The idea of people hypocritically saying "Lord, Lord" makes me think of politicians who are good at saying the right words but give little evidence that they mean to put their words into practice.

But then the rest of us are just as hypocritical if we criticize them but fail to do our part, beginning with voting. I'll have to admit, here I am busy making a movie about politicians but then Tuesday's primary election caught me by surprise. I thought we'd already had our primary. And now I have to sort through all those prospective judges, and I haven't been able to find help from newspapers or online.

But the most frustrating thing about Tuesday's ballot, of course, is something there's too much help with, the unhelpful kind of help. While there are only two propositions on the ballot this time, there are so many words and "Lord, Lords" out there from the sponsors of the competing propositions 98 and 99, that it's hard to get underneath the words to the heart of the matter.

In recent years, there have been Supreme Court decisions allowing local governments to use its eminent domain power to take ownership of private property but then transfer its use to a private developer. The government paid the homeowner -- that's not the problem. The debate arises because property is supposed to be taken by eminent domain only if the property is needed for a public use. So should the local government be allowed to transfer the property to a private developer? The governments claim that the private developers will generate jobs and tax revenue. The Supreme Court's decision is that these sorts of benefits -- jobs and tax revenue -- fit the definition of public use.

Both propositions 98 and 99 seek to restrict the use of eminent domain. But it gets confusing. Proposition 98 has brought rent control into the argument, saying that government-imposed ceilings on rent is a kind of seizing of private property. Opponents of 98 say that it eliminates rent control, but phasing out is probably a more helpful term. As long as a current renter doesn't move from housing that became rent-controlled before January 2007, their rent-control will remain intact. But if you move or aren't already in rent-controlled housing, then you won't have rent control. Proposition 98 may also limit measures that require developers to provide for affordable housing.

Proposition 99 was also created to restrict the use of eminent domain, but its focus is narrower, seeking extra protection for homes, not all private property, specifically homes occupied by their owners for at least a year. And 99 doesn't seek to phase out rent control. What's really important but hasn't been stated explicitly in any commentaries that I've read, is that California law already allows seizure of private property only for a public use. The two propositions are merely trying to get more specific.

With ballot propositions, I find that just as important as what the propositions say is who is supporting them. That can hint at possible hidden motives. Proposition 98 is supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which exists to limit taxes, and the California Farm Bureau. Proposition 99 is supported by the American Association of Retired People, the Coalition to protect California Homeowners, and the League of Women Voters.

But still more important is who is paying for the propositions. Most of the $5 million contributed to Proposition 98 came from apartment and mobile park owners. Roughly half of the $7 million contributed to Proposition 99 came from the League of California Cities Non-Public Fund.

In other words, the elimination of rent control would appear to be the main motive of the authors of and most of the contributors to Proposition 98, and the defeat of Proposition 98's eminent domain restrictions may be the main motive of the authors and the large contributors to Proposition 99.

The California Bishops' website has a somewhat helpful page on these two propositions. While the page's descriptions of the measures are lacking, it has a few boxes that highlight Catholic social teaching about private property and the common good. In Pacem and Terris, Pope John XXIII wrote, "The right to private property...derives from the nature of humanity. This right is an effective means for safeguarding the dignity of the human person and for the exercise of responsibility in all fields; it strengthens and gives serenity to family life, thereby increasing the peace and prosperity of the state. However, it is opportune to point out that there is a social duty essentially inherent in the right of private property." (No. 21-22)

The Second Vatican Council, in Gaudium et Spes, says, "By its very nature private property has a social quality which is based on the law of the common destination of earthly goods." And the United States Bishops' letter Economic Justice For All, says that "the common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy. Support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth...For example; these limits are the basis of society's exercise of eminent domain over privately owned land needed for roads or other essential public goods." (No. 115)

In other words, the Church teaches that private property is a right, but a right that is meant to benefit the common good. Thus, governments may, at times, need to use private property for the common good. And landlords may, at times, need to be required to limit rent increases so that people with limited means can exercise their right to housing. Or if rent control measures aren't used, other provisions have to be made to provide people with housing.

Of course, the voter doesn't have to decide between the two propositions. We can vote no on both of them.

The challenge of trying to figure out the meaning and possibly hidden intentions of the propositions brings to mind St. Paul's distinction in today's passage to the Romans between faith and the law. While we apply God's word to concrete situations through law, we are challenged to practice the law from the heart.

Moses tells the people in today's first reading: "Take these words of mine into your heart and soul. Bind them at your wrist as a sign, and let them be a pendant on your forehead." A lot of people wear those plastic wrist bracelets to remind themselves and others of important issues and sentiments. I suppose we could all wear pendants on our foreheads, as long as we don't merely wear them but let them be imprinted on us.

Maybe tattoos would be better. We should all have tattoos on our foreheads. Or better, tattoos on our hearts and souls. Although I hear tattoos on the soul are very painful and especially hard to get off. But God's law of love is already written on our hearts. We need only to follow this deepest knowledge of our hearts.

While we seek to build our earthly houses on the rock of law, more important is that we seek to build our lives on the rock of safety and salvation, Jesus -- to put his words into practice.