The need for changes in seminary formation is critical. Young priests are being turned out with little or no understanding or acceptance of the direction the church is moving under Pope Francis. The Association of U.S. Catholic Priests provides a welcome contribution to an important discussion. They have argued for a number of changes to the conduct of seminary formation. I agree with most of what they suggest in their statement.

As a seminarian from the '60s, I believe I have something of a unique perspective on the issue. I was in the seminary for seven years, and in that time was part of a pre-Vatican II regimen, and the transitional period of the days of the council and beyond.

The one piece that I believe was not sufficiently emphasized in the association’s statement is scholarship. In fact, at one point the statement seems to relegate intellectual pursuits to a less important category. The statement is critical of an abstract philosophical and theological program designed to turn priests into theologians rather than pastors.

I’ll talk more about scholarship later, but first let me say that I agree with the priests’ statement regarding the aspects of seminary education they highlight. Fidelity and emphasis on the Vatican II documents should be at the heart of seminary training. A pastoral model of priestly formation is essential. The need for young priests to see themselves as servants of God with better community connections is critical. A larger role for women in formation pretty much goes without saying.

It is also unfortunately true, as the document states, that too many young priests don’t focus on their role as servant. Instead, too often a distance or separation is created. There tends to be a sense of superiority, elitism, and worst of all, clericalism.

Yet, without a rigorous course of study, newly ordained priests will be ill equipped to operate effectively, whether they be of a conservative, liberal or moderate bent. The society in which they will be operating is well educated and expect more from their priests than the typical pablum they are often given.

I don’t know about you, but I am so tired of homilies that are essentially a repetition of the Gospel that has just been read. Yes, we know the sower sowed seed in good, rocky and weed-filled soil. And, yes, we all want to be good soil. But if that’s all you got, don’t waste our time.

I am not talking about a course of study that focuses on scholastic philosophy and reiterates church teachings in depth. No, seminarians need to have the opportunity to think and explore ideas and trends in the world and apply themselves to determining how the church can wisely engage with the world outside the church.

During my seminary days we, of course, had professors who were stuck in the 16th century and had little to offer, but we were challenged by other professors to think and consider the world of ideas and what it meant for energizing the church and making it a meaningful part of the world we live in. We explored existentialism, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Buber, etc. Some of us found ourselves making that giant leap of faith with Kierkegaard.

We examined critical scholarship on the Scriptures and learned how a realistic understanding of the Scriptures enhanced, not threatened, our Christian faith. It’s time the Christian faithful also be given insight into the Jesus of the Gospels and the emergence of Christianity over time. They can handle it. They will have their faith strengthened rather than secretly wondering whether Jonah was really swallowed by a whale. We need to educate not only our seminarians, but the faithful as well.

Sixteenth century categories and formulations are no longer useful in explicating the faith to the faithful. Yet, unless they are replaced with solid theological and scriptural insights, we really have nothing to offer those seeking to understand their faith.

Considering the dry and unimaginative way both philosophy and theology have been taught too often in seminary programs, it is no wonder that priests who have experienced such education find it irrelevant to their work as parish priests. They are wrong. Our parishioners expect their priests to be educated, to be able to speak intelligently about what is going on in the world and what impacts them day to day. Lacking knowledge is not the characteristic of a good pastor. One cannot be an understanding pastor if one is fed rigid rules and characterizations of the faith, but neither can one be a caring pastor if he/she doesn’t know what he/she is talking about.

It may be a good time to remember Bob Hope. Hope was one of the first comedians to use political humor. His monologues were filled with gentle ribbing of presidents and other politicians. He probably leaned Republican, but his humor was respectful, and everybody was able to have a good laugh. It was a time when people seemed to be able to make fun of themselves and others without being offended.

What happened at the White House Correspondents' Dinner of April 28 was nothing like Bob Hope. The language and raunchy allusions were way over the line. Many of the other jokes were quite funny, but the routine was designed for a late-night comedy club or HBO special, not for a nationally televised event for journalists and politicians.

The attacks on the president were harsh, but to be expected. There has been much controversy over the remarks directed at the press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Frankly, I wasn't sure what those comments were meant to convey, but what made it most awkward and inappropriate was that Sanders was sitting at the head table just a couple of chairs away from the speaker.

Defenders of the event note that the comedian was just doing her job, and she gave them exactly what they should have expected. I agree. Michelle Wolf, the comedian, performed as she does in other venues. Clearly, the press corps hoped to continue an event that had worked well in the past. Yet, in our current political climate, it just doesn't work.

It has also been noted that those who were so offended by Wolf's jokes and insults do not seem nearly as offended by the constant insults and demeaning of every person the president has criticized since he has been on the public stage. This point is also valid. However, with all the division and partisanship we are faced with today, the idea of stooping to the level of the president seems most unwise.

Donald Trump's absence tilted the playing field. Normally, the comedian is followed by the president, who has the opportunity to counter the jokes and insults delivered by the comedian. There is a certain parity to the event that was lacking with the president not there.

In his defense, the president was wise not to go. It is not a friendly venue for him. Think back to the Al Smith Dinner, prior to the election, where comity did not prevail. Trump demonstrated his inability to tell a joke or to take a joke.

It is unfortunate that our public discourse has descended to the point where we can't get together and laugh about ourselves and enjoy an evening of bantering together. We take ourselves too seriously and the hostilities on all sides have made the idea of almost any humor difficult.

We need to get back to the era of Bob Hope. When I was a junior high school counselor, I saw many fights start in the hallway when one student accidentally bumped into another. Our politics is now at that level. One cannot have a thoughtful discussion with someone with whom we disagree. Bad faith is presumed, and the level of hostility rises.

I don't know how we get back to a sane level of interacting with each other. It is unlikely to happen with this presidency. We are waiting to find someone who can bring us all together again.

In the meantime, we cannot afford to have another White House dinner like the one we had last weekend, so I have a few recommendations:

No more dinners for now. If there are to be more dinners, then no more comedians or attempts at humor. Consider a serious dinner with speakers prepared to discuss important issues in a bipartisan way. Speakers like a Colin Powell or David Gergen might be considered. Focus on the work of journalists, especially those working in harm's way to try to bring real, fact-based news to the American people.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to encourage readers to support National Catholic Reporter during its Spring Fund Drive. NCR was an important part of my seminary days when it first began publication in 1964 at the height of the Second Vatican Council.

As students, we waited anxiously for the supply of NCR papers to arrive on site each week so we could check out the latest news as we searched for signs of progress in updating the church. It was really the only source of its kind that contained detailed accounts of the intrigue and infighting taking place at the council. It was a time of great ferment in the church, and NCR filled an important void in critical news coverage.

It still does. There is nothing like it.

NCR, of course, is identified with a progressive point of view. However, its most important asset is that it provides outstanding news coverage. Excellent journalists ferret out what's going on in every corner of the church in this country and around the world. You will not find such superior reporting in diocesan papers or other outlets.

The news that many may not want discussed or highlighted will be found on the pages of NCR. It is a critical resource for understanding our church today. Whether it's women deacons, immigration, politics, the sex-abuse crisis, or outreach to the poor, concerned Catholics will find the information they need to be on top of all the issues confronting our church today.

There are any number of conservative publications available today that provide a very traditional point of view. Many are well funded by conservative donors and foundations.

