high school students (56 in a dorm), those in college had a room they shared with one other student. Instead of going to a large study hall, college students had desks in their rooms where they would study at the designated times. As you can imagine, the move from high school to college was a big deal.

I’ve always felt compelled to follow the rules and in the seminary there were a lot of rules. When we were in high school and living a very communal life, it was not so easy to get away with breaking rules. But, in college, with a room that we shared with only one other person, it was easier to break some rules. My freshman year, I had a roommate who didn’t seem much concerned with the rules. We were not allowed to have radios but he had a small portable transistor radio that he listened to in the room with an earphone. We were supposed to have personal books approved by the priest who was the school librarian. In our room, he was reading Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian. I’m pretty sure it would not have been approved by the librarian. He just didn’t seem like he was serious about being in the seminary. It was his first year in the seminary and he left before the end of the year.

Ours was a small world. But over the next few years, it was about to change significantly for all of us. And also for St. Charles. We graduated from the junior college in 1967. St. Charles was part of St. Mary's Seminary and University. Two years after our graduation from St. Charles, the high school section was closed and the junior and senior classes of St. Mary’s moved from Paca St. in downtown Baltimore to the St. Charles campus and the combined college was renamed St. Mary’s Seminary College. Eight years later, that college closed and the campus was sold to a developer, who converted it into senior housing (Charlestown Retirement Community). So St. Charles College, which opened its doors in 1848, came to a rather abrupt end. The same thing would happen to many other minor seminaries throughout the country.

Changes in the Catholic Church in the 1960's

When I was growing up, the Mass was in Latin and the priest who celebrated the Mass faced the altar, which was against the wall, and had his back to the congregation. The advantage of the Mass being in Latin was that you could go to Mass anywhere in the world and it would be the same. There was consistency and familiarity in it. The disadvantage, of course, was that you could not understand what the priest was saying. Many Catholics had a Missal that included the prayers in their own language. But others attending the Mass would do things such as pray the Rosary. The Mass was an activity where the priest re-enacted Christ's Last Supper, when he changed bread into Christ’s body and wine into his blood. The Mass also was a re-enactment of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, in which he saved us from our sins, through his death and resurrection. The priest was an "alter Christus" (another Christ) and by his actions we were brought to salvation. No need for us to understand what was going on or to participate in the process.

One of the most obvious effects of the Second Vatican Council was the changes in the Mass. And the biggest change was that the Mass was prayed in the vernacular (that is, the language of the people participating in the Mass). In his book, Practicing Catholic, James Carroll writes about how different the experience of attending Mass in English was for him: “And once Catholics entered into the mystery of the Mass as literate participants instead of as passive spectators, an unprecedented renewal took hold – and my own steadfast devotion to Mass attendance until now is a measure of it.” He also describes “The arrival of English in the liturgy, and the resulting transformation of my own experience of worship …”

Additionally, the concept of the Mass changed from a sacrifice to a meal. The Mass was the re-enactment of the Last Supper and the Last Supper was a meal that Jesus shared with his apostles. The altar changed from an altar of sacrifice to an altar table around which the faithful gathered. The priest no longer faced away from the congregation, performing a ritual that they could not see. Instead, the altar was moved away from the wall and the priest faced the congregation and they could see what he was doing and could now understand the prayers, because he spoke them in their language. The congregation became an integral part of the liturgy of the Mass. Vatican Council documents even referred to the "priesthood of the laity" (the term laity referring to those Church members who were not ordained priests).

These changes came about while I was at St. Charles College minor seminary (high school and 2 years of college). St. Charles was a seminary for young men who aspired to be parish priests. The order of priests who ran the seminary was the Sulpicians (the Order of St. Sulpice). Training young men to be parish priests was the mission of their order. As with any change, some Catholics were more receptive to the changes occurring in the Church than others. Even within the clergy (priests, bishops, etc.), there were some who embraced the changes more wholeheartedly than others. For the most part, it seemed that it was the younger Sulpicians who were most enthusiastic about the changes coming forth from the Vatican Council.

One of the spiritual activities we participated in at the seminary was weekly confession. Each of us was assigned a "confessor" (a priest to whom we would go on a weekly basis to confess our sins, to be counseled about our situation and to have our sins forgiven). As freshmen in high school, we were assigned to a specific priest and given a time for our weekly confession. After that first year we could request a different confessor. During my first two years, I had a confessor who had been a priest for a number of years. I would consider him pretty traditional. I would go to my weekly confession and recite my sins; he would give some words of advice and then forgive my sins.

During my junior year, I was assigned to a different confessor. He was new to the

seminary and had been recently ordained a priest. I don't think I requested him. I think I just asked for a change of confessors. I was very lucky. Because I have always felt that he changed my life and I became a much better person and more serious about my faith because of him. For most of the time since then, I thought that the change occurred because he helped me to see that God loved me and that I was a good person, who was capable of doing many good things in my life. Recently, while reading Practicing Catholic, I got a different insight into this. In the book, James Carroll talks about the Church (the Catholic Church in general) in which he grew up (the same one in which I grew up; he is 4 years older than I am) emphasizing how we are all sinners who are unworthy of God (“Domine non sum dignus” – “Lord, I am not worthy”). The emphasis in the Church was on obedience to the Ten Commandments and the rules of the Church. James Carroll writes about having to obey The Rule during his seminary training. The Rule was a set of requirements for training future priests that was established by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. The motto in the seminary James Carroll attended was "Keep the Rule and the Rule will keep you." The main responsibility of the seminarian was obedience. And I think that was the main responsibility of Catholics in general. To get to heaven, you needed to be obedient to the Commandments and the teachings of the Church.

I now believe that what happened during my junior year with this new confessor is that he emphasized to me and to the other seminarians for whom he was confessor that God is love, that he loves us and wants us to bring his love to others. During this time of the Vatican Council, the message of the Church to its members changed from "God is a God who punishes us for our sins" to "God is a God of Love". I still believe that my junior year confessor helped me change my life. But I now see this, not just as his individual message to the seminarians he was counseling, but as related to a major change that was happening in the Church. For those Catholics who grew up in the 1970s and later, this idea of a punishing God may seem foreign because, from the 1960s on, the Church's message in religion classes and homilies has been about a loving God. But, before that time, God was someone to be feared not loved.

For us seminarians, this change meant no longer being sheltered from “the world”, as we had been in the seminary. Prior to Vatican Council II, we had been taught that the ways of the world were in conflict with the ways of our religion. Now, we were expected to engage with the world and bring God’s love into it. The world saw this reflected in the participation of priests in civil rights marches and demonstrations; in their involvement in anti-war protests; in churches in inner-cities offering soup kitchens and other services to poor people, including those who did not even belong to the Catholic Church, etc. This was a time of change – and many of us embraced the change wholeheartedly.