At a recent parish event held at our Cathedral of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary downtown, I struck up a conversation with one of our parishioners, a fine young blind man who recently moved to the area. During the course of our conversation I learned that he would be walking home after the event. Knowing that he lived down the street from me and that I would be walking in the same direction, I asked if I could join him. He agreed and indicated that he would wait until I wrapped up everything.
As we set out on our walk over to Douglas Island, he took out his collapsible walking stick and I asked that he let me know if I could be of any assistance. In beginning our trek I found myself describing everything around us, for example, when we would be approaching stairs, coming to a turn, how soon we would come to a curb and other various items in our path.
As I was describing things on the way, I noticed myself becoming cognitively aware of things that I never really saw in the past. I never thought twice about garbage cans on the sidewalk, I just moved around them while I listened to my music or talked on the phone. Now I was aware of cracks in the sidewalk and uneven pavement which present potential tripping hazards. I found myself looking at the narrowness of our sidewalks and how pedestrians must maneuver between fences and electrical poles especially with someone is coming in the opposite direction. In my awareness of these items, I started to grow in concern for my walking partner and it increased my attentiveness of the potential hazards that confront a visually impaired person.
During the walk, I became increasingly aware how much I need to learn about the city. He demonstrated to me that he knew the name of every street in town. He had committed the downtown map of Juneau to memory soon after he arrived. What surprised me most is that I have walked between the Cathedral and the State Capital building countless times, but this time, I realized that there is an electrical pole directly in the middle of the sidewalk next to the capital building. In addition to the pole, the guide wires follow about 10 – 15 feet further down the sidewalk – again, right in the middle of the walkway.
As we walked around the bus depot at the intersection of Main St. and Eagan Drive, and proceeded toward the bridge, I asked him if he was aware of a sculpture of a huge whale in front of the Juneau Arts and Culture Center. He was unaware of its presence and I asked if he would like to feel it. He was up of the encounter. As he put his hands on it, he quickly identified the girth of the creature and indentified that the whale was bending back in its breaching posture. He was impressed with the size of the sculpture. As he felt the ventral grooves, the ridges on the pectoral fins, the eye, the dorsal fin – it was great to see the expression on his face as he was mentally visualizing the work of art. I described for him the mural on the front of the Center that makes it look as though a flood light focuses on the work and imitates a shadow on the building. It was a worthwhile stop as I heard him say, “This is cool”.
As we approached the Douglas Bridge, I pressed the crosswalk button. While I always knew that the button verified the pressed request with an audible beep, it quickly alarmed me that there was no audible indicator that identifies when it is safe to walk. In my experiences of other cities, I have come to know audible indicators when the crosswalk sign is lit. The lack of such a sound creates a major safety concern for some who are disadvantaged. Knowing that he had walked this way many times, I asked how he does it without the “it’s ok to walk” sounds. He said that he has to rely on the sounds of traffic and sometimes people yell from their cars to say that it’s ok to proceed.
In a recent meeting with city officials, I raised this concern and was directed to the Alaska Department of Transportation. In not wanting to write about this before coming into contact with them first, I gave the DOT a call. They promised to look into it and get back to me.
That night was a learning experience for me. The walk home with my visually impaired neighbor helped me see things differently in the city – in particular, I now recognize things that have been right in front of me all the while.
• Burns is the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Juneau and Southeast Alaska.
Comments (24)
Add commentNice piece
Beats some of your more recent political ones. Perhaps there are more things than that power pole directly in front of you that you haven't taken notice of?
Unable to see and won't see
There are obviously different kinds of blindness.
During this campaign season Americans were pummeled with orders carrying the weight of excommunication and eternal damnation to reject the President's bid for a second term. Put down your coffee mug and just think about that. We all witnessed the anti-scientific, bigoted, and superstitious pleadings right here in our own newspaper.
Thankfully, the nation rejected their platform. Ironically President Obama carried the votes of Catholics, Jews, Other Faiths, and the growing demographic called Unaffiliated With Religion which includes atheists and other freethinkers. He did lose the Mormon vote and the Evangelical vote, though interestingly he carried more of the latter in 2012 than he did in 2008. That is encouraging.
Now, what struck me most about this article wasn't the individual who was physically blind, but the bishop who claims he can now see. Double entendre or not, while his superiors like Cardinal Dolan are congratulating the president on his victory, Bishop Burns seems to be uncharacteristically visually impaired about just what happened on Nov 6th.
Make no mistake, the Catholic Church will be back next election cycle with the same misguided philosophy that is failing to resonate with an ever increasing educated and liberated citizenry who recognize that Big Faith is on the wrong side of history on far too many issues.
Instead of talking about blindness, perhaps the next article should be about short term memory loss. Apparently the Church thinks the electorate will have it.
Not a chance.
Mike
Latitude and Mike
Bravo - well said.
