The uniqueness of Jesus National Catholic Reporter
Father is smart to publicly ignore the USCCB and Rome as long as possible. No good can come from poking them with a stick.
I like what he says about Jesus as a man of faith. Indeed, Man of Faith is one of his titles. My take on it is that the way Jesus found out about his identity as Son of God was through the Scriptures rather than some mental hotline to the Divine. While he was filled with the Spirit, as the man of faith, he had to do the head work for himself.
As to his mental anguish on the cross, I suspect it to be entirely authentic and not at all hopeful. If one reads all four Gospels, one can come to the truth. Just prior to this moment, in John, he gives the care of his mother over to his beloved disciple (rather than telling this disciple to carry on his mission). In other words, he cuts himself off from the source of his divinity - his virgin birth (whose recollections also must have informed him of his divine nature). He also cuts off his mission.
Doing these things likely fills him with the anguish he needs to authentically call out to God in despair. The fact that this despair is the essence of salvation can be demostrated by his drinking of the fruit of the vine at this next moment after the statement "I thirst." If drinking the vinegar falls into the promise that he wait to do so until he is in his Father's kingdom, then it must already be fulfilled, even before his death. The alternative is that the whole of Christianity is a sham, for he indeed drink the fruit of the vine before he died, although he refused it when first crucified.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
No direct abortion at Phoenix hospital, theologian says | National Catholic Reporter
No direct abortion at Phoenix hospital, theologian says National Catholic Reporter By Jerry Filteau
Since no process was afforded to Sr. Margaret, whether or not she is excommunicate is between her, God and her confessor. If the bishop wants real penalties, he must afford her the full process of canon law for direct excommunication and risk being told by experts that he is wrong. If he does that, then he may have to take the issue of calumny to his confessor.
Since no process was afforded to Sr. Margaret, whether or not she is excommunicate is between her, God and her confessor. If the bishop wants real penalties, he must afford her the full process of canon law for direct excommunication and risk being told by experts that he is wrong. If he does that, then he may have to take the issue of calumny to his confessor.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
About Condoms
It is being reported that the Vatican is saying that it is better to use condoms than to infect someone with HIV and kill them. I'm glad they are finally saying it - many of us have been thinking it since the mid-1980s. Among many, Michael Sean Winters writes about this in the National Catholic Reporter.
The birth control conversation, however, is not just about preventing disease. This Pope is taking the conversation on contraception back to where it should be and away from the absolutism where it has previously lived. More importantly, Caritas in Veritate emphasized how birth control is a capitulation to economic reality that no Catholic family need take. Economic reality must bend to procreation, not the other way around. The Church must always stand with the poor and their freedom to grow their families without starving, whether in the developing world or the Catholic middle class.
This is where I part company with the advocates of natural family planning, who seem to have no such qualms about telling families not to have more kids, but just by doing it the culturally approved Catholic way. Natural family planning should never be encouraged for economic reasons (that is a cop out to economic power) - it should only be used for health reasons - and I suspect if you make this leap, one can more easily see that the same motiviations make artificial birth control a less frightening moral concept - particularly in cases where another pregnancy could be deadly for the mother.
The birth control conversation, however, is not just about preventing disease. This Pope is taking the conversation on contraception back to where it should be and away from the absolutism where it has previously lived. More importantly, Caritas in Veritate emphasized how birth control is a capitulation to economic reality that no Catholic family need take. Economic reality must bend to procreation, not the other way around. The Church must always stand with the poor and their freedom to grow their families without starving, whether in the developing world or the Catholic middle class.
This is where I part company with the advocates of natural family planning, who seem to have no such qualms about telling families not to have more kids, but just by doing it the culturally approved Catholic way. Natural family planning should never be encouraged for economic reasons (that is a cop out to economic power) - it should only be used for health reasons - and I suspect if you make this leap, one can more easily see that the same motiviations make artificial birth control a less frightening moral concept - particularly in cases where another pregnancy could be deadly for the mother.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Fr. Curran responds to the bishops on abortion
As I stated in a previous article, the Virginia Catholic Conference mentions abortion as an intrinsic evil issue to be addressed in considering who to vote for. Apparently, this is part of a nationwide discussion - one joined by Fr. Charles Curran, who challenges whether abortion is the primary intrinsic evil, given that there is some doubt about when ensoulment occurs. You can read how National Catholic Reporter covered his talk at http://ncronline.org/news/politics/curran-how-bishops-challenge-abortion-laws-flawed.
I disagree with Curran, who quotes St. Thomas Aquinas on ensoulment. So far, neuroscientists have not found the kind of "soul" that Aquinas would expect. Biologists have found, however, that after gastrulation, the developing embryo seems to be acting intentionally toward an end in a way that is not present before that point. Under an Aristotelean, this seems to be evidence of a vital force or soul. This would mean that abortion is wrong, but not artificial birth control or stem cell research.
Curran talks about giving the woman the benefit of the doubt on the abortion question. I don't see this as a question of doubt, but rather as a question of feasibility. It is simply not possible to regulation first trimester abortions where the fetus is recognized as a legal person without investigating every miscarriage - which society would reject. Giving fetuses status would also impact malpractice in this area in such a way as to force obstetricians to not treat first trimester pregnancies at all. Carving out exemptions would simply make any abortion law moot, so such a law would not be practical. Indeed, one could argue that a right to life is meaningless until independent life is possible - at least with assistance. Week 23 seems to be the best marker in this case - although this has nothing to do with ensoulment but instead with the ability to enjoy the right granted.
I disagree with Curran, who quotes St. Thomas Aquinas on ensoulment. So far, neuroscientists have not found the kind of "soul" that Aquinas would expect. Biologists have found, however, that after gastrulation, the developing embryo seems to be acting intentionally toward an end in a way that is not present before that point. Under an Aristotelean, this seems to be evidence of a vital force or soul. This would mean that abortion is wrong, but not artificial birth control or stem cell research.
