Our Father, who art in Heaven, stop our governments from screwing up so bad

The political stink that has arisen over whether Patrick J. Conroy should be serving as chaplain for the House of Representatives makes me wonder what purpose truly is served by the prayers that many government entities feel compelled to have to begin the hearings at which they do their business.

CONROY: Soon to be replaced?

Conroy is a Jesuit priest who has held his Capitol Hill role since 2011.

HE’S THE GUY who was asked by soon-to-be former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to resign the post. Conroy initially complied with that request, but he has since rescinded his resignation – that was to take effect May 24.

News reports indicate that Ryan wanted to replace Conroy because his public prayers were taking on political overtones. As in perhaps he was implying that God was NOT on the side of the Republican majority that now runs Congress and tries to offer its support to the president in this Age of Trump that we’re now in.

For what it’s worth, the fact that members of Congress of both major political parties have been critical of replacing Conroy may well be a sign that the priest is doing something right in the way he handles his duties.

Which, in all honesty, are meant to get House sessions off to a pleasant start – as if in having a holy mood in place, the political people may wind up behaving in a less-cantankerous manner.

These are NOT holy shrines, ...

BUT FOR SOME people, they wind up causing even more offense. Some, because they want to believe only their particular religious denomination is worthy of being heard.

Meaning they’re going to find something worthy of personal offense in any prayer given by someone other than their own personal clergyman.

I think that having a prayer prior to a government meaning merely creates the opportunity for offending a vast majority of people. And also creates a false impression that the Lord somehow endorses government activity.

From having been a reporter-type person covering government activity at many levels throughout the years, I think much of their conduct borders on reprehensible. It makes me think that if there is an afterlife, it is the politicians who will wind up having to pay some form of penance. They’ll have to earn their way into Heaven for all the sinful acts they’re committing now.

... no matter how much some of us dream they are

AND AS FOR those who want their particular religious denomination dominating any public prayer, I’d say this is using religious belief as a way of playing partisan politics. An act I truly find offensive.

I’d like to think God doesn’t take sides on some of the stupid political battles that occur any more than he cared that the Chicago Cubs finally quit their inept ways to win the World Series two years ago.

I know from my experience of sitting through so many thousands of prayers prior to watching government business, I actually enjoyed the practices of suburban Lansing. The southern Cook County village has some two dozen churches in their municipality, and they rotated the prayer duty around equally.

Meaning that roughly every two years, each church would get its turn to have its head clergy on display.

I ALSO REMEMBER covering the Illinois General Assembly where the opening prayers were usually given by hometown clergy of the individual legislators; which created a sense of variety as some were entertaining while others were just so deadly dull.

RYAN: Talk about a government gaffe!

Or perhaps there’s the way of the Cook County Board, where I recall it was not uncommon to have two or three clergy at a board meeting on hand for the duty.

That would allow a variety of faiths and denominations to have a chance to express themselves in a moment of reflection to ask God to make sure our political people don’t screw everything up for us.

Which, if you come right down to it, is usually the theme of every prayer conducted right before a government hearing commences, regardless of where or when it is held.

  -30-

Is there a prayer for a prayer to please the prayerful types among us?

I can’t say I was overly offended by the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that said local governments could proceed with their desires to kick off their board meetings with a prayer.

What clergy would be willing to pray in front of, instead of for, the City Council? Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

 

In my duties as a reporter-type person, I have encountered such bodies that feel the need for a prayer.

USUALLY, THOSE PRAYERS turn out to be some generic statement that doesn’t come close to appeasing those in our society who want their particular religious faith to prevail over our society as a whole.

In fact, it always cracks me up when a pastor includes a line that goes something like, “Give our local government officials the strength to avoid screwing everything up.”

Actually, the pastors usually find a more diplomatic way to phrase that sentiment. But praying for government to avoid saying, or doing, something stupid is probably about as positive a sentiment that can be expressed.

My point is that the actual prayers that come out of these government meetings usually don’t amount to much.

AS FOR THOSE people who will argue that allowing such prayer permits the notion of organized religion in our society to be reinforced, I’d wonder what fantasy world you’re living in.

Many organized religions do have a place within the society as a whole. Trying to claim they don’t exist, or play any role in our society (How many hospitals and charitable organizations have religious affiliations?) is about as ridiculous as pretending the Chicago Cubs are a pennant contender right now!

So the nation’s high court, in a 5-4 ruling that went largely along politically partisan lines, issued a ruling saying that the idea of permitting a generic prayer at the beginning of a Village Board or City Council meeting was not, in and of itself, a violation of the concept of “separation of church and state” that is a primary point of our way of government.

Even though the overly-religious amongst us seem to resent that idea. And I’m sure they right now are giddy with joy at the thought that they scored a moral victory over all the immoral reprobates amongst the rest of us – who are the majority of us.

YET I CAN’T help but wonder if those people realize that these prayers are ever so generic to the point that I occasionally hear people complain that they’re not “holy” enough.

I wonder if the high court has just reinforced the idea of generic prayer. To the point where the overly-religious types will start complaining that their particular view isn’t getting big-enough play.

