Bad Parenting

July 29, 2019 (409 words)

I’m not exactly sure how it happened, but all three of our sons have turned out to be libertarians. (They also wear black socks with their sneakers, but I can only deal with one heresy at a time.)

They are 27, 22, and 19 years old, respectively. The oldest is married and the father of three adorable young children. Our boys are courteous and thoughtful, qualities which their mother is solely responsible for successfully inculcating. So my dear wife is off the hook when it comes to tracing the roots of their wayward political views.

They profess to be Catholic, say grace before meals, and attend Mass regularly. But somehow all three have managed to avoid any familiarity with Catholic social teaching. Instead they take their cue from right-wing blogs and internet sites.

A papal encyclical, what’s that?

I get the same old refrain from them that I hear from all my successful friends and fellow small business owners: Keep the government out of our lives. If you earn it, you should be able to keep it. The welfare state is destroying our nation’s character. Unions are always bad news. Who is going to pay for all these free hand-out government programs? And all the rest, ad nauseam.

That my own flesh and blood has succumbed to the either/or mindset of the liberal-conservative dialectic is a crying shame. Their inability to muster a more nuanced approach to these matters is a grave disappointment. Obviously I have done something horribly wrong in my past life, for which I am now being paid back, with interest.

Concerning that past life, I was 30 when I first began to consider that perhaps my father wasn’t a complete fool. I was 40 when I returned to the faith, after a twenty year sojourn in the desert of prosperity. And it wasn’t until I hit 50 or so that it dawned on me the old man had pretty much been right about everything.

So if our sons follow my own trajectory, I shouldn’t be holding my breath, waiting for their epiphany to kick in. Looking on the bright side, though, at least none of them have walked away from their belief and practice, as I once did.

Even if their understanding of the Catholic faith as it pertains to our economic behavior still leaves a good bit to be desired.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
July 29, 2019

Leaving Well Enough Alone

July 19, 2019 (151 words) A lot of popular music is over-produced, isn’t it? You especially notice this when an old song you like comes on the radio. (Remember the radio?) Or when one of your grown children streams a favorite in the car through their IPhone, during a summer road trip. That tune you’ve been hearing in your head and humming to yourself for years doesn’t sound the same. It’s junked up with a lot of non-essential sound. The vocal seems camouflaged underneath all the added, unnecessary instrumentation. The tempo is wrong. It all sounds too glossy. As if the playing of the musicians is being manipulated away from its natural, organic quality. So an anticipated interlude becomes a disappointment. What soundboard genius was responsible for messing with a perfectly good melody, back when they first cut this track? Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. July 19, 2019

Changing the Words

July 14, 2019 (615 words)

That rascal Pope Francis is at it again. This time he is recommending a revision to one of our oldest prayers, the Our Father.

Specifically, he has recently approved a change in the Italian translation from “lead us not into temptation,” to “do not let us fall into temptation.”

Since this is said to effect the Italian translation only, I’m not sure when it will make its way to my local parish, if at all. In the sleepy little backwater where I attend Mass, we are still reciting “lead us not into temptation” every Sunday.

Nevertheless, this tweak by the notorious outlier who currently resides in the Vatican has generated the usual firestorm of criticism and controversy from certain scholarly quarters.

Monsignor Charles Pope is one of those who have stepped up to the plate and taken issue with this minor change. He writes for the National Catholic Register, and his work regularly appears in other venues as well. His is always an articulate and reliable source of information.

On June 11 he blogged his disapproval of the notion, expressed by Pope Francis and others, that God does not lead us into temptation. When Francis says, “A father does not do that…,” Msgr. Pope argues such a statement is “simply not true and is contrary to Scripture.”

He then goes on to point out, in his characteristically erudite manner, how Matthew 4:1 clearly shows that Jesus himself was led into the desert to be tempted.

“This teaches us it is part of the providence of God that his Son, and all who are members of Jesus’ body, experience temptations and trails of various sorts. God leads us forth in life to experience and overcome these things by his grace.”

Now I personally find this parsing of a few words in a well-known prayer to be extremely fascinating. If only more of us gave as much thought to the words we use every day. Such reflection can produce clarity of thought and action.