Curran talks about giving the woman the benefit of the doubt on the abortion question. I don't see this as a question of doubt, but rather as a question of feasibility. It is simply not possible to regulation first trimester abortions where the fetus is recognized as a legal person without investigating every miscarriage - which society would reject. Giving fetuses status would also impact malpractice in this area in such a way as to force obstetricians to not treat first trimester pregnancies at all. Carving out exemptions would simply make any abortion law moot, so such a law would not be practical. Indeed, one could argue that a right to life is meaningless until independent life is possible - at least with assistance. Week 23 seems to be the best marker in this case - although this has nothing to do with ensoulment but instead with the ability to enjoy the right granted.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Catholics for Equality formed
Cross posted from Daily Kos, DC Examiner and Open Salon:
National Catholic Reporter reports that Father Joseph Palacios of Georgetown University, along with other Catholic leaders in the fight for marriage equality, have joined forces to add a Catholic face to the movement for marital rights for gays and lesbians. Fr. Palacios notes that 62 percent of Catholics favor such rights, even though the hierarchy does not. For more information, go to National Catholic Reporter's story at http://ncronline.org/news/politics/group-aims-mobilize-catholics-equality
Catholic bishops have been among the most vocal opponents of marriage equality - lending both their time and our treasure to ballot initiatives to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman - as it was defined in Genesis, a definition repeated by Jesus in his teaching about divorce. In other words, the Bishops are proof texting like they were Protestants. The spirit of both scriptures is the teaching that when two people marry, they are no longer members of their families of origin and are instead a new family. That is as applicable to gays and lesbians as it is to heterosexual unions. Indeed, the theology of marriage is that the Church and community are only a witness to the marriage. The parties themselves actually perform the Sacrament. Only an outdated understanding of human sexuality provides any reason to believe that this scripture should not apply to our wonderfully made gay and lesbian bretheren. Indeed, I would go further than legal equality - I would aver that the wedding ceremony is for families and that it is wrong to deny a Catholic wedding ceremony to the very heterosexual families of gay and lesbian couples.
The acting Executive Director of the group is Phil Attey. Among the other founding board members are Aniello Alioto, as well as a cascade of stars from the marriage equality movement, including:
Their main strategy is to enhance their visibilty through "equality brunches" so that rank and file Catholic leaders actually break bread with gays and lesbians on the theory that it is harder to discriminate against someone that you know. Of course, the many of us with a gay and lesbian family member don't need a brunch to meet someone who is harmed by the Church's attitude to marriage equality, we need only gather for the holidays.
I suspect there will be blowback on this - however the more the hierarchy resists - indeed, the more forcefully they do so, the closer we are to winning the hearts and minds of the remainder of the Church.
The group's web page is http://catholicsforequality.org/
National Catholic Reporter reports that Father Joseph Palacios of Georgetown University, along with other Catholic leaders in the fight for marriage equality, have joined forces to add a Catholic face to the movement for marital rights for gays and lesbians. Fr. Palacios notes that 62 percent of Catholics favor such rights, even though the hierarchy does not. For more information, go to National Catholic Reporter's story at http://ncronline.org/news/politics/group-aims-mobilize-catholics-equality
Catholic bishops have been among the most vocal opponents of marriage equality - lending both their time and our treasure to ballot initiatives to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman - as it was defined in Genesis, a definition repeated by Jesus in his teaching about divorce. In other words, the Bishops are proof texting like they were Protestants. The spirit of both scriptures is the teaching that when two people marry, they are no longer members of their families of origin and are instead a new family. That is as applicable to gays and lesbians as it is to heterosexual unions. Indeed, the theology of marriage is that the Church and community are only a witness to the marriage. The parties themselves actually perform the Sacrament. Only an outdated understanding of human sexuality provides any reason to believe that this scripture should not apply to our wonderfully made gay and lesbian bretheren. Indeed, I would go further than legal equality - I would aver that the wedding ceremony is for families and that it is wrong to deny a Catholic wedding ceremony to the very heterosexual families of gay and lesbian couples.
The acting Executive Director of the group is Phil Attey. Among the other founding board members are Aniello Alioto, as well as a cascade of stars from the marriage equality movement, including:
Anne Underwood, a leader in Maine’s Catholics for Marriage Equality; Patsy Trujillo, a former state representative from Santa Fe, N.M.; Eugene McMullan, lead organizer of Catholics for Marriage Equality in California; Charles Martel, a clinical social worker and co-coordinator of Roman Catholics for Marriage Equality in Massachusetts; and Tony Adams, a resigned Catholic priest who writes for Queer New York and South Florida Gay News.
Their main strategy is to enhance their visibilty through "equality brunches" so that rank and file Catholic leaders actually break bread with gays and lesbians on the theory that it is harder to discriminate against someone that you know. Of course, the many of us with a gay and lesbian family member don't need a brunch to meet someone who is harmed by the Church's attitude to marriage equality, we need only gather for the holidays.
I suspect there will be blowback on this - however the more the hierarchy resists - indeed, the more forcefully they do so, the closer we are to winning the hearts and minds of the remainder of the Church.
The group's web page is http://catholicsforequality.org/
Friday, September 24, 2010
Tea Party: True Believers or Fifth Column
Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter ran a series this week on his Distinctly Catholic Blog about the Tea Party. Here is my comment on his last installment:
The Tea Party is a multi-headed beast, however certain factions, like the Tea Party Express, are made up of the most conservative Republicans - socially, economically and culturally - and they are funded by David Koch through a variety of means. While some factions have no desire to be tagged as organs of the Republican Party, such as the Tea Party Patriots, the TPE desires to control it - either because they think that their ideas will win with voters or because they are trying to discredit the entire movement. The jury is out whether they are true believers or Libertarian Party fifth columnists. I suspect that they may be a little of both and that they have been successful because there is a perceived leadership vacuum in the Republican Party and they had the funding to step in.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Gay Marriage ruling
I have not blogged on this here as yet. The issue has come up in the Catholic media and I have been commenting, but have not posted those comments on this site. It seems the main objection I hear to Judge Walker's ruling from Catholics (from my Pastor to Michael Sean Winters of National Catholic Reporter) is his finding that moral disapproval cannot be a source of law. You can read MSW's post at http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/more-gay-marriage-ruling
I responded to Mr. Winters that he should be glad that the common law and the consitution allows the "privacy out" on such questions, as well as the freedom of relgions to do what they want. You would not like the alternative - for a state that is empowered to rule on the wrongness of homosexuality would also be able to rule on its rightness and impose that ruling on the Churches.
By the way, the Church's teaching on this issue is not consistent with any natural law reasoning that does not seek refuge in scripture and theism. That's not my view, its the view of the author of Fagothy's Right and Reason, which is the ethics book used in Catholic minor seminary.
The teaching that homosexuality is disordered is a band-aid. Prior to that teaching, which is recent, the church was on the road to teaching that homosexuals were wonderfully made and that sexuality is a gift from God. Put the two together, and you have to concede gay marriage and the licitness of homosexual sexuality. JPII, assisted by the current Pope, attempted retrenchment - but it won't last.