I know of one village board I routinely cover in my current duties with a suburban newspaper that makes a point of rotating prayer duties amongst every single church in town – meaning each pastor gets to do a public prayer about once each year-and-a-half.

No more! No less! Then, there's the Cook County Board, which goes out of its way to have such a variety of clergy do its opening prayers that I'm sure somebody is bothered that so much diverse religious thought is given credence.

I KNOW OF another suburban city council I cover that never offers up a prayer, although I suspect the only way a clergy member would ever set foot in that particular council chamber was if he/she could douse the room with holy water first.

What with all the borderline seedy deals that have been concocted (and approved) there during the past few decades.

The only real harm is from the people who want to perceive the prayer itself as the reason for a government meeting, instead of the conducting of its business.

When the “prayer police” start ranting that there “wasn’t enough Jesus” in the opening prayer, or that people weren’t somehow being respectful enough during their moment of silence, then we’ll get the problem.

ALBEIT ONE THAT I suspect most of us will address by disregarding these religious rants.

Because we all know of people who just feel the need to find something to complain about. If it isn’t the prayer, it will be something else.

  -30-

Can we exorcise the Exorcist? Gay marriage opposition borders on silly

I fully expect there will be protesters outside the UIC Forum on Wednesday when Gov. Pat Quinn uses the University of Illinois at Chicago arena to stage a huge-scale rally of people who watch him as he signs into law the measure that makes Illinois the 16^th U.S. state to allow gay couples to marry.

The site of the upcoming gay marriage celebration

 

But it seems the real level of disgust will be expressed at the churches that want to believe their opposition is really about compassion.

I CAN’T EVEN really get too worked up over the Catholic church’s actions, which amount to the bishop for Springfield, Ill., saying he’s going to have a special prayer service at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in the capital city to coincide with Quinn’s overly-elaborate bill-signing ceremony.

Formally, it is a “prayer of supplication and exorcism” for same-gender couples who try to marry in Illinois.

The latter word is what is stoking the fire. Bishop Thomas John Paprocki is going to have an “exorcism!!!” He’s trying to demonize the issue – literally.

We’re getting a lot of bad jokes being spewed (like the pea soup that passed for vomit) about the 1973 film featuring a teenaged Linda Blair as the Satan-infested Regan MacNeil.

The Springfield-based center of the opposition

 

IT IS GOING to allow all people to overhype the significance. Then again, having him say he’s going to pray for people would sound kind of blasé.

Because it shouldn’t be shocking at all that church officials are not going to just wither away in their opposition. The Catholic church has people who remain vehemently opposed to the concept of abortion being treated as a legitimate medical procedure – even though the Supreme Court of the United States resolved this issue the same year that Blair’s head rotated a complete 360 degrees on the silver screen (and continues to do so on DVD every day since).

The film we're hearing too much about!

Heck, it should be noted that one of the few black caucus members in the Illinois House of Representatives who voted “no” on the issue – state Rep. Mary Flowers, D-Chicago – made a point of saying she thought God would always object to such marriages, no matter what state government did on the issue.

There are those who cite the fact that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, paraphrased Pope Francis when he expressed his own belief that the law should not interfere with gay couples.

WHILE PAPROCKI, EARLIER this week, cited a written statement from 2010 by the then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio when the issue was contemplated in Argentina.

In part, he wrote, “The life of so many children who will be discriminated beforehand due to the lack of human maturity that God willed them to have with a father and a mother is in jeopardy.”

QUINN: A hero, AND a villain?

Which, to me, comes across as wanting to side with the bully who wants to pick on people who aren’t exactly like themselves. It’s good that the Pope has experienced a change of heart, of sorts.

Now if only people like Paprocki could experience the same. And it’s not like Paprocki is isolated from the realities of Chicago. He is a native of our fine city, a one-time pastor at St. Michael Church in the South Chicago neighborhood and St. Constance parish on the Northwest Side, in addition to having held several administrative posts within the Chicago Catholic Archdiocese – before going to Springfield in 2010.

THEN AGAIN, I’M very aware there are more than a fair share of Chicagoans who aren’t enthused about what is happening on this issue. It may be a regional split in Illinois, but it’s not a perfect urban vs. rural split.

MADIGAN: Too powerful to threaten?

There are two points in the aftermath of the legislative approval for gay marriage that does approve me. When the General Assembly acted earlier this month, it was reported that Illinois was the 15^th state to do so.

Yet because Quinn did not immediately sign the measure into law, officials in Hawaii were able to slip by and pass a gay marriage law into effect. We, in Illinois, can now chant, “We’re Number 16!”

Then, there is the fact that some people have reacted by suggesting that Pat Quinn be ex-communicated from the Catholic Church for expressing constant support for the issue.

BEING KICKED OUT of the church is the worst thing that could happen to some people. Yet it amuses me to know that NO ONE has had the nerve to suggest publicly that Madigan, also a Catholic, be ex-communicated.

These people may say publicly that they place their faith in the lord, our God. Yet perhaps they comprehend all too clearly what Madigan could do to them politically if they dare attack him!

Keep that in mind as the allegedly-religious pray for OUR souls in protest of Illinois advancing with the times. We should pray for them that they develop a true sense of compassion.

  -30-