NCR is dependent on its readership for support to sustain its publication. Only through your support will NCR be able to continue to provide the journalism and insights that have made it such an indispensable resource.

Those who agree or disagree with NCR's editorial point of view will find the news articles valuable for keeping up with what is happening on all sides of issues affecting the church today.

With so much happening in today's church and Pope Francis working so hard to move the church forward into the 21st century, it has never been more important to contribute to the work NCR is doing.

Your generous support is appreciated and needed. Become a member or make a one-time donation during our Spring Fund Drive. Thank you!

[Pat Perriello, a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools, served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. He is a former seminarian from St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore. He has been blogging for NCR since 2012.]

The economy is good. Unemployment is down. Even wages are creeping upward. It can also be said that President Donald Trump has not proven to be as bad on foreign policy as many had feared. He hasn't blown anything up yet. His policy toward Syria is not much different than any other president's might have been. There is at least some hope that our policy toward North Korea may be heading in the right direction.

Americans are beginning to notice some of these facts. Real Clear Politics has Trump's average favorable ratings at 43.1 percent as of May 15. It seems it may be becoming acceptable to support this president.

We could, of course, point to policies that are unacceptable to many. His immigration policies seem immoral. He fails to recognize climate change and pulled out of the Paris climate accord. He has advocated for policies that hurt the poor and promote greater inequality. His efforts at dismantling health care have harmed millions of Americans.

His failure to see the value of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has damaged our effectiveness throughout Asia. His decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal is reckless and dangerous for America and the world. The America I know doesn't go around breaking its agreements with other countries.

The problem is you can't impeach a president over policy differences. Trump was elected by the people. Many would say he has delivered on many of the things he told his supporters he was going to do. If people disagree with what he is doing now, they will have to vote him out of office. Only if enough people disagree with his policies and behavior will he fail to be re-elected.

If this were a normal presidency everything I just said would be normative. However, something else is going on. It is the very existence of our country under the Constitution that is being challenged by this president.

This president refuses to be bound by an independent judiciary. He is determined to make the institutions of government work for him rather than for all the people.

This president calls the press the enemy of the people. Any news he doesn't like or reflects poorly on him he calls fake news.

This president seems to believe that being president is the same as being king. Everyone on his staff or in government exists to do his bidding. If he is challenged, he attacks those who are challenging him. Those who are investigating him are called to be the ones investigated. Anyone getting close to damaging information about him may be fired or have their personal reputation reduced to tatters. 

Yet, as early as the fourth grade, I began learning that the United States of America was different. We were an exceptional country, not because we were stronger and more powerful than other countries, but because we followed the rule of law and we adhered to a philosophy that was embedded in our Declaration of Independence. No one was to be above the law and all Americans were to be treated equally.

Most historians, I believe, would suggest that we have never had a president like this one. So far, all of our presidents, good ones and bad ones, have believed in and accepted the Constitution of this country, and saw themselves as bound by its laws. As far as I can tell, this president does not.

Of course, we have too often failed to live up to our ideals. Yet the ideals were always in front of us. This president and this administration are deliberately working to undermine those institutions that keep us focused on continuing to work to "create a more perfect union."

There are two matters we need to consider. First, do the American people still understand what this country is supposed to be? Do they understand that for Americans, patriotism is not about waving the flag or condemning people who exercise their free speech rights by taking a knee during the National Anthem? Do they still cherish the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which includes the First Amendment as well as the Second Amendment?

The second question is: Do enough of the American people care about what is happening to this country to do something about it?

Our first opportunity will be in the November congressional elections. If we still believe in the country created by our Founding Fathers, we will vote out any politician who supports our current president and his autocratic and unconstitutional behavior.

President Donald Trump called off his scheduled June 12th meeting with Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea. It seems that, if he had not called it off, it may well have been called off by the North Koreans themselves. 

There are several reasons why this summit as envisioned was not going to work. There was inadequate preparation. The president committed to the meeting without consultation or the development of a strategy. It was a hasty decision to hold the summit, as well as a hasty decision to pull out of the summit. Again, Trump seems to believe "he alone can fix it." Such an attitude is fraught with risks.

Most problematic has been the notion that the summit is not a negotiation, but a capitulation. North Korea is expected to agree to full and immediate denuclearization. Anything less would be a failure. The belief that North Korea would agree to such a deal is unrealistic, to say the least.

Now it seems the summit may be back on. Both sides want to have a summit. It provides Trump an opportunity to show that he is a deal maker. He is even thinking about the Nobel Peace Prize. Kim Jong Un wants the chance to stand next to the President of the United States and elevate his place on the world stage. What else he may want besides survival for his regime is impossible to know. 

Can Kim Jong Un be trusted? Of course not. Although it is worth noting that trusting our own president is also suspect. In any case, we are back to President Reagan's mantra, "Trust, but verify."

If the summit does take place, however, the president has a problem. He has backed himself into a corner. Trump has made clear that he will settle for nothing less than total and complete denuclearization. He will be forced to walk away when he doesn't get that.

There is another alternative, if he is willing to take it. Because the summit is so important to him, he may just consider it.

Let the summit go forward. Let them shake hands and congratulate each other for their commitment to peace and willingness to work together. Agree to work toward a Korean peninsula that is safe for the world. Resolve nothing.

He can then punt everything to the State Department, which can negotiate with North Korea for as long as it takes. If all goes well, the negotiators may eventually reproduce something like the despised Iran nuclear deal in North Korea.

Such a scenario would be an acknowledgement that the issue is far more complicated than Trump thought — just like health care— but this would also be a win for both Trump and Kim Jong Un. They may not get the Nobel Peace Prize, but it could eliminate the danger of war for the foreseeable future and would establish Trump as a statesman.

However unfortunate, it might even suggest that Trump's unpredictable brand of diplomacy and brinksmanship may have some positive benefits. High risks can produce high rewards. However, risky behavior can also produce unpleasant and unanticipated results.

[Pat Perriello is a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools who served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services; he was also an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

Anyone who can remember the Watergate hearings of 1973 will remember the likes of Sens. Sam Ervin of North Carolina and Howard Baker of Tennessee, who asked probing questions of the principals in the Watergate investigation. Daily, the American people were privy to what had occurred in the Watergate break-in and cover-up. As many as 85 percent of TV viewers watched at least some of the hearings. By the time Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona, and others went to the White House to tell President Nixon it was time to go, there was a consensus among the American people as to what had taken place.

The congressional hearings into the Russian investigation began the same way. We had the compelling testimonies of James Comey, former FBI director, and Sally Yates, former acting attorney general. It was clear these public hearings were not going to go well for the president. Suddenly, they were gone. The American people were not going to get a daily drumbeat of televised testimony into the interactions of the Trump campaign with the Russians.

Instead, what we got was a determined cadre of Trump and his supporters undermining every aspect of the investigation. In this process they have been attacking critical institutions, including the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, the courts, and of course, the media.

What Americans believe about the Russian investigation is totally dependent on whether they are getting all their news from FOX News and other right-wing media, or what are still considered mainstream media outlets.

Because of his position as president and his skill at manipulating the conversation, many people believe that Donald Trump is winning this argument.

Therefore, no one is sure what will be the response of the public when special counsel Robert Mueller issues his report. Let's imagine that Mueller's report comes out sometime this summer, and it is damning to the president. How will people react? There can be no doubt that Trump and his supporters will cry foul and disparage the investigators and their findings.