Traditionally, Catholic teaching on marriage has followed the lead of the state and in some nations, marriage and its sacramental blessing are still separate acts. This presents a problem for the Church, which can be solved in understanding Torah teaching on what happens in marriage, which Christ echoed when addressing the question of divorce. When someone gets married, the leave their families and cling to their spouse and the two shall become one. That is as much about legality as sexuality and it is true regardless of the genders of the parties involved. What was disturbing was the parents of gay children excluding their life partners in times of medical crisis and the state not recognizing their rights in relation to the rights of the family. This had to be corrected and marriage corrects it. Celebrating weddings in the Catholic Church is a way for families to recognize that the familial dynamic has altered. To not celebrate gay weddings is to deny Catholic families with gay members the chance to come to grips with the transition, which comes when one person promises fidelity to another - which is the essence of sacramental marriage and does not depend upon either priest nor witness (as I was taught in both marriage prep and Catholic H.S.).
On the question of moral disapproval, it could have easily been written as moral scorn - meaning that moral scorn is no more an actionable right under the freedom of religion (demanding conformity by society, such as outlawing the marriage rights of others or their right to serve in the armed forces) than yelling fire in a theater is a legitimate application of the freedom of speech. This protects the Church in areas in the south where the prominent domination still holds to and teaches the belief that the Pope is the anti-Christ. You cannot have it both ways.
I suspect gay marriages in the Catholic Church in the not too distant future, since often the Sacrament follows the lead of civil law. As far as the Commonwealth of Virginia's marriage amendment, it is all but toast. It was unconstitutional on its face because it violated the private contract rights of gays and lesbians for now valid reason, since the Commonwealth has no interest in interfering with who has medical power of attorney, control over visitation and who inherits the property of gay people. Its only role in settling estates is as a neutral arbiter, it cannot outlaw an individual's desires for the distribution of his or her property just because that person is gay. I suspect that worries about the Richmond Circuit are why this has not been challenged before, although it could be that no one has come forward to challenge such arrangements when they do occur and are executed. Either family members have not objected or Courts have ignored the constitutional provision. Now that there is federal precident going the other way, any attempt to enforce the Virginia Amendment would be problematic, although I expect it to eventually occur.
I responded to Mr. Winters that he should be glad that the common law and the consitution allows the "privacy out" on such questions, as well as the freedom of relgions to do what they want. You would not like the alternative - for a state that is empowered to rule on the wrongness of homosexuality would also be able to rule on its rightness and impose that ruling on the Churches.
By the way, the Church's teaching on this issue is not consistent with any natural law reasoning that does not seek refuge in scripture and theism. That's not my view, its the view of the author of Fagothy's Right and Reason, which is the ethics book used in Catholic minor seminary.
The teaching that homosexuality is disordered is a band-aid. Prior to that teaching, which is recent, the church was on the road to teaching that homosexuals were wonderfully made and that sexuality is a gift from God. Put the two together, and you have to concede gay marriage and the licitness of homosexual sexuality. JPII, assisted by the current Pope, attempted retrenchment - but it won't last.
Traditionally, Catholic teaching on marriage has followed the lead of the state and in some nations, marriage and its sacramental blessing are still separate acts. This presents a problem for the Church, which can be solved in understanding Torah teaching on what happens in marriage, which Christ echoed when addressing the question of divorce. When someone gets married, the leave their families and cling to their spouse and the two shall become one. That is as much about legality as sexuality and it is true regardless of the genders of the parties involved. What was disturbing was the parents of gay children excluding their life partners in times of medical crisis and the state not recognizing their rights in relation to the rights of the family. This had to be corrected and marriage corrects it. Celebrating weddings in the Catholic Church is a way for families to recognize that the familial dynamic has altered. To not celebrate gay weddings is to deny Catholic families with gay members the chance to come to grips with the transition, which comes when one person promises fidelity to another - which is the essence of sacramental marriage and does not depend upon either priest nor witness (as I was taught in both marriage prep and Catholic H.S.).
On the question of moral disapproval, it could have easily been written as moral scorn - meaning that moral scorn is no more an actionable right under the freedom of religion (demanding conformity by society, such as outlawing the marriage rights of others or their right to serve in the armed forces) than yelling fire in a theater is a legitimate application of the freedom of speech. This protects the Church in areas in the south where the prominent domination still holds to and teaches the belief that the Pope is the anti-Christ. You cannot have it both ways.
I suspect gay marriages in the Catholic Church in the not too distant future, since often the Sacrament follows the lead of civil law. As far as the Commonwealth of Virginia's marriage amendment, it is all but toast. It was unconstitutional on its face because it violated the private contract rights of gays and lesbians for now valid reason, since the Commonwealth has no interest in interfering with who has medical power of attorney, control over visitation and who inherits the property of gay people. Its only role in settling estates is as a neutral arbiter, it cannot outlaw an individual's desires for the distribution of his or her property just because that person is gay. I suspect that worries about the Richmond Circuit are why this has not been challenged before, although it could be that no one has come forward to challenge such arrangements when they do occur and are executed. Either family members have not objected or Courts have ignored the constitutional provision. Now that there is federal precident going the other way, any attempt to enforce the Virginia Amendment would be problematic, although I expect it to eventually occur.
The New Roman (Catholic) Missal
America Magazine, and I am sure the rest of the Catholic media as well, are reporting that the new English translation of the Roman Missal has been approved (with minor changes at the end). The new translation will be used exclusively starting at the begining of Advent 2011. You can read the story at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3200
This will lead many parishes who abandonned the use of Missalettes to bring them back, which is probably a good thing for those who wish to read the scriptures as they are proclaimed - however it will be costly. Those parishes who use hard copy missals will need to replace them, which will be very costly and may not happen in time, considering that service music is still being adapted.
Music ministers will probably take the lead in some of the cathechises, since many things which are sung will be changed, like the translation of the Sanctus. I suspect that in many parishes, the Pastor will be glad to let the Cantors take the lead in this instruction.
As I have written previously, this could go well or it could be the straw that breaks the camels back regarding the American and English speaking Church's relationship to Rome. Creation of a new Great Church, or rather a revitalization of the ancient Galatian Church (which was Gallic, i.e., made up of people with blond or red hair and blue or green eyes) is a real possibility - and plays right in with Benedict XVI's new dialogues with His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome (which is a claim of petrine descent). If the Galatian Church decided to create its own Patriarch, it could also establish its own Rite and Missal. Because of the ancient origins of the Galatian Church, such an action would even be scriptural. Indeed, other Churches could, and likely will, follow suit, if the American bolt from Rome.