I too hope the Bishop and others on this board recognize that developing an ability to see things from the perspective of those who are NOT like you, those who are poor, or who have other religious beliefs, or no religion, is of great value. Not holding my breath though.....
Hostility
Why are many of the bloggers here so hostile to Christians?
Try this experiment:
instead of the commentator being the Bishop of the Diocese of Juneau and SEAK, what if he was a new legislator in town, or director of the planned parenthood chapter?
Everyone of you - except charleylarson, whom I know and have tremendous respect for- seem to take great pleasure in assaulting the Church. You are punks throwing rocks from across the street, knowing worse thing that can happen is waking someone. Cowards.
Charlie and Grendel -
Charlie - When the church ceases actively trying to write policy that will be applied to all US citizens, curtailing their rights to conform with the church's narrow views of "morality" - people will stop pushing back against it.
Grendel - I love how when you are expressing your opinion, it is just that - but when someone else expresses a different view, it is "assaulting"..........why the difference in your eyes?
swimmergirl thanks
In some countries (even nuclear India) it is against the law (punishable by prison) to insult the feelings of the religious. I've written about the well known myth-debunker who is fighting jail-time in India for "insulting religion" because he demonstrated that a weeping Catholic statue was not a miracle (turned out to be toilet water being drawn up by capillary action of all things).
The Founders of the USA were wiser than enshrining silly blasphemy laws. No idea, superstitious or rational I might add, is exempt from honest criticism or even ridicule in this country. And let's be honest. Some religious ideas are ridicule worthy. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions."
It's remarkable this even needs to be explained.
Mike
blind leading blind?
Not referring to the author of this piece or his companion. Rather those who read this piece, regurgitating their weakly response to anything written by Bishop Burns. Pun intended.
@SG
Church writing policy? Madam, when I say you are wrong I do not mean the Church has directed a Vatican squad to remove your uterus on ecumenical principle, it's just that you are wrong.
Re-read the piece. The Bishop had a fine walk and an eye-opener. Chrissakes.
To my friend Mike
Yes, my friend Mike, let us be honest. I dont care what they do in other countries. I have seen the hospitlity the locals extend to local Somali orphans during Eid-ul-fitr, which is kinda like Easter for them. I shuttled 11-16 yr old girls to the Catholic Bishopric (from Belle France) for an "easter" celebration of Fanta Grape sodas and Nature Valley bars. happyfuckingeaster was on my mind. Bygones,
In some countries they slit the throat for doing that much. Luckily I was armed and supported.
I've seen enough religious-based crap to give reasonable man the sense that it is all are balled up. But I forgive, and even after all, I have that, because the forgiven man is forgiving.
Grendel, you lost me.
What are you talking about?
Mike
Yes Mike
That was a bit incoherent.
And Grendel, I think I complimented the bishop on a nice article. And reiterated his observation.
Stop barking at imaginary dog whistles.
what I'm talking about
Mike: the issue I’m seeing in your posts are with both faith and religion. I suspect you know they are not one and the same, yet you treat them as one. In doing this you discount any discussion from a faith-based angle because (I’m assuming here) you directly link the two.
Yes, great atrocities in the past and minor incivilities in the present occur in the name of [insert deity here]. Those are religious warts. Faith-based acts can and often do have the moral authenticity of humanism (or humanitarian effort, which is what we were doing for orphan girls, by civil-military arrangement -- very dicey proposition), and are also capable of compelling action that a mere mortal would think twice about.
Attacking a religious man just because he wears the cloth is as intolerant as a religious person attacking the director of planned parenthood when she happens to be out walking and taking in the sights, or kicking a new legislator in the groin on the street because you are from different political persuasion.
I get it, you reject everything the Bishop stands for. It’d be nice to think you could still have a cup of coffee with him and talk about what you don’t reject. Believe it or not, you do believe in something outside your intellect even if God has nothing to do with it. If I didn’t know better I would call that the rudimentary capacity for faith. That being said, I know you are reasonable man, and would have coffee with the Bishop. I just think you need to recalibrate the filter setting to allow faith-convictions into Mike Dz's discussion arena. We're not all bald-eyed loons looking for the chance to slip Christ into the conversation.
Swimmergirl
I do not subscibe to any 'church' doctrine nor do I try to shove it down anyone's throat. I simply state the truth as I believe it and people can either accept it or reject it but I do believe there are eternal consequences for how you decide.
I find it appalling that our government uses taxpayer money to fund abortions. I do not now nor will I ever be able to fathom why I should fund the 'inconvenient' results of someone's promiscuous behavior so if you consider that my "pushing back" against your view of morality then that is exactly what it is.
How about the morality of our government giving over $350,000,000.00 taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood last year and then PP turning around and spending over 15 MILLION dollars to get Barack Obama re-elected? Is that something you think is ok?
charlie.....
and I find it appalling that our government uses taxpayer money to fund abstinance only programs that are proven not to work. Or that our government uses taxpayer money to fund wars in countries that have not attacked us, resulting in thousands and thousands of military and civilian deaths.