On the other hand, I’m not sure most people are going to tune into such a minor change, and find it as fraught with meaning as the critics do. I guess what I’m saying is, the phrase in question as it currently stands has always made sense to me, but I can also see what Pope Francis and others are trying to communicate with the minor change.

---

why all the fuss?…

---

Which begs the questions, why all the fuss? One of the problems with our instant access world is that everybody is supposed to have a decisive, partisan opinion about everything, and right away. In this case, Msgr. Pope has been designated as that guy, who can be counted on to caste an immediate verdict on anything that goes down in the world of Roman Catholicism.

As helpful as he can be with his insights, sometimes this expectation of instant declaration can work against him, and all our other astute, faithful Catholic spokespeople. Occasionally it’s okay to just step back, mull things over, and withhold judgement.

But that’s not what professional spokespeople get paid to do, is it?

In this case, it’s not as if the fate of the civilized world – or the integrity of the deposit of faith – hangs in the balance. Sorry, folks, but the difference between “lead us not” versus “do not let us fall” does not strike me as a game changer of epic proportions.

This latest brouhaha is just one more example that there is far too much commentary happening, and not nearly enough contemplation going on, if you ask me.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
July 14, 2019

All Is True

July 5, 2019 (1,210 words) Every art form has the power to move me, and usually does. But the one that consistently engages my sensibilities and tugs at my heart strings is drama. Stage or screen, there is something about seeing a good story unfold that always resonates in a special way. The new movie All Is True gives us a glimpse into the last years of William Shakespeare’s life. From June 1613, when the Globe Theatre burned to the ground, prompting its 59 year-old stage manager and chief operating officer to retire and depart London, to April 1616, when he died at the family home in Strafford-upon-Avon. It’s a work of fiction, of course, since we have very little recorded biographical information concerning this or any other period of Shakespeare’s life. Screenwriter Ben Elton imagines some weighty family conflict between Will and his wife, Anne, and with his two grown daughters, Susannah and Judith. The passing of his only son, Hamnet (Judith’s twin), who died as a youth, continues to haunt him. The look of the film and the period recreation is beautiful, as we have come to expect of these things. Though far from being a grand spectacle, the movie is satisfying in the way it gets all the small daily routines exactly right. Everything about the production – its pace, its rhythms – brings this little world of an old man finally confronting long-simmering tensions with his immediate family members to life.

---

three set pieces that flesh out the tale…

---

These emotionally fraught scenes form the heart of the story. But there are also a series of declarative set pieces with non-family members that flesh out the tale. The first that comes to mind is between Shakespeare and a young admirer who asks the perennial question: “How did you do it”? How did a local man with little formal education who had never traveled abroad conjure such elaborate worlds, and populate those worlds with an array of characters, from the regal to the motley and everything in between? How did such a modest man gain such insight into the human condition, imagine such depths of joy and consternation? Ah, Will responds, I merely listened to every conversation, paid attention to every exchange – such as the one you and I are having right now – and then my fertile imagination went to work. The next scene I’m thinking of is with a local official who derides Shakespeare as a flighty artist-type who has spent his days living in his imagination, and therefore has no acquaintance with the everyday struggles most men face in making their way in the world. The screenwriter has our hero repel this disparagement by citing the demanding task of keeping a working theater going, performance after performance – especially all those command performances for royal audiences.

---

this Shakespeare was a highly effective executive…

---

But the set piece that really stands out to me arrives late in the proceedings. It is the imaginary visit the Earl of Southampton pays to William Shakespeare at his home in Strafford. He appears to be a contemporary of – if not actually older than – Shakespeare. He appreciates the writer’s talent and we assume he has been something of a patron. The script coyly suggests the two men may have once shared an intimate physical relationship, and that this relationship inspired some of Shakespeare’s most memorable sonnets. But this Southampton turns out to be nothing more than a snob, who tells Shakespeare he had no business ever falling in love with someone above his station, once upon a time. Now, any movie that features the recitation of the twenty-ninth sonnet not once, but twice, as this particular scene does, automatically has my vote for best picture of the year. And while I normally approve of the literary device that never lets the truth get in the way of a good story, in this case there is no reason to apply any sort of poetic license, since the truth actually makes for a much better story.