Personally, I like the Roman Rite and find it discordant that the lapsing translation was so different from the Latin. This new translation is not too different than my feeling about the Extraordinary Rite, which is that it should be celebrated in both Latin and in the Venacular. I suspect that the new translation is the halfway point between the lapsing translation and a Venacular Extraordinary Rite - and if we continue in union with Rome, this is likely a good place to end up, although abandonning such union certainly opens the door to a reconsideration of certain other issues which may be beneficial in the long run - i.e., married priests, female priests, openly gay priests and openly gay married female priests (whose marriages could be celebrated with the pagentry of the Extraordinary Rite, just to add a note of irony that will drive some Traditionalists absolutely crazy).
This will lead many parishes who abandonned the use of Missalettes to bring them back, which is probably a good thing for those who wish to read the scriptures as they are proclaimed - however it will be costly. Those parishes who use hard copy missals will need to replace them, which will be very costly and may not happen in time, considering that service music is still being adapted.
Music ministers will probably take the lead in some of the cathechises, since many things which are sung will be changed, like the translation of the Sanctus. I suspect that in many parishes, the Pastor will be glad to let the Cantors take the lead in this instruction.
As I have written previously, this could go well or it could be the straw that breaks the camels back regarding the American and English speaking Church's relationship to Rome. Creation of a new Great Church, or rather a revitalization of the ancient Galatian Church (which was Gallic, i.e., made up of people with blond or red hair and blue or green eyes) is a real possibility - and plays right in with Benedict XVI's new dialogues with His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople and New Rome (which is a claim of petrine descent). If the Galatian Church decided to create its own Patriarch, it could also establish its own Rite and Missal. Because of the ancient origins of the Galatian Church, such an action would even be scriptural. Indeed, other Churches could, and likely will, follow suit, if the American bolt from Rome.
Personally, I like the Roman Rite and find it discordant that the lapsing translation was so different from the Latin. This new translation is not too different than my feeling about the Extraordinary Rite, which is that it should be celebrated in both Latin and in the Venacular. I suspect that the new translation is the halfway point between the lapsing translation and a Venacular Extraordinary Rite - and if we continue in union with Rome, this is likely a good place to end up, although abandonning such union certainly opens the door to a reconsideration of certain other issues which may be beneficial in the long run - i.e., married priests, female priests, openly gay priests and openly gay married female priests (whose marriages could be celebrated with the pagentry of the Extraordinary Rite, just to add a note of irony that will drive some Traditionalists absolutely crazy).
Catholic Gay Marriage Poll
America Magazine is reporting on a poll regarding religious attitudes on Gay Marriage. You can read the artice at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3204
This is a telling finding. I suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to grow among the laity (and secretly among the clergy) and that one day soon enough families will demand that the Church witness these weddings that Rome will discover scriptural justification for doing so.
Both Torah and Jesus recognize that when a couple gets married, they leave their family and cling to each other, forming a new family. Families are the basic unit of society and marriage is an essential part of family life, both because it creates new families and allows the exit from one's family of birth. From a civil rights perspective, marriage cannot be denied to gay people because they cannot be kept in their families of origin against their will. Morally, the proof that the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is accomplished by the couple and only witnessed by the priest, is alive and well in the gay community, is how committed gay couples take care of each other in hard times (and gay people have harder times than most). As Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them.
the Public Religion Research Institute sheds light on the impact of religion and the 2008 vote to abolish same-sex marriage rights in California. The poll finds that today, a slim majority of Roman Catholics, 51%, support same-sex marriage
This is a telling finding. I suspect that support for gay marriage will continue to grow among the laity (and secretly among the clergy) and that one day soon enough families will demand that the Church witness these weddings that Rome will discover scriptural justification for doing so.
Both Torah and Jesus recognize that when a couple gets married, they leave their family and cling to each other, forming a new family. Families are the basic unit of society and marriage is an essential part of family life, both because it creates new families and allows the exit from one's family of birth. From a civil rights perspective, marriage cannot be denied to gay people because they cannot be kept in their families of origin against their will. Morally, the proof that the Sacrament of Matrimony, which is accomplished by the couple and only witnessed by the priest, is alive and well in the gay community, is how committed gay couples take care of each other in hard times (and gay people have harder times than most). As Jesus said, by their fruits ye shall know them.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Lessons from an abortion in Phoenix
If you read the Catholic press or blogosphere, you undoubtedly have come across the story of the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride, who served on the hospital ethics board and as hospital administrator where the board recommended that an abortion be performed on a pregnant woman suffering from pulmonary hypertension because of her pregnancy, which was way to early on to induce labor and put the child on life support. I have given ample comment on the NCR and America web pages, as have many others, as to whether ending the pregnancy was justified, either directly or indirectly and whether it is moral cowardice to stand behind such terms as "indirect abortion" in order to justify saving the life of the mother. You can read one article in NCR here and I am sure there are links to others: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/mercy-sister-margaret-mcbride-speaks-out-her-silence
I am not going to take the usual stance on this event. Its been done and done well, both from the feminist perspective and from the Catholic moralist perspective. I will instead bring a bit of scripture to the issue, as well as my training in organization theory and bureaupathology.
Part of the criticism of Sister Margaret's actions were that she did not notify the local bishop in advance of the situation to get his guidance. In other words, she broke the chain of command. I am not sure this is a valid criticism, since everyone knows what Bishop Olmsted would have done. It is demonstrated by his excommunicaiton of Sister. He would have said no. He really had no choice in the matter, since ascenting to the abortion would have caused him to share in the taint of it, even if he did not procure it himself. I suspect that in his mind, he would have been as culpable as Sister Margaret for the abortion (as if he could really stop it). In other words, he would have likely put the state of his own soul before the life of the woman who's pregnancy - and let's face it - who's child was killing her for a reason only known to the pathologist who did the post mortem.
Is the life of another worth your own soul? Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, in Chapter 13 (often read at weddings) asks what does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his own soul, however such an interpretation takes the concept of saving your soul out of context. Paul was talking about having love as the great gift that lasts. Putting one's own moral scruples ahead of the life of another hardly qualifies as a loving act, to either the woman or even to the child who is doomed should his mother die. The more applicable scripture is the one where the Lord cautions that he who would preserve his own life will lose it, but he who gives up his own life will save it.