I find it appalling that our government uses taxpayer money as giveaways to companies with political connections for artillery or aircraft engines that are neither needed or wanted, or simply to stack cash on pallets and send it to Iraq - $6,000,000,000.00 worth.
Planned Parenthood Votes was a superpac created by an organization which raised funds just like all the other superpacs representing corporations and groups of people, on both sides, many of whom certainly receive some government grant or another. Why is this OK with you when it's a corporation that stands to gain financially with a Republican president - through grants or contracts, but not OK for another? What's good for the goose is good for the gander - correct?
What's your point? That somehow your particular outrage on a particular issue involving government funds carries more weight than someone else's outrage on another issue involving, unquestionably many millions more, government funds?
Or that fundraising and campaigning is only OK if it is done by people you agree with?
Grendel - excuse me...
"When supporters directed by the teachings of the church cease actively trying to write policy that will be applied to all US citizens regardless of their faith..."
is that better?
Grendel, thanks for your thoughts.
It seems to me your reply is a smörgåsbord of reactions against the entire canon of my Empire comments rather than a reply to the comment for this specific article.
My words are all out there, I'd rather you address them instead of, frankly, the the straw army of opinions about what or who you think I am. That's a moving target and I'm not taking the bait.
Let's keep this about ideas. I think we can both agree that bad ideas exist to be destroyed. We've seen what happens when they are merely ignored.
Mike
swimmergirl
are you suggesting that these supporters should cease advocating for the poor, homeless, and destitute of this country (whether here by right or by flight)? or just those that happen to be pregnant or at risk of pregnancy?
maybe I'm missing something essential here. I think it's in the "actively trying to write policy" part.
grendel - what?
....what do the poor or homeless have to do with it?
the policy bit? Let's try it this way:
1. Church - indoctrinates people - some of whom are US Citizens.
2. Indoctrinated US Citizens are people like: Todd Aiken, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachman, Bob McDonnell. Other equally indoctrinated people vote for them.
3. The above mentioned people write bills, some of which become law. (I would call this actively writing policy - wouldn't you?)
4. These laws govern all people, and primarily affect only the lives of people who do not follow church indoctrination. People from #2 do not care about this fact.
what indeed
this isnt going anywhere when you have to ask what the poor have to do with your statement of 11:32 am today.
Common Sense
First, I want to congratulate the Bishop for having his eyes opened on the basics of the difficulties the disabled meet as they travel the streets. We should all walk a mile in someone's shoes before we make decisions involving them.
That said -- I am not a Catholic or a Republican, but I have to agree there's a high level of hostility toward Christians among these commenters and mostly it comes from ignorance. As the good bishop had his eyes opened to something he was ignorant of, perhaps the posters here should try opening their own eyes. I do know you believe you are the compassionate, open-minded POV, but not everybody agrees with you.
I can't defend the Catholic position on contraception. I'm very pro-contraception myself and just don't get the anti-contraception argument from a religious standpoint, but I defend their right to their religious beliefs and I oppose any move to abrogate the Constitution by forcing them to violate their beliefs. Similarly, anyone who believes abortion is murder should not be forced to pay for the abortion of others through their taxes or insurance premiums. You ask them to participate in murder against their religious beliefs and that's a violation of the 1st Amendment.
A compromise position might be for those of you who feel this is a vital service to pay for it yourselves, perhaps form cooperatives to pay for it for the needy. Seriously, people of faith are not trying to force you to stop using contraception. Stop trying to force them to pay for it. Stop asking those who are pro-life to participate in murder through their tax dollars and you'll have a whole lot fewer arguments with them.
@Aurora
Well stated. Let's carry you logic a little farther then.
There are religions whose faith bars organ transplants. Therefore, should we purge out all support of organ transplants with tax dollars, including closing the doors of any public hospitals (such as Bartlett) which might participate in an organ transplant?
Other faiths even prohibit blood transfusions. Should we bar tax dollars from supporting blood banks?
Some faiths prohibit riding in automobiles or even the use of electricity. No tax dollars to support roads or the building of hydroelectric projects?
Other faiths oppose war and violence. No tax dollars to the DOD?
Even on the abortion front, should tax dollars not be used to pave the road in front of an abortion provider, because that's tacit support of abortion?
Once you crack the door open to allowing one religion to dictate public policy, how do you justify preventing other religions equal access? Where then is the line drawn?
Happy Thanksgiving Lat58
I think, perhaps, you have the tail wagging the dog here. One religion is not dictating public policy; it is matter of public policy infringing on religion. What's more, this is now an issue because public policy is overstepping it's bounds and original design. By that, I mean that the founders NEVER envisioned a federal govt that would endeavor to provide so much that its beneficiaries do not have any responsibility and so become irresponsible.