What will it take for justice, whatever that may actually be, to prevail? How will this country come to know the truth? Will enough people care to pursue the truth and act on it?

The first test will of course be the midterm elections. If Democrats fail to retake the House and the Senate, then the battle will be over, and the Trump administration will have smooth sailing into 2020 and likely beyond.

In the meantime, the media and responsible politicians and citizens on all sides of the political spectrum need to do all that is possible to focus on the facts and ensure that they are known and understood by the public. The president needs to be called out every time his statements do not square with the facts.

I am not a lawyer, but legal questions aside, there is in front of us a prima facie case of obstruction of justice. In fact, Trump is doing everything he can to undermine the Mueller investigation, every day of his presidency.

Let me just remind us of a few facts:

Trump fired his FBI director, James Comey.

Trump told Lester Holt of NBC News that he was thinking of the Russia investigation when he fired Comey.

Trump had Russian officials into the Oval Office and told them that he had relieved pressure over the Russia investigation by firing Comey.

Trump has tried to pressure Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, into resigning because Sessions recused himself from the investigation.

Trump then pressured Sessions more than once to un-recuse himself and take over the investigation again.

This link goes into much greater detail on the actions of the president.

Together with his congressional supporters, the president has tried to denigrate the investigation with several false leads suggesting the investigation is a witch hunt and did not follow proper procedures.

First, they said Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.

Then they said Obama officials had improperly unmasked Americans to get information on Trump.

The evidence suggests that whatever unmasking was done was done based on legitimate reasons or concerns.

They said an improper FISA warrant had been used to gain inappropriate surveillance of Americans.

They said the investigation originated from a salacious dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign.

Now, they are saying that Obama had a spy implanted in the Trump campaign to gather information.

Every one of these ideas has been discredited or shown to be grossly misleading. Is there anyone who can point to any one of these items and say that it was not designed to obstruct the Mueller investigation?

The moment of truth is coming. Our very democracy hangs in the balance. While it may be a bad idea politically for Democrats to talk about impeachment right now, it is surely time to stand for the truth and hold this president accountable.

Democrats may not have the luxury of waiting until after the election to broach this topic. That moment of truth may be coming this summer.

I just finished reading James Carroll's new novel, The Cloister. I would recommend the book wholeheartedly.

One thing did surprise me a little. A major theme of the novel was the relationship between Catholics (or other Christians) and Jews. I thought Carroll had exhausted everything there was to say about Christians and Jews in his monumental non-fiction work, Constantine's Sword. At the level of human interaction, though, the novel brings issues to life that could not be addressed within a totally historical context.

What attracted me most about the novel, however, were the insights into the thinking of Peter Abelard (1079-1142). My own knowledge of the work of Abelard was pretty much non-existent. I remember one professor mentioning him as a great Catholic thinker, but one that we did not study because he was not in favor with the church.

Those aspects of Abelard's thinking referenced in the novel are enlightening. My reaction is that he could have written many of the documents of Vatican II. Maybe he did. He tackled many questions that the church had been grappling with, and he seemed to have important insights that were ignored for centuries.

He understood that God is a God of love and not judgement. The notion of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus was just not reasonable with a God of such love. Abelard dealt with the death of unbaptized babies and refused to believe they were condemned. He refused to believe that good people who were Jews or non-Christians could be summarily banished to eternal damnation.

If Carroll's book did anything for me, it was to drive me to find and read more of Abelard's work. He needs to be rehabilitated among Catholic thinkers and assume his rightful position in the hierarchy of Catholic thought.

Consider a few quotes from Abelard. At a time when the church had all the answers and was not open to question or dissent, Abelard said: "Nothing can be believed unless it is first understood; and that for anyone to preach to others that which either he has not understood nor have understood is absurd."Also, "The key to wisdom is … constant and frequent questioning."

Abelard saw our redemption as different from being an atonement for our sin. He said: "The purpose and cause of the incarnation was that he might illuminate the world by his wisdom and excite it to the love of himself."

He also said, "Our redemption through the suffering of Christ is that deeper love within us which . . . secures for us the true liberty of the children of God, in order that we might do all things out of love rather than out of fear."

Read the April NCR interview with James Carroll here: "Story of the church and the West could have gone another way."

Abelard also had a different view of original sin. He felt that we were influenced by the sin of Adam, but we had no sin, because we couldn't be held responsible for the sin of another. It was only when we acted on our weakness that we would be guilty of actual sin.

Finally, Abelard had a much more tolerant view of Judaism than his contemporaries. He was seriously opposed to the oppressive restrictions on what Jews were allowed to do — namely, limiting them to mercantile and money lending activities. He also said Jews had less guilt for killing Jesus than they would have if they had been merciful to him by going against their beliefs.

The tragic story of Peter Abelard highlights many of the dismal realities which are part of the history of our church. We can only hope that we can begin to bring a new and better church into being. A new interest in the thinking of Peter Abelard among Catholics might be a good place to start.

[Pat Perriello is a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools who served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services; he was also an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

I have been blessed over the past several weeks to have spent considerable quality time with my 3-year-old granddaughter. She is vibrant, well-adjusted, loveable and much loved, and she's sharp as a tack.

I cannot contemplate the current immigration debacle without thinking the unthinkable. What if my precious granddaughter were removed from her loving family? She would be immediately disoriented. In a matter of days, her psyche could be destroyed. She would be permanently damaged.

Yet this is what we are doing to innocent children in our own country. What is worse, the clear implication is that these children south of the border are not as valuable as our own children. They don't matter. Parents need to consider what is going on from the perspective of having it happen to their own children.

The executive order signed by President Donald Trump has so far only added confusion as to what may or may not happen for these children.

The callous regard for these families and the willingness to use these children as political pawns can only be characterized as disgusting. Recently, Trump's former campaign manager, Corey Corey Lewandowski, ridiculed a commentator's concerns about a 10-year-old child with Down syndrome separated from her mother.

By now, we have a pretty good idea of who and what Donald Trump is. But who are these other people who are leading our country?

Extreme views are not new in the United States of America. However, the fact that we have turned our government over to people espousing such views is beyond troubling. The realization that there are also millions of Americans who support the actions and beliefs of this administration is incomprehensible.

The damage that has been done by the separation of parents and their children will be long lasting. Most importantly, it is sad to recognize that these traumatized children will almost certainly carry scars for the rest of their lives. Additionally, many of them will likely never see their parents again. In several cases, their parents have already been deported.

Then, there is the stain of this episode upon our nation. Our history contains many dark periods: slavery, the near extermination of Native Americans, Japanese internment camps. We must now add this latest episode to our pantheon of shame. We have emerged from other periods of darkness to pursue our lofty ideals, however flawed they remain in their execution.

It is time to return these extreme views to the periphery. Will we rise to the occasion and defeat these outrageous views and actions toward our fellow human beings? Our failure to do so will not only mean the end of our country as we know it, but also the emergence of a new world order across the globe, an order of hate, fear and violence toward those we view as different. Such a world could be our lot for generations to come.

[Pat Perriello is a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools who served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services; he was also an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

Catholics are divided as the country considers a new Supreme Court Justice. Those active in the right to life movement may be cheering with their fundamentalist confreres at the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Social Justice Catholics are likely concerned about the erosion of rights and freedoms under a far more conservative court.