Had Bishop Olmsted approved of the abortion ahead of time, or concurred with the action of the committee, he would have faced the same kind of consequences he felt necessary to impose on Sister Margaret. It would have been an act of moral bravery and faith in God one does not expect much from American Catholic bishops. It would have also had major blowback. Some fanatic who makes a fetish of life, probably one of his flock, would have complained to Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, the USCCB as a whole and to the Papal Nuncio in Washington. There would be talk that he was excommunicate for putting the life of the mother ahead of the life of the child. Indeed, he would have been at risk of losing his Benefice - his diocese, the house, the towncar and the authority of office. He would have given up his life in order to save our as yet unnamed mother of four who was in danger of death.
I have no knowledge of whether these factors entered into his Excellency's moral calculus - however if they did he reached the wrong decision. Only he can answer for his own motivations - and answer he will - not to us, but to God. I would be remiss, however, if I did not urge him to consider the motivations for his decision and seek absolution if required. Indeed, I would urge the USCCB to examine their motivations on this question and see if their actions were motivated by love or by authority - not because they must answer to me or to all of us in the Church (although in reality they do), but because they must answer to God for both their actions and their motivations.
I am not going to take the usual stance on this event. Its been done and done well, both from the feminist perspective and from the Catholic moralist perspective. I will instead bring a bit of scripture to the issue, as well as my training in organization theory and bureaupathology.
Part of the criticism of Sister Margaret's actions were that she did not notify the local bishop in advance of the situation to get his guidance. In other words, she broke the chain of command. I am not sure this is a valid criticism, since everyone knows what Bishop Olmsted would have done. It is demonstrated by his excommunicaiton of Sister. He would have said no. He really had no choice in the matter, since ascenting to the abortion would have caused him to share in the taint of it, even if he did not procure it himself. I suspect that in his mind, he would have been as culpable as Sister Margaret for the abortion (as if he could really stop it). In other words, he would have likely put the state of his own soul before the life of the woman who's pregnancy - and let's face it - who's child was killing her for a reason only known to the pathologist who did the post mortem.
Is the life of another worth your own soul? Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, in Chapter 13 (often read at weddings) asks what does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his own soul, however such an interpretation takes the concept of saving your soul out of context. Paul was talking about having love as the great gift that lasts. Putting one's own moral scruples ahead of the life of another hardly qualifies as a loving act, to either the woman or even to the child who is doomed should his mother die. The more applicable scripture is the one where the Lord cautions that he who would preserve his own life will lose it, but he who gives up his own life will save it.
Had Bishop Olmsted approved of the abortion ahead of time, or concurred with the action of the committee, he would have faced the same kind of consequences he felt necessary to impose on Sister Margaret. It would have been an act of moral bravery and faith in God one does not expect much from American Catholic bishops. It would have also had major blowback. Some fanatic who makes a fetish of life, probably one of his flock, would have complained to Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia, the USCCB as a whole and to the Papal Nuncio in Washington. There would be talk that he was excommunicate for putting the life of the mother ahead of the life of the child. Indeed, he would have been at risk of losing his Benefice - his diocese, the house, the towncar and the authority of office. He would have given up his life in order to save our as yet unnamed mother of four who was in danger of death.
I have no knowledge of whether these factors entered into his Excellency's moral calculus - however if they did he reached the wrong decision. Only he can answer for his own motivations - and answer he will - not to us, but to God. I would be remiss, however, if I did not urge him to consider the motivations for his decision and seek absolution if required. Indeed, I would urge the USCCB to examine their motivations on this question and see if their actions were motivated by love or by authority - not because they must answer to me or to all of us in the Church (although in reality they do), but because they must answer to God for both their actions and their motivations.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Archbishop Wuerl's comments
Washington Archbishop Wuerl offerred his perspective as the Chairman of the Committee on Doctrine for the American Bishops. It was an attempt to praise the role of women in the Church as a way to soft pedal the recent actions by the Vatican to raise the level of seriousness with which those who illictly ordain women are treated - which was released at the same time that the Church cracked down on viewing child pornography by the clergy and other aspects of how it will deal with sexual abuse by clergy. The timing of these announcements has universally been considered bad. You can find the Archbishop's statement many places. I read it on America Magazine's site, which you can see at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3121
My comments, which are yet to be published on the site because they have upped their level of review, are as follows:
Ordination occurs within the confines of the government of the Church. It does not help matters to ordain women outside of this. To disobey this rule is to actively resist the structure of the Church and it is no surprise that the hierarchy will react badly.
Whether ordination of women is invalid does not depend on whether it is illicit. Ancient history indicates that there were women at all levels of the Church in its earliest times, but the counter-cultural nature of this was quickly overcome by the dominant male culture.
It is naive, however, to claim that a valid ordination will ever be accepted as licit without first gaining permission and it actually hurts the cause of female ordination to do so - at least within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Within the context of a non-Roman Catholicism that seeks its own legitimacy, what Rome says is moot. I am sure we can debate what is more scandalous - strking out on one's own or forcing women into doing so.
The old bulls who insist that female ordination is invalid will retire or die soon enough. Time will not wait for them nor will time end when they are gone. This explains the stridency of their current rhetoric. The fact that A/B Wuerl is joining the chorus is only proof that they are dangling a red hat in front of his face. Whether he maintains the status quo after he receives it and the old bulls have retired will be one of the most interesting questions in the life of the Church.
My comments, which are yet to be published on the site because they have upped their level of review, are as follows:
Ordination occurs within the confines of the government of the Church. It does not help matters to ordain women outside of this. To disobey this rule is to actively resist the structure of the Church and it is no surprise that the hierarchy will react badly.
Whether ordination of women is invalid does not depend on whether it is illicit. Ancient history indicates that there were women at all levels of the Church in its earliest times, but the counter-cultural nature of this was quickly overcome by the dominant male culture.
It is naive, however, to claim that a valid ordination will ever be accepted as licit without first gaining permission and it actually hurts the cause of female ordination to do so - at least within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Within the context of a non-Roman Catholicism that seeks its own legitimacy, what Rome says is moot. I am sure we can debate what is more scandalous - strking out on one's own or forcing women into doing so.