---

the fact-checkers are having a field day…

---

A number of fact-checking sites have popped up in the wake of the movie’s release, to evaluate the veracity of various plot lines the screenwriter has put forth. One red flag raised is that a nobleman such as the Earl of Southampton would never, ever, have just trotted up to a commoner’s home to pay a visit. But the fact-checkers stop short and steer clear of the real controversy this section of the film creates. The Earl of Southampton has long been rumored to be the Dark Youth referenced in certain of Shakespeare’s sonnets. This would obviously mean he’d have been much younger than the man writing the poems. And just how would an untitled theater man such as Shakespeare – no matter how purportedly gifted – come to have an intimate physical relationship with a decades-younger nobleman? This quandary is one of many that open the door to what is often referred to as the “authorship question.” Namely, who wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare? For those casual viewers who may not be aware of any such debate regarding legitimate authorship, allow me to point out that it exists and persists, and has attracted some highly credible doubters over the years.

---

a leading contender for “alternate author”…

---

A leading contender for “alternate author” on some people’s scorecard is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. He and Southampton moved in the same circles. Their families knew each other. And the age difference between the two men helps the sonnets make sense. Oxford was a middle age man with health problems when Southampton was in his glorious youth, exuding physical beauty. Oxford was also erudite, having enjoyed an education befitting his status. He traveled abroad extensively, and was a close confidant of the Elizabethan court. No need to worry, though. I do not intend to wade into the authorship question at this time. Except to say the conventional scholars seem to spend a good deal of time explaining why one or another of the potential alternate authors could not have written this or that work. Instead of being able to prove decisively that a local man with little education and no intimate knowledge of court life, who never left his immediate confines, had somehow managed to write them all. To cherry-pick just one example of how what little we know gets embellished to fit the familiar narrative, the movie ends with the news Shakespeare left his wife his “second best bed” in his will. (He died eight years before she did). This is presented to us as a quirky, romantic gesture. But the screenwriter fails to let on the last will and testament of the man said to be the greatest poet in the English language is in fact a typically dry and terse document, containing little beyond the mention of this one utilitarian item. I very much enjoyed the movie Kenneth Branagh and company have created. But I remain even more interested in the elaborate back story regarding authorship that has yet to break through into the popular imagination. Maybe someday it will. Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. July 5, 2019

It Pays to Notice

June 29, 2019 (1,007 words)

My kind no longer does manual labor to make a living, the way our grandparents did. And we don’t go in for the rather pedestrian civil servant or middle-management positions that were the pride and joy of our parents.

No, we have moved up the ladder in truly remarkable fashion. Our delicate hands now manipulate a keyboard all the live-long day, instead of a pick and shovel. There is support staff to screen our calls, greet our visitors, and shuffle our paperwork.

We are – dare I say it – in charge of things. We are now the ones chairing meetings where metrics are established and lofty goals are set. We are the ones who call for endless reports no one ever reads, and issue wave-after-wave of convoluted instructions aimed at the rank-and-file.

We have become the “leaders of tomorrow,” just as our school systems promised we would one day be, all those years ago.

---

losing touch with those around us…

---

Delegating is what we do best. But as we have become oh-so specialized, and as our work routines have become ever more compartmentalized, we have lost touch with the everyday people who must execute our directives and meet our goals.

And that’s just within our own organizations. Outside of work, we have completely lost touch with the remainder of the population who are still employed doing the jobs we see ourselves as having evolved out of.

This is a phenomenon sociologists have studied and commented on at length. Our economy has morphed over the last half century or so in such a way that the bosses no longer live in the same neighborhoods as the employees. Physicians no longer live on the same street as their patients.

Our kids don’t grow up together, attending the same schools. And our respective families have little, if any, occasion to interact socially.

The problem with this arrangement is that it’s hard to have compassion and develop empathy for your fellow man, or to love your neighbor as yourself, if he remains a stranger to you.

---

cultivating a connection with those under your care…

---

A hallmark of the deposit of faith known as Catholic social teaching is the principle of subsidiarity.
It goes something like this: People in a position of authority charged with making important decisions must cultivate a close, personal connection to those under their care who are affected by those decisions.

This is an absolute pre-requisite if you want to maintain the peace and keep everybody cheerfully moving in the same direction, whether you are talking about a family, a business, or an entire society.