I would like to consider several points.

One of the factors that makes this decision so crucial is that it will determine the future of Supreme Court decisions for at least a generation. Every candidate being considered is in his or her 40s or 50s. The breadth of decisions that will confront these justices for years into the future will touch on every aspect of our daily life.

Secondly, the danger of single issue voting needs to be examined again. Those who vote only based on the issue of abortion do so at their peril. It could be said that one of the results of single issue voting is President Donald Trump.

It also needs to be recalled that none other than Pope Francis was concerned about single issue voting or a focus on only one or two issues. Early in his papacy he said it was time to stop talking about abortion and same-sex marriage. Francis wanted more attention paid to the poor and to God's love and mercy.

The point is that there are other important issues that demand our attention. A person's position on abortion should not eliminate that person from consideration for political office. Where they stand on other important matters is critical in our present political climate. Politicians of all stripes need to work together where they agree. As important as abortion may be, it won't matter much if we fail to resolve other crises that we are now facing.

Let's look at some of the social justice and foreign policy issues that are facing us now. Again, Pope Francis has called attention to the critical importance of the environment and our response to the dangers it poses to our way of life. We can't look away when the decisions that are being made impact small children who are separated from their parents. Are we going to slowly lose health care benefits, such as the coverage of pre-existing conditions? Do we care about our American neighbors in Puerto Rico that are largely being ignored in their time of need? Are we going to demand a resolution to the gun violence that is causing the death of so many of our young people?

There are so many signs of danger on the foreign policy front, and changes are being made to our foreign policy positions that should concern all of us. We are already learning that North Korea is enriching uranium despite the summit with Trump. The president is attacking our alliances, including NATO, which empowers Russia to be more aggressive against European democracies.  There is even talk that Trump might accept Russia's annexation of Crimea. This move would go against international norms that insist a country cannot invade another country to gain territory.

Finally, let me take a crack at the issue of abortion itself. Why do millions of Americans think abortion should be legal? A recent poll shows that 70 percent of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned.

Why are so many people unable to see what right to life advocates see so clearly? Jesuit Father John Courtney Murray, American theologian and ethicist, posited that our highest obligation is to our own personal conscience. It is unacceptable to take away a person's ability to make her or his own decisions or to coerce certain behaviors. The church at the Second Vatican Council adopted the Declaration on Religious Liberty to make that point — why is that true of everything except abortion?

At some point science may be able to show that viability occurs at an earlier stage of pregnancy, or produce other salient facts that impact our thinking on abortion. It is important to remember, however, that Roe v. Wade legalizes abortions up to the point of viability, whatever that may be.

One of the worst instincts of the right to life movement in my estimation is its determination to make every act of abortion equally heinous whether it is meant to save the life of the mother, or in response to rape or incest. When arguments are made against morning after pills and even contraception the right to life movement loses credibility.  Again, what one believes about the personal morality of such actions cannot appropriately be used to interfere with the rights of the individual to make such sensitive decisions without interference from government officials.

The church has the right to proclaim what it believes and what teachings it expects its members to follow. It does not have the right to impose its beliefs on people of other faiths or no faith.

I have said it many times, but I will say it once more. If you find natural law arguments persuasive, that's fine but, trust me, you form a small minority. These arguments are not persuasive to most people, and I would include myself in that group. Therefore, if you say that natural law proves that abortion is wrong in all cases, and all people should be able to see that, you are just wrong. It may be obvious to you, but it certainly isn't obvious to a lot of people.

I don't expect or even desire to change anybody's opinion concerning abortion. However, I do think it would be helpful to understand and recognize that everyone does not see the issue the same way, and that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees is operating in bad faith.

I believe John Courtney Murray would tell us, we live in a pluralistic society, and forcing everyone to comply with one's religious point of view is not an appropriate position.

[Pat Perriello is a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools who served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services; he was also an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

Elections have consequences. Presidents get to choose Supreme Court justices. There is no question that ideologically the choice will tend to conform to the president’s political viewpoint. At best there may be an effort to select a consensus candidate with somewhat moderate views. This is as it should be in normal times.

No doubt there are many policy issues that are of legitimate concern with this president’s nominee. A number of them are worth fighting for and warrant a no vote on his confirmation. Yet the president would be entitled to a certain amount of deference, and typically a nominee would get through the process and gain their seat on the court, despite serious concerns about their views.

However, these are not normal times.

First of all, proper procedure was not followed in the case of President Obama’s nominee in 2016. With nearly a year left in his presidency, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to give Obama’s nominee a hearing. His nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, was in fact a moderate judge who deserved every consideration.

With an election at hand in a few short months, this same Republican Senate seems to have no difficulty in moving ahead with a nominee now that there is a Republican president.

I believe the main issue, however, is that this president is under investigation. Several matters are pending in that investigation that could find their way to the Supreme Court for resolution. No one in this country should be able to choose individuals who may find themselves deciding cases that could either exonerate or convict them.

Yet it appears President Trump has picked an individual whose positions are favorable to him. Of the four finalists for the position, the candidate he chose seems to be the one most likely to protect him.

Bottom line: This president should not select another nominee to the Supreme Court until the Russia investigation is completed. We went more than a year with only eight justices on the court. We can certainly wait until there is a resolution to the current investigation.

It is of course possible that Brett Kavanaugh, the president’s nominee, may continue to be the nominee however the investigation is resolved. He may even be the choice of some future Republican president. That is fine, but in the meantime, it should not be tolerated for this president to have a hand in determining the individual who may decide his fate. That in no way represents appropriate American jurisprudence.

Finally, if the process moves forward despite these concerns, the nominee must commit to recuse himself from any and all matters that come to the court regarding the Russian investigation. If he is unwilling to make that commitment he should not receive a positive vote from the Senate.

The latest indictments emerging from the Special Counsel’s office make clear that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election is alive and well. The probe is serious and is getting closer to determining what if any role this president and his top campaign officials may have had in election interference. The notion that the president can select his own judge who could squash a subpoena or permit him to pardon himself is unacceptable.

President Donald Trump and New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger met recently amid diverse reports as to what they discussed. The president said he discussed "fake news," while Sulzberger says he cautioned the president on the dangers of continuing his attacks on the media.

One major concern, however, is how Trump's words have empowered dictators and would-be dictators around the world. A Baltimore Sun editorial highlights some of what has happened around the world since Trump has started preaching his fake-news gospel.

World leaders eager to exercise greater control over their citizenry are using the very words of Trump to impose new penalties or punish journalists with whom they disagree. When Trump met with President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Duterte called journalists spies while Trump laughed.

Just before the news conference between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump in Helsinki, a Nation magazine journalist was forcibly removed from the room. A reporter critical of Putin was murdered in Ukraine less than two months before the summit.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has increased his own power and reduced the power of the judiciary, yet Trump rushed to congratulate him.

The concerns continue with Poland, Malaysia, Egypt, Vietnam and Hungary.

Czech President Milos Zeman talked about liquidating reporters and appeared at a news conference with a fake AK-47 with the words "for journalists" written on it. Trump invited him to the White House.