The old bulls who insist that female ordination is invalid will retire or die soon enough. Time will not wait for them nor will time end when they are gone. This explains the stridency of their current rhetoric. The fact that A/B Wuerl is joining the chorus is only proof that they are dangling a red hat in front of his face. Whether he maintains the status quo after he receives it and the old bulls have retired will be one of the most interesting questions in the life of the Church.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Paying for Doctors and the Unemployed
On America Magazine today, there is a discussion about a Washington Post article from over the weekend about a permanent fix for the payment of primary care physicians. Of late, their has been a group of libertarian dissenters responding to Michael Sean Winters. More than often, I come to MSW's defense. You can see the debate at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=3023&comment=1&success=1 and see the original story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061804700.html. I responded to the knee jerk libertarians, who relied on the American concept of rights rather than the positive rights recognized by the Church - and then related the whole thing to the abortion question. I then offerred a solution to the canundrum of the "Doc Fix" as well as the ultimate fix for other problems in both Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance. Here is what I said:
...the right to health care that MSW was referring to was not one found in the constitution but in Catholic doctrine. Not all considerations of what people are entitled to need to be referenced in American ideals of liberty. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church states that there are positive rights that people are entitled to, regardless of what their governments declare, and among these are health care and a fair living wage (meaning that families need to earn enough to survive and larger families deserve greater consideration). To the extent that political or economic libertarianism is inconsistent with this teaching is the extent that Catholics must ignore their politics and support doctrine. This is also true in abortion - however in all cases, it is best left to the Catholic politicans to say how this is best done. Note that the Social Security system was designed in consultation with a Jesuit priest based on Catholic social encyclicals (Fr. Ryan). I would argue that living wage legislation is the best way to solve both our economic obligations and our obligation to protect the lives of the unborn (just as providing low cost or mandatory rehab is a better way to fight alcoholism than prohibition).
On the subject of paying for care - paying for a doctor fix, the medical needs of the baby boomers, the need to provide affordable medical coverage to people on COBRA and the need to provide for extended unemployment insurance all have a ready made answer, although many will find it distateful. These are all from funds that were designed to be self-supporting originally. Expansions of these programs or merely making them cost effective must ultimately be funded by raising their dedicated revenue streams - however we need not do so in advance of need. We can drop the requirement that the Medicare trust fund maintain some type of long term balance that must be pre-funded. It would be better to allow the tax rate to be raised automatically than to mandate budget cuts instead - or perhaps we can mandate a mix of both unless Congress acts.
In the short term, deficit finance is necessary - however in the long term, subsidizing COBRA, funding doctor fees adequately, providing for longer term unemployment and for Medicare Part D is best done with payroll tax hikes. Indeed, in the area of unemployment - a higher tax rate may have employers think again before assuming that laying people off is in their best interests. The whole point of the tax was to add a little bit of pain to the decision to reduce payrolls to save money. Perhaps this is just the time to make that pain increase.
...the right to health care that MSW was referring to was not one found in the constitution but in Catholic doctrine. Not all considerations of what people are entitled to need to be referenced in American ideals of liberty. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church states that there are positive rights that people are entitled to, regardless of what their governments declare, and among these are health care and a fair living wage (meaning that families need to earn enough to survive and larger families deserve greater consideration). To the extent that political or economic libertarianism is inconsistent with this teaching is the extent that Catholics must ignore their politics and support doctrine. This is also true in abortion - however in all cases, it is best left to the Catholic politicans to say how this is best done. Note that the Social Security system was designed in consultation with a Jesuit priest based on Catholic social encyclicals (Fr. Ryan). I would argue that living wage legislation is the best way to solve both our economic obligations and our obligation to protect the lives of the unborn (just as providing low cost or mandatory rehab is a better way to fight alcoholism than prohibition).
On the subject of paying for care - paying for a doctor fix, the medical needs of the baby boomers, the need to provide affordable medical coverage to people on COBRA and the need to provide for extended unemployment insurance all have a ready made answer, although many will find it distateful. These are all from funds that were designed to be self-supporting originally. Expansions of these programs or merely making them cost effective must ultimately be funded by raising their dedicated revenue streams - however we need not do so in advance of need. We can drop the requirement that the Medicare trust fund maintain some type of long term balance that must be pre-funded. It would be better to allow the tax rate to be raised automatically than to mandate budget cuts instead - or perhaps we can mandate a mix of both unless Congress acts.
In the short term, deficit finance is necessary - however in the long term, subsidizing COBRA, funding doctor fees adequately, providing for longer term unemployment and for Medicare Part D is best done with payroll tax hikes. Indeed, in the area of unemployment - a higher tax rate may have employers think again before assuming that laying people off is in their best interests. The whole point of the tax was to add a little bit of pain to the decision to reduce payrolls to save money. Perhaps this is just the time to make that pain increase.
Public Accommodation and Liberty
As I was relaxing at the pool at my condo this past weekend (which has lifeguards who are guest workers and clientele which reflects our multi-ethnic mix of owners and renters), I had a final thought on the whole Rand Paul debacle over the public accommodations provisions in the Civil Rights Act.
The standard libertarian critique over these provisions, which Paul expressed to Rachel Maddow, is that private property holders should be able to refuse service to whomever they please, even if it is based on racism. My usual response is that if a business is open to the public, especially if it is incorporated, it cannot do that. Indeed, private clubs are still free to discriminate - as much as we dislike that. Someone who does business from their private home can certainly not take all clients, but if the public space is used, the freedom to deny service does not exist. Hanging a sign that says "open" rather than "by appointment only" pretty much obligates you to take all comers.Let me now add another piece to the argument - one that shuts down any libertarian objection to public accommodation.
The essential part of the freedom to exclude is what happens when someone comes in and demands service, even though a "White's Only" sign hangs in the door. The police are called, or private security is summoned, and violence is used to remove the person. This fact alone should settle the question for any true libertarian, since the violence involved was most likely governmental violence. Indeed, without direct violence, or a right of private violence, restricting service based on race is impossible, especially when the excluded parties come in anyway. If big L libertarians are really serious about their pledge to do no violence, then public accommodation laws are actually the most libertarian option - much more than a faux respect for private party which really masks a culture of violent racism.
Let's now remove the "right to refuse service" meme from the liberty conversation forever.
The standard libertarian critique over these provisions, which Paul expressed to Rachel Maddow, is that private property holders should be able to refuse service to whomever they please, even if it is based on racism. My usual response is that if a business is open to the public, especially if it is incorporated, it cannot do that. Indeed, private clubs are still free to discriminate - as much as we dislike that. Someone who does business from their private home can certainly not take all clients, but if the public space is used, the freedom to deny service does not exist. Hanging a sign that says "open" rather than "by appointment only" pretty much obligates you to take all comers.Let me now add another piece to the argument - one that shuts down any libertarian objection to public accommodation.