But to focus on the business aspect of this for a moment, workers don’t expect their bosses to be letter perfect, they just want them to pay attention and not be blinded by ego and self-interest.

When a new policy initiative is clearly not working out as anticipated, revise as needed, and as quickly as possible. Don’t let concern for your reputation as an “effective leader” get in the way of admitting mistakes and correcting them.

My favorite profiles (or obituaries) are of those decidedly old-school business leaders who believe in “management by walking around.” There is surely more than one way to run a company. But walking around the shop floor or the office floor, and interacting with those you encounter on your walks, is tried and true.

High-priced consultants theorize about the lagging work ethic of those stuck erecting the structures we live and work in, who build the roads and bridges we travel across, and assemble the planes, trains, and automobiles that move us from place-to-place.

---

what sours people is performing in obscurity…

---

And yes, there are slackers in every generation, across every walk of life. But the grousing one might hear on the job from the rank-and-file is the result – more than anything else, I believe – of being forced to perform in obscurity. This is what sours people. Why keep my nose to the grindstone and put out for these people, if nobody notices what I do?

Our organizations have gotten so large, and the principle of subsidiarity has been so forgotten, that the little people doing the actual work are never made to feel that somebody up there loves them.

It is truly amazing what can be achieved attitude-wise by looking someone in the eye and saying, “thanks for taking care of that. I’m glad you were here today to make sure this got done properly and as efficiently as possible.”

Especially when the person being addressed was someone previously thought to be a bit of a slacker, mainly because his supervisor went by hearsay or prior reputation, and had not spent enough time in direct proximity to the individual out on the job where he plies his trade and works his magic.

That’s right, I said “magic.” It’s an important element for my kind to ponder. Anyone who has developed a demonstrable level of competence over time is capable of such magic at work.

The people in our employ need to know we recognize the breadth of their skill set, and realize they aren’t just chopped liver. In other words, my kind is not the only kind who brings something of value to the table.

Most everyone wants to take pride in their performance, but we all need some positive re-enforcement from time-to-time to keep that pride alive.

Fortunately, at the small white collar salt mine where I punch a clock, it’s easy to give and receive such positive reinforcement.

And opportunities for reputation reversal among our field staff, the ones who actually complete our company’s installations in the skyscrapers of midtown Manhattan and center-city Philadelphia, still present themselves on a fairly regular basis.

At least to those of us in the office who are able to venture out to visit those installations from time-to-time, and maintain a semblance of personal contact with our many talented, by-the-hour magicians.

Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr.
June 29, 2019

Alms and Charity

June 24, 2019 (385 words) The full title of the Cross Catholic Outreach official who led our little traveling party of American visitors in Guatemala last week is “International Vision & Mission Trips Officer.” He told us that in his twenty years of leading such visits in various parts of the world, every person on every trip has seemed to attend at what turns out to be a pivotal moment in their lives. That has certainly proven to be true in my case. The native people we met with who either work for or benefit from the various Cross Catholic initiatives we visited all made quite an impression. And so have my traveling companions. I can’t remember ever feeling as comfortable as quickly with a group of people who started out as total strangers. The week was full of lively conversation as we shared meals and long bus rides through the Guatemalan countryside. One of the many topics discussed was the difference between alms and charity.

---

these two words are not synonyms, and the difference is more than semantic…

---

I confess to never having given the subject much thought. I assumed the two words were synonyms, with the only difference being semantic. Alms, it turns out, are what we offer the less fortunate almost without thinking. It’s the spare change in our pocket, the scraps of bread from our table. Charity, on the other hand, is a conscious act of Christian love. It is a responsibility every mature and rational adult must shoulder. We all have an obligation to share what we have with those who have less. There is no political or economic system known to man that will ever be able to accomplish a thoroughly equitable distribution of the material resources of this world. It’s up to those of us who have been blessed far beyond our basic requirements to “give back” what we don’t really need. So a tip of the cap is due my traveling companions – and our tireless, saintly Mission Trips Officer – for helping me grasp the difference between alms and charity. Along with the timely help they provided in my grasping a few other important distinctions, over the course of an eventful week spent together in Guatemala. Robert J. Cavanaugh, Jr. June 24, 2019