Such leaders are relishing Trump's use of "fake news" and "enemies of the people." They are using it to their advantage. Journalists are increasingly unsafe. Trump riles up his supporters at rallies to condemn the press for criticizing the president. How far away are we from physical violence toward journalists — especially at one of the frenzied Trump rallies? A White House reporter was denied access to a Trump event after asking questions the White House didn't like.

The United States has been a beacon for democracy throughout the world at least since the time of the First World War. We have been Ronald Reagan's shining city on a hill.

Now, we are becoming a refuge for scoundrels. Those who would choose to rule their people by force and fiat can now point to the president of the United States and proclaim this is the way a great democracy now works.

Our allies are confused and demoralized. Our own citizens are mounting a resistance that hopefully will pay off in November. The courts are fighting back. The Mueller probe grinds on. The press is continuing to try hard to bring the truth to the American people. Yet millions continue to follow blindly the demagogue in the White House.

Our democracy does indeed hang in the balance. What happens in these next few months will determine what kind of country we will be for decades to come.

I might just add one thing for those who are tempted to believe that Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court and his stance on abortion are reason enough to support him. Let me paraphrase the oft-quoted passage from Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller during the time of the Holocaust: "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Justice Department and I did not speak out because I didn't work there. Then they came for the intelligence community and I did not speak out because I wasn't part of that community. Then they came for the media and I did not speak out because I wasn't a journalist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

If you have read any of my recent blog posts, you will likely agree that I have become obsessed with President Donald Trump and the Russian investigation. I am also a believer that the congressional elections in November will determine the course our country charts for decades to come.

I remain unconvinced, however, that I know how these elections will turn out. Evidence is growing that suggests a blue wave, but this cannot be guaranteed. Although signs are building from special elections and polls, what do we really know about the state of the electorate and what it will be like in November?

A Quinnipiac poll from last September had some good news for those hoping for a Democratic blue wave. Trump is seen as unfit for office by 56 percent of Americans. Only 36 percent of Americans approve of his performance as president. A total of 63 percent of women see Trump as unfit for office, and 60 percent of all Americans see him as doing more to divide the country than unite it. This data is unlikely to change significantly prior to the November elections.

Yet, Real Clear Politics has consistently had Trump's approval ratings above 40 percent. As of August 13, Trump's average favorability rating is 43.3 percent.

While that percentage should not put him over the top in a presidential election, it is harder to see what it might mean for individual congressional races. It still says a lot of Americans buy in to Trump's message

Electoral success is going to require sustained activism as we saw with the travel ban, racial hostilities in Charlottesville, mass school shootings, and the separation of parents from their children.

There are other issues that deserve equal outrage that have not received as much attention. Some of these are the failure to assist the people of Puerto Rico who are all American citizens, the disturbing and erratic foreign policy moves that endanger our national security, the rampant corruption that seems to have invaded just about every department of our government, and the evisceration of environmental laws that is placing our very planet in jeopardy.

The problem is there is so much going on in this administration that it is difficult to be sufficiently outraged at each instance, or to determine which might be the most egregious actions.

It is also important to note that even if everything goes smoothly and Democrats win in November and Trump is gone in 2020, permanent damage has already been done. Dozens of judges have already been appointed and confirmed by this administration who will change the meaning of justice in our country for decades to come. Our relations with allies and enemies around the world have been turned upside down and will not easily be ameliorated. The divisiveness and lack of trust that have intensified under this president will be with us for a long time to come.

So I am obsessed with this administration, and I think you should be too. I know many of you are not focused on what is going on in Washington. I know family issues consume much of your waking hours. You need to put food on the table, address catastrophic illnesses, job losses, etc.

Yet the issues facing our country today are also important. Everyone needs to pay more attention to what is going on. If you think whatever is going on is not so important because "everyone does it," you aren't paying attention. If you think this is a "witch-hunt," you aren't listening.

If you don't think what is going on is unprecedented and poses a real threat to our democracy and our way of life – think again.

Finally, I just have to say that if you haven't figured out who Donald Trump is yet, consider his most recent slight of Sen. John McCain. Trump just signed the defense authorization bill that Congress named for McCain. Trump failed to mention the name of McCain at the signing ceremony. Yet he continues to attack McCain for his vote on the Affordable Care Act. John McCain is a war hero who is fighting against what is likely terminal brain cancer. Who treats a fellow human being that way, let alone one of John McCain's stature?

[Pat Perriello, a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools, served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

Despite my obsession with President Trump, the Pennsylvania grand jury report cries out for comment. The report conservatively tells us that 300 priests were involved in the sexual abuse of at least 1000 kids. Of course, we are not surprised — we've seen this movie before. We know about Boston. We know a bit about Ireland. We need to acknowledge that if an in-depth investigation has uncovered such activity in Pennsylvania, there is no reason to believe that the same kind of data would not be uncovered in Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta or any other area of the country. There is some talk that Attorney General Brian Frosh in Maryland is being asked to conduct such an investigation.

The first thing the church must do is accept the reality that there is a problem. Yet bishops and clergy are still attempting to say that the problem was in the past and everything is OK now. Greg Burke, Vatican spokesman, notes that most incidents occurred prior to 2002. Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh says: "The Diocese of Pittsburgh today is not the church that is described in the grand jury report … we have learned from the past."

We all hope the church has learned from the past, and they do appear to be doing more to hold bishops accountable for being complicit in the scandal. What is needed, however, is a level of humility that is yet to be seen. Something is wrong at a fundamental level and the church cannot continue to conduct business as usual. 

The church as the spotless bride of Christ needs to give way to the people of God on a journey to truth and intimacy with our Lord. Pope, bishop, priests and laity are all on that journey together, and there is no hierarchy before God. The exercise of authority in the church today must be done gingerly and together with consensus building throughout every level of the people of God.

Confession is a case in point. The expectation that a Catholic should walk into a confessional and confess personal sins to a priest in view of the current status of priesthood is the height of arrogance. The power that the church claims to forgive sins should be made available to all people, not held onto to retain control over its flock. General absolution should minimally be made available at Christmas and Easter time.

Jesus forgave out of his love and mercy. An acknowledgement and awareness of sin at a carefully prepared communal penance service emphasizes our collective guilt. No requirement should be needed to enumerate personal failings to seek forgiveness. People who do go to individual confession should go because they feel the need to share what they have done at a particular moment in their lives, and they feel comfortable seeking forgiveness from an individual priest.

There is movement in holding bishops accountable for their actions in a way that has not been done before and that is a good thing. But the notion that the church can continue to operate as it has in the past is becoming tiresome. There is no willingness to confront the need for dramatic change. Instead the hierarchy continues to clutch at straws. They put forth evidence that celibacy has nothing to do with the problem. 

Focusing on a few select studies seems to miss the point. The culture of priesthood must change. Whatever problems celibacy does or doesn't create, a change in culture is needed. Introducing married priests and yes, women priests, will dramatically change the culture of priesthood in the church, and will decrease the likelihood of major abuse scandals. It will also invigorate and energize the church in ways that are sorely needed in a church that seems determined to remain an old boy's network. We desperately need some imagination and courage in church leadership to make things happen.

A band of dispirited and defeated disciples experienced the risen Lord and created a church that developed new ideas about the nature of God that was able to include Jesus. That same spirit that imbued this rag tag bunch of disciples still flows through the church, but the focus instead is on guarding the past rather than reaching out to a bold future. It reminds me of the man in the Gospels who buried his one talent and the master was not pleased. Consider the oft-quoted passage from Proverbs; "Where there is no vision the people perish." Too often in our church the vision has been limited to protecting the status quo. We need a church oriented to the future not one determined to hold on to the past.