The essential part of the freedom to exclude is what happens when someone comes in and demands service, even though a "White's Only" sign hangs in the door. The police are called, or private security is summoned, and violence is used to remove the person. This fact alone should settle the question for any true libertarian, since the violence involved was most likely governmental violence. Indeed, without direct violence, or a right of private violence, restricting service based on race is impossible, especially when the excluded parties come in anyway. If big L libertarians are really serious about their pledge to do no violence, then public accommodation laws are actually the most libertarian option - much more than a faux respect for private party which really masks a culture of violent racism.
Let's now remove the "right to refuse service" meme from the liberty conversation forever.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
DADT repeal and Catholic reaction
In yesterday's America Magazine blog, Michael Sean Winters opined on the repeal deal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which was negotiated in Washington over the past few days with Secretary Gates' grudging acceptance. Quite a debate ensued, which I of course participated in. You can read the ongoing debate here http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2920
The "Unit Cohesion" argument eventual boils down to the ability of some members to have their moral scorn over another's sexuality treated with heightened respect in the areas of freedom of association and religion. Moral scorn is no more deserving of such protection under these rights than shouting fire in a theater should be protected under freedom of speech. The age when the United States should police the morality of its military members or civilian employees is over - as well it should be in a nation founded on the protection of individual rights. I talk about DADT in my book, Musings from the Christian Left in my essay on Iraq here http://xianlp.blogspot.com/2009/10/lessons-from-war-in-iraq-geocities.html and about gay rights here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2009/10/gay-rights-geocities-rescue.html
Some will say we were founded as a Christian nation (which I spoke about a few days ago here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/america-as-christian-nation.html. Actually, the founders of the government were deists and the original settlers were a particular kind of Christian - the anti-Catholic kind. For this reason, I am bemused whenever a Catholic uses the Christian Nation meme, since until 50 years ago it was used against Al Smith and was almost used against John F. Kennedy.
There is something unseemly about any group of people who were once a persectured minority who is no longer persecuted and instead persecutes others. The classical church did it in the 4th Century and now the American Church is doing it. Sad. It reminds me of the parable of the ungrateful servant.
The "Unit Cohesion" argument eventual boils down to the ability of some members to have their moral scorn over another's sexuality treated with heightened respect in the areas of freedom of association and religion. Moral scorn is no more deserving of such protection under these rights than shouting fire in a theater should be protected under freedom of speech. The age when the United States should police the morality of its military members or civilian employees is over - as well it should be in a nation founded on the protection of individual rights. I talk about DADT in my book, Musings from the Christian Left in my essay on Iraq here http://xianlp.blogspot.com/2009/10/lessons-from-war-in-iraq-geocities.html and about gay rights here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2009/10/gay-rights-geocities-rescue.html
Some will say we were founded as a Christian nation (which I spoke about a few days ago here http://xianleft.blogspot.com/2010/05/america-as-christian-nation.html. Actually, the founders of the government were deists and the original settlers were a particular kind of Christian - the anti-Catholic kind. For this reason, I am bemused whenever a Catholic uses the Christian Nation meme, since until 50 years ago it was used against Al Smith and was almost used against John F. Kennedy.
There is something unseemly about any group of people who were once a persectured minority who is no longer persecuted and instead persecutes others. The classical church did it in the 4th Century and now the American Church is doing it. Sad. It reminds me of the parable of the ungrateful servant.
The Bishops letter to Congress on ENDA
America Magazine reports that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to Congress on May 19, on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) , focusing on same-sex marriage. the letter is quite a read and quite a disappointment. One of its authors was Washington Archbishop Wuerl. You can read the letter here http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2923#comments
The Church's teaching on homosexuality need not impact how it behaves as an employer. It must be respectful toward its employees rights - it need not celebrate their unions or affirm their sexual practices.There should be no more an exception here than for race. While Catholics may not seek a religious exemption for race, many evangelical churches are divided upon racial lines and such division should not be affirmed by religious exemptions to ENDA. The Church should not more discriminate against gay marriages, which actually affirm marriage as a concept, the same way it should not discriminate on race.
The function of marriage in civil society (and indeed in religion as well) is to make official the separation of a person from their family of origin and to recognize their freely chosen union with a spouse. As such, it dissolves rights for some and creates rights for others. There is no rational basis for denying such ability to rearrange one's family affairs for gay family members when it is automatic for straight family members. It has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the right of association at the most intimate level. It is also why objections to redefining marriage to include a brother or mother carry no weight, as such relations are already existent in the law. Marriage severs the primacy of these relations and gives them to the spouse.
The Federal case on Proposition 8 actually shows that ENDA will not be necessary, since Prop 8 will be overturned without ENDA (the Bishops think ENDA will be part of the legal argument for overturning it). Prop. 8 will be overturned because it was motivated by animus for a class worthy of protection. It is interesting that the Bishops mention Roe. The letter shows that whoever drafted it does not understand Roe and why it was decided - or that the primacy of individual rights over state majorities actually protects the Church in places where Catholics are rare - Alabama and Mississippi come to mind (places where pluralities believe the Pope is the Antichrist).
As for the associational rights of others, there is no right to discriminate from moral scorn, nor should there be, within the freedoms of either religion or association. My feeling is that the people in the pews are way out in front of the Bishops on this. If they had consulted us, we would have said to recognize gay marriages and those of us with gay family members would demand that they also be celebrated sacramentally. This demand is what truly scares the Bishops.
The Church's teaching on homosexuality need not impact how it behaves as an employer. It must be respectful toward its employees rights - it need not celebrate their unions or affirm their sexual practices.There should be no more an exception here than for race. While Catholics may not seek a religious exemption for race, many evangelical churches are divided upon racial lines and such division should not be affirmed by religious exemptions to ENDA. The Church should not more discriminate against gay marriages, which actually affirm marriage as a concept, the same way it should not discriminate on race.
The function of marriage in civil society (and indeed in religion as well) is to make official the separation of a person from their family of origin and to recognize their freely chosen union with a spouse. As such, it dissolves rights for some and creates rights for others. There is no rational basis for denying such ability to rearrange one's family affairs for gay family members when it is automatic for straight family members. It has nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the right of association at the most intimate level. It is also why objections to redefining marriage to include a brother or mother carry no weight, as such relations are already existent in the law. Marriage severs the primacy of these relations and gives them to the spouse.