The church has a band of faithful followers who have been left by the wayside to languish in the pews. It is time for them to exercise leadership in the church, and for the old men to sit back and let the spirit blow where it will. No better example of an old man who got out of the way is St. Pope John the XXIII. He chose to open the windows and let the fresh air blow in. Pope John didn't know what would happen, but he trusted in the spirit which gave us Vatican II, and which foolish and timid churchmen have been trying to take away from us ever since. 

[Pat Perriello is a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools who served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services; he was also an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University.]

NCR Forward is requesting feedback from its members on why they remain Catholic in view of the latest abuse crisis rocking the church. I began to ask myself how I would respond to such a question. What is my connection to the church today?

There are, of course, some superficial realities. My devout Filipina wife would never allow me to skip Mass on Sunday. Growing up in the Catholic tradition provides a comfort level and knowledge base that I simply don't have with other denominations. Then there is the centrality of the Eucharist that draws one to the church.

Actually, I tend to think of myself more as a Christian than as a Catholic. I am not a fan of the focus on Catholic identity. I am uncomfortable with discussions that revolve around what makes us different or somehow superior to other denominations. I am more interested in a focus on those things that highlight our common bond as followers of Christ.

In the heady days following the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), there was a sincere belief that the churches could come together. Unity was somehow possible, at least with the involvement of the Holy Spirit. That belief waned, and ecumenical dialogue today remains on the margins, essentially going nowhere.

Having said all of that, I think my connection to the church is probably indissoluble. I continue to believe this church is better than it shows itself to be. The ingredients are there in its 2,000-year history. The giants in this history have demonstrated true holiness, intellectual achievement, wisdom, kindness, mercy and love for all people.

There is a sordid historical side as well. There have been intellectual myopia, corruption and abuse of power. Also, of course, there are untold sexual misdeeds that occurred long before the current crisis.

For me, remaining in the church is about reforming the church and latching on to the best of what it has to offer. In my lifetime, the best involved clergy responding to the civil rights movement as they marched shoulder to shoulder with those protesting injustice in our own country. More recently, it involves Pope Francis speaking out forcefully for the poor, immigrants and refugees, the environment, and leading a life of simplicity and humility.

There is no better way to start authentic reform in the church than by following in the footsteps of Francis. A rejection of clericalism and an embrace of true humility is critical. Leading churchmen need to respond and behave differently. They need to be servants. The model of our Lord at the Last Supper washing the feet of his disciples should be a guide for all clerics.

They need to acknowledge failure and recognize their limitations. When can they admit that they don't have all the answers? When can they admit that there is much we don't know about our faith and our Lord? Even the apostle Paul said we see through a glass darkly but then we shall see face to face. Too many seem to believe they have a magnifying glass to discern all that is truth about the deposit of faith.

We need a much broader tent to accommodate all those who believe in Jesus the Christ. Taking a stance on Jesus as Lord is what it means to be Christian. Adherence to a rigid, unchanging medieval church does none of us favors. It is now the 21st century. If ever there was a need for aggiornamento, it is now. A male, celibate clerical bastion is simply an anachronism. Glacial change is no longer OK.

Sad to say, we are so far away from such an ideal. The resistance to Francis and his message is strong. It is becoming more overt and ugly. Consider Cardinal Carlo Maria Viganò's attempt to besmirch the reputation of Francis and at the same time put the blame of sexual abuse on homosexuality. This kind of open warfare in our church is what makes us wonder if there is any hope for change.

We need a much more egalitarian church. We should all be in this together. We need to change this church together. It may be time for the pope to call for a new Vatican council that will involve as voting participants cleric and lay, men and women, gay and straight, traditional and progressive, people from every faith tradition and no faith tradition, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is my prayer and hope for our church.

According to Axios, Republicans have been busy generating a list of possible areas of inquiry that Democrats may pursue if they take over the House of Representatives in the 2018 election. They have been circulating that list among themselves. The expressed purpose appears to be to create enthusiasm among their base to go out and vote in the midterms to protect the president.

The first thought that comes to mind is that Republicans in Congress are aware that this president needs protection. In fact, they have listed over 100 areas that Democrats may see as warranting investigation. According to Axios, the spreadsheet "catalogs more than 100 formal requests from House Democrats this Congress." They used Democratic requests for investigations to help prepare their list.

It seems the Republicans are doing the Democrats' work for them. They seem so conscious of where they have failed in holding this administration accountable that they are essentially providing a list to Democrats of hearings they may want to hold if they win control of the House of Representatives. In short, they are letting the Democrats know what they have failed to do to hold this president accountable.

Let’s mention just a few of these potential inquiries: President Trump’s taxes, the firing of James Comey, the travel ban, corrupt activities among Cabinet members and White House staff, the separation of parents from their children, Trump’s dealings with Russia, and the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.

I feel like Republicans are saying these are things we should have investigated but chose not to because we preferred to protect the president. Now they want their base to get out and vote in November, so they can continue to insure this president will not be held accountable.

I am troubled by the behavior of these Republicans as a group. They have all been elected as public servants to defend our country, not a specific person. They are aware that at a minimum some of these issues merit a serious investigation.

Instead, a number of them are intent on obfuscating such important issues by investigating the investigators. Some are even going so far as to seek impeachment of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for overseeing the Russian investigation.

If Republicans were to hold on to the House in November, there can be little doubt that business as usual would prevail. This president would be emboldened to operate with no checks on his behavior. Not only our democracy but our national security could be in danger.

I believe that even those who support some of Donald Trump’s policies and might even consider voting for him again in 2020 cannot be happy with a president accountable to no one. I’m confident that all Americans believe that no one is above the law, even the president. Since the Congress as it is currently constituted has shown no inclination to hold this president accountable in any way, it is incumbent on Americans to vote in a Congress that will cast a critical eye on the activities of this administration.

It is hard to argue that this president and this administration do not need to have a meaningful check on their activities. A Democratic House of Representatives could provide that check.

Fortunately, Republicans have at least provided a useful list as to where to begin.

It seems the church is at a crossroads. Clearly, war has been declared on the Francis papacy by right-wing clerics like Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. They have decided to bring down this pope by tying him to the sex abuse crisis.

However, the sex abuse crisis is widespread. It is global. The problem cannot simply be ascribed to either liberal or conservative clerics. Anybody who knows how the church has operated or even how a large corporation works knows that they are going to protect their own and circle the wagons. The church did that to its shame, but the effort to cast blame and call names is not helpful in solving the problem.

If there was ever a time for the hierarchy to recognize its collective failure and accept the fact that they are all in this together, that time is now. The first real question is whether the hierarchy can recognize the need to work together to dig out of a horrific situation or insist on playing "gotcha."

It is true that the left, including me, spoke out frequently and loudly against Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but there is a difference. I know of no cardinal or bishop who accused either John Paul or Benedict of heresy or demanded their resignation. What is going on now is at a different level, and it appears traditionalists have adopted a scorched-earth policy to regain power in the church, irrespective of the damage it will cause.

The division within the church is as deep and as troubling as the division that exists in the political arena of our own country. Some Catholics have, of course, left the church because of the scandals. Those who remain are faithful churchgoing Catholics with their own set of beliefs who are beginning to pay more and more attention to the crisis swirling around them.

Faithful Catholics are likely to become angrier and more confused. Already, we are seeing protests at cathedrals and diocesan offices demanding resignations of bishops. Catholics are going to have to make a choice before too long, and we may ultimately see a split in the church unlike anything we have seen since the Reformation.

I believe this group of traditionalist clerics has opened a chasm in the church like nothing in our lifetime. Worse, my impression is they will not be satisfied by anything less than total capitulation.

What are the stakes? Jesuit Fr. James Keenan has written an article recommending the selection of women to receive the red hat. Women as cardinals in the church, voting on the selection of the next pope. It is mind-boggling.

Of course, it won't happen. Francis can't make women cardinals, even though it is theoretically possible. Married priests are also possible, but we do nothing because that's what conservatives like Viganò want. We allow the traditionalists to rule, and not only will nothing change but we will continue retrenchment under their influence.

The fact is traditionalists are winning. Francis brought new excitement to the church and an opportunity to begin a process of change. I didn't expect dramatic change with Francis, but I thought he would make some incremental changes that could lead to greater reform in a subsequent papacy.

Instead, we have seen traditionalists balk at even the smallest and noncontroversial changes. Attempts to modify church practice (not doctrine) on the reception of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics were met with vitriol. Francis and his supporters were accused of heresy.

In his article on women cardinals, Keenan makes a couple of significant points. First, there will be no reform in the church until women have power, and female deacons do not provide that necessary power. Second, prior to 1917, the body of cardinals was made up of both ordained and lay men. The change requiring ordination was made to prevent abuses and nepotism in the naming of cardinals.

In 2013, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, then the director of the Vatican press office, said a female cardinal is "theologically and theoretically" possible. He then added it "is not remotely realistic," at least for now.

Therein lies the problem. Even when change is possible "theologically and theoretically," we don't change anything. Traditionalists make sure of that.

Maybe they are just looking for a reason to break with the church altogether. Francis and his allies at the Vatican seem to be trying to hold the church together. Yet it seems there is only one way to do that — accept whatever this traditionalist band of clerics demand and have the church remain in the 16th century.

I am beginning to believe that reform of the church can only go forward if those who seek reform under Francis demand it and decide to let the chips fall where they may. If the bottom line is that traditionalists will thwart every effort to make even minor changes, perhaps schism is inevitable. The alternative may be to live in a church that believes the Council of Trent must forever be normative. I for one find that possibility unacceptable.

No set of punitive regulations or monitoring systems will be enough for the church to move on from this scandal. The church and church culture need to change. I believe each day we may be getting closer to the need to call a universal council of the church to address these issues. The lack of credibility in Rome that the traditionalists have created means that only the entire church united in council can move the church forward at this time.

How is one to categorize President Donald Trump's latest attacks on the FBI and the justice department?

The attacks are the most vitriolic so far and real damage is being done to these institutions. The president says, "I hope to be able to put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to expose something that is truly a cancer in our country." He sees this action as "a great service to the country." Of all the things he's done, he says this "might be the most important thing because this was corrupt."

Where is Trump's anger coming when he claims the FBI is corrupt and can be seen as a cancer in our country? Words do matter. This is his FBI. It is his FBI director. We depend on the FBI to keep us safe and protect us from terrorism both foreign and domestic. With such an unbridled attack on one of our most fundamental institutions, what do we do next? How does the damage that has been done get repaired?

As I have said before, the beginning of a solution lies in the November mid-term elections, which can provide a check on the more extreme actions of this president. However, it is also important to understand what this president is trying to accomplish. There can be little doubt that everything Trump is doing at this point is designed to protect himself from the Russia investigation. It is also instructive to know where the president got the idea to declassify sensitive information.

Rather than listening to his national security team or his intelligence advisors, the president has chosen a different route. He has been listening to Fox News commentators and acting on their statements and advice. It is stunning to think that the president has greater respect for his cable news friends than for his White House team, cabinet, and the entire intelligence community. 

Fortunately, we now learn that the president is backing off the immediate release of these classified documents. What could have made the president change his mind on this issue? It seems particularly surprising in light of his vicious attack on the justice department and his determination to eliminate anyone who he sees as having conspired against him.

Perhaps the justice department has convinced him of the dangers to national security if he compromises sources and methods. Yet he hasn't seemed concerned about that in the past. Maybe our European allies have been able to convince him of the dangers of the precipitous release of these documents. Yet, he has shown little respect or interest in what our allies have had to say in the past.

Take a look at his actual tweet.

I believe the operative comment in that tweet is that the release of these documents "may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe."

At first, I was puzzled by this comment. Could it be that the president was suddenly interested in seeing the Mueller probe be allowed to continue without interference? This interpretation didn't seem plausible.

Then, it made sense. This comment was about the danger to the president. If he demanded the release of these documents, he could be seen, once again, as obstructing justice — obstructing the investigation.

Apparently, his lawyers were able to convince him that he could damage his own case by the release of these documents at this time.

What we now have to wonder is what actions this president will take following the mid-term elections. Will we see wholesale firings of the Attorney General, his deputy and perhaps the special counsel? Will the demand to release sensitive documents come up again?

On the other hand, what will we be seeing from the Mueller investigation? Will we see new indictments, and who will they be? Finally, what will be the public response to actions by both the president and the special counsel?

All the while this is going on we have the confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. We have the accusations against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that has his continuation in office hanging by a thread. The results of the mid-term elections are still uncertain.

A climax is building. Regardless of the outcome of the mid-term elections, it seems likely that dramatic events will be occurring faster than one can imagine.

History is about to happen. The outcome cannot be predicted. Yet, whatever happens, it will shape the course of events in the United States of America for decades to come.

It turns out White House counselor Kellyanne Conway may well have been right when she introduced the concept of "alternative facts."

Millions of viewers were glued to their TV screens and listened attentively to the confirmation hearings for then Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Yet, apparently, they saw two different hearings. The same testimony was perceived very differently by those who watched.

This country remains thoroughly divided, and once again each tribe saw what it wanted to see. I have spoken with people on both sides of the issue and have found little common ground among them. It is true that most viewers found Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony compelling and credible, but there any semblance of agreement ends. Republicans, while careful not to blame Dr. Ford, found the entire exercise a conspiracy by Democrats to deny Judge Kavanaugh a seat on the Supreme Court. Democrats found the accuser believable and saw the accusations as disqualifying.

While the GOP was outraged at what they saw as character assassination, the Democrats believed the accusations pointed out flaws in Kavanaugh's character. Republicans saw the delay in coming forward with these charges a sign of an attempt to "do anything" to stop this confirmation. At the same time, Democrats felt they had been protecting Dr. Ford's desire for anonymity and aren't sure how the allegations were leaked.

Republicans find Kavanaugh's testimony believable and his outrage appropriate given the circumstances. Democrats doubt Kavanaugh's credibility and find his aggressive testimony and openly partisan attacks evidence of a lack of judicial temperament, which should have placed his confirmation in jeopardy.

Republicans were dismayed that the committee would consider accusations from Kavanaugh's high school and college days. They saw efforts to attack yearbook entries as unfair. They saw many of the allegations made as not serious. Democrats saw a pattern of behavior that raised questions. They saw the hearings as a job interview and not a criminal inquiry. They wondered why this candidate had to be confirmed with what seemed to be a cloud over his head, when so many other qualified candidates were available.

They pointed out that there was no suggestion of inappropriate behavior during the confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch.

Now that Judge Kavanaugh has been confirmed, his supporters are dancing in the streets. Those who opposed his nomination are marching in the streets.

Beyond the confirmation of this one judge, however, remains the question of what happens now. Is there any way to bridge this gap? While President Donald Trump did not create this polarized country, he has clearly fed the flames. He has eschewed any efforts to bring people together; instead he has chosen to highlight differences and use cultural and ideological divides to his advantage.

What is needed is someone who can begin the process of bringing a divided nation together again in the 2020 election. We need to pray that a figure will emerge who can be trusted by all sides, and who, hopefully, can reverse the damage done by this president. Currently, there is no apparent candidate available to fill that need.

The present divisions in our country are not sustainable. It is not just the people of the heartland divided against the people on the coasts. It is husband and wife; families; friends and communities that are being ripped apart.

Now is a time for serious contemplation of these realities. The nation has its first opportunity to take a step forward in seeking a more perfect union during the up-coming mid-term elections. I believe all Americans, regardless of party, should want a more balanced government. As we have seen, when one party controls all the levers of power in Washington, it contributes to even greater divisiveness and hostility.

At a critical time in our nation's past, a president (quoting the Bible) said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." We are in such a critical time now. The future will determine whether this house, this democracy, will continue to stand.

[Pat Perriello, a retired educator from the Baltimore City Public Schools, served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University. He is a former seminarian from St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore.]

The Catholic bishops of the United States chose to pray for Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. They led a novena in connection with Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings. May I suggest the bishops consider initiating novenas for some other issues? How about a novena to end the separation of children from their parents?

A 5-year-old girl was forced to go to court and waive her rights.

A 2-year-old girl was taken into immigration court in New York and asked questions by a judge to determine her case. She had no idea what was going on. Around 13,000 children are in federal custody right now. This is after it was determined that children should no longer be separated from their parents. Certainly, this is a right-to-life issue.

What about the senseless mass shootings that occur in our country each year? These days, we refer to them simply by their location: Columbine, Newtown, Orlando, Parkland, Las Vegas and so many others. We send our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families. Yet we refuse to make changes that could keep our children safe. We say that nothing can be done. Is there a right-to-life issue involved?

Maybe we should talk about climate change. Storms are becoming more severe and resulting in loss of life. A Louisiana town is sinking, and residents are asking to be moved to a more secure location.

Pope Francis has written an encyclical, "Laudato Si', On Care of Our Common Home," on the subject and sees it as a major priority. He clearly sees climate change as a right to life issue.

Finally, health care needs to be mentioned. For years U.S. Catholic bishops saw health care as a right for all people. Now, this administration is putting in jeopardy protection for preexisting conditions. The administration is encouraging the use of insurance plans that offer few benefits or have huge deductibles that will not provide real protection for many. They also resist Medicaid expansion at the state level that could give coverage to thousands of people in poverty. I believe this also has to be considered a right-to-life issue.

Many more issues could be cited. I believe the focus on abortion has made too many Catholics and Catholic leaders myopic. What happens in our world and in our country matters. When all energies are focused on one issue, we essentially isolate ourselves from the world we live in. A world that we are obligated to make better. How we treat the least among us makes a difference.

Not just our Christianity but our humanity is at stake. What the United States decides to do about the case of Washington Post reporter Jamal Khashoggi is important.

How humane are we if we do nothing because Khashoggi is not an American citizen? Do we accept the argument that rogue killers may be responsible? 

Our humanity also demands a response to how we are treating little children coming across our border. The suffering and mistreatment of these children cries out for the need to demonstrate our humanity.

Pope Francis said, early in his papacy, that we had to focus on other issues besides abortion. Concerns for the poor and climate change are among the issues he felt needed to command our attention. My prayer for Catholics and Catholic leaders would be for them to open their eyes. A lot is wrong with what is going on in our country today. We can see injustice everywhere, and it is being fostered by much of what this administration is doing or not doing. For me, the idea of celebrating the elevation to the Supreme Court of Brett Kavanaugh is shortsighted, in light of everything going on in our world.

There is a lot of noise in our country today. Much of that noise is coming from the president of the United States. President Donald Trump is conducting rallies almost every evening to stir up his base to vote in the midterm elections.

The midterm congressional elections are just a few days away. Early voting has begun in many states.

Unfortunately, very little of substance is being said by candidates. The president has made these elections all about him. The messages we are hearing from Trump at his rallies and by many Republican candidates across the country are disturbing. They are messages of fear, hate, and often are a failure to tell the truth.

Will it work? What will happen on November 6? It is all up to the voters.

As one decides whether and how to vote on November 6, one should consider a few facts about the messages that are out there.

First there is the message that Middle Easterners have joined the migrants marching through Mexico from Guatemala and Honduras. Vice President Mike Pence says that in a crowd of 7,000, it is inconceivable that there would not be people of Middle Eastern descent. There is absolutely no evidence that this is happening.

Why is the president saying this? Because it upsets people to think this might be happening. It shows, however, that this president and his supporters are willing to say anything they think might help their cause. Does this bother anyone? Does truth matter? Are we OK with this kind of deception for ourselves and for our families?

Trump also says Democrats, especially in the form of philanthropist George Soros, are paying for the caravan to march through Mexico. Again, the issue has been fact-checked and found to be false. If one thinks about it, why would Democrats want to promote a caravan in Mexico that can only be helpful to Republicans? All of us, at this point, need to try to use some common sense.

Trump says Democrats are an angry mob. It is only at Trump rallies that we see a crowd that at times could be called a mob. I don't want to psychoanalyze, but is there a more classic case of projection? Frankly, Trump does that on a lot of issues.

The evidence is that health care has become a pivotal issue in these midterm elections. Voters are especially concerned that they may lose protection for preexisting conditions. Republicans who have been working for years to repeal the Affordable Care Act (and are even now suing to declare mandating coverage of preexisting conditions unconstitutional) are changing their tune. They are insisting they have always supported and will continue to support coverage for preexisting conditions in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Now that we have a series of pipe bombs being sent to critics of Trump, he blames the media. It seems that everyone needs to tone down their rhetoric except him.

Unfortunately, this president has obfuscated so many issues that it is nearly impossible to document them all. We have not even scratched the surface here. His entire strategy for the midterm election is to use fear and deception to bring his voters to the polls.

Will the American people be fooled by this propaganda and distortion of the truth? Does anyone think things will be better over the next two years if this president is unchecked? The results of the midterms will be determined solely by who turns out to vote. If those who feel we need to have a check on this president come out to vote, they will win. They are the majority. No poll has President Trump at 50 percent of the electorate. If these voters stay home, however, Trump and his minions can hold on to power and become emboldened to exercise that power in more and more undemocratic ways.

What will we wake up to on November 7? It is up to the American people to determine that. Think about everything this president has said and done over the past two years. Does his record represent something you are proud of? Does it represent something you can tell your grand children about in future years — that you are proud to have supported this president? It is in your hands.

[Pat Perriello is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University who retired from the Baltimore City Public Schools where he served as the coordinator of Guidance and Counseling Services.]