The Federal case on Proposition 8 actually shows that ENDA will not be necessary, since Prop 8 will be overturned without ENDA (the Bishops think ENDA will be part of the legal argument for overturning it). Prop. 8 will be overturned because it was motivated by animus for a class worthy of protection. It is interesting that the Bishops mention Roe. The letter shows that whoever drafted it does not understand Roe and why it was decided - or that the primacy of individual rights over state majorities actually protects the Church in places where Catholics are rare - Alabama and Mississippi come to mind (places where pluralities believe the Pope is the Antichrist).
As for the associational rights of others, there is no right to discriminate from moral scorn, nor should there be, within the freedoms of either religion or association. My feeling is that the people in the pews are way out in front of the Bishops on this. If they had consulted us, we would have said to recognize gay marriages and those of us with gay family members would demand that they also be celebrated sacramentally. This demand is what truly scares the Bishops.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Kagan Question (is she or isn't she?)
The President has nominated a new Supreme Court Justice. This summer, I am sure this town will be full of activists on both sides. In religious circles, questions abound about about two areas on which she will spend the least amount of time: abortion and gay marriage. Ms. Kagan's nomination is complicated by the fact that she recommended to President Clinton that he sign the Partial Birth Abortion Bill (which Bush signed and the Court upheld) and by suspicions that she may be a lesbian due to her marital status. Indeed, my better read competitor, America Magazine, contains a story today in its online issue, which you can read at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2901. I also received an email today from one of Liberty U.'s lawyers, Matt Barber, but I won't discuss it since it was, frankly, reasoned badly (as one would expect from Barber).
As I wrote on the comment page, elections matter. Indeed, if the GOP would stop demagoging abortion for their electoral agenda and really address how to get beyond Roe in reducing abortion (by using Congressional action instead of attempting to overturn most equal protection doctrine by overturning Roe), they might have gotten more Catholic votesin the last election and be nominating someone else - although considering who they put on the ticket (an abortion demagogue who was not even familiar with the arguments on her own side) - that was unlikely to happen anyway. In other words, in a world of sane anti-abortion policy, Sarah Palin would not be where she was (or is).I don't expect abortion to come up again judicially for the foreseeable future - accept around the edges. Indeed, partial birth is already decided, although Congress could change the law and there would be no court case for Kagan to hear, since the law was upheld because of Congressional power.
There are seven votes against overturning Roe - three of whom no counting Stevens - who were GOP appointees. When O'Connor retired, she was replaced origionally with Roberts - which replaced a pro-Roe centrists with one of the same. Roberts than replaced Rehnquist, which was an anti-Roe loss, since the former CJ voted with Scalia and Thomas. Souter was replaced by Sotomayor - a moderate for a moderate and now Stevens is being replaced by Kagan. This is a loss for the pro-choice side, since Stevens was in that camp while Kagan, who told Clinton to sign the Partial Birth Abortion Act, is probably moderate on the issue. We are left with two pro-choicers (Breyer and Ginsburg), two pro-lifers (Thomas and Scalia) and five in the middle (Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Kagan). Maybe I am wrong on elections mattering. They do matter on who gets to chose - however the choser appears not to be the most pro-abortion President in history.I do expect economic issues to come up more. I hope that Kagan votes like a liberal - although given her mainstream career path, it is a hope, not an expectation.
Her sexuality matters not, although even if she were a lesbian, I would hope she sides with Kennedy on the issue of gay marriage - against a body of state passed constitutional amendments which are motivated by malice towards a minority group and which, therefore, cannot be constitutional. It would be no more inappropriate to put Kagan on to agree with such basic justice as it was to put a prior Solictor General on the Court (Marshall) in order to vote correctly on civil rights matters. Even if the left puts up a hue and cry about her moderation on abortion, I doubt Obama will dump his long time friend (unlike Bush, who dumped Meyers and did not even come close to appointing Gonzales). Unless there is a total GOP fillibuster against her (and I doubt Bennett would follow it), she is in.
As I wrote on the comment page, elections matter. Indeed, if the GOP would stop demagoging abortion for their electoral agenda and really address how to get beyond Roe in reducing abortion (by using Congressional action instead of attempting to overturn most equal protection doctrine by overturning Roe), they might have gotten more Catholic votesin the last election and be nominating someone else - although considering who they put on the ticket (an abortion demagogue who was not even familiar with the arguments on her own side) - that was unlikely to happen anyway. In other words, in a world of sane anti-abortion policy, Sarah Palin would not be where she was (or is).I don't expect abortion to come up again judicially for the foreseeable future - accept around the edges. Indeed, partial birth is already decided, although Congress could change the law and there would be no court case for Kagan to hear, since the law was upheld because of Congressional power.
There are seven votes against overturning Roe - three of whom no counting Stevens - who were GOP appointees. When O'Connor retired, she was replaced origionally with Roberts - which replaced a pro-Roe centrists with one of the same. Roberts than replaced Rehnquist, which was an anti-Roe loss, since the former CJ voted with Scalia and Thomas. Souter was replaced by Sotomayor - a moderate for a moderate and now Stevens is being replaced by Kagan. This is a loss for the pro-choice side, since Stevens was in that camp while Kagan, who told Clinton to sign the Partial Birth Abortion Act, is probably moderate on the issue. We are left with two pro-choicers (Breyer and Ginsburg), two pro-lifers (Thomas and Scalia) and five in the middle (Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Kagan). Maybe I am wrong on elections mattering. They do matter on who gets to chose - however the choser appears not to be the most pro-abortion President in history.I do expect economic issues to come up more. I hope that Kagan votes like a liberal - although given her mainstream career path, it is a hope, not an expectation.
Her sexuality matters not, although even if she were a lesbian, I would hope she sides with Kennedy on the issue of gay marriage - against a body of state passed constitutional amendments which are motivated by malice towards a minority group and which, therefore, cannot be constitutional. It would be no more inappropriate to put Kagan on to agree with such basic justice as it was to put a prior Solictor General on the Court (Marshall) in order to vote correctly on civil rights matters. Even if the left puts up a hue and cry about her moderation on abortion, I doubt Obama will dump his long time friend (unlike Bush, who dumped Meyers and did not even come close to appointing Gonzales). Unless there is a total GOP fillibuster against her (and I doubt Bennett would follow it), she is in.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Debating prayer and salvation in the blogosphere
In Sunday's Washington Post, Kathleen Parker commented on Franklin Graham's prayers in the Pentagon parking lot during what would have been his chance to lead a military prayer service - an offer that was withdrawn by the Pentagon. You can read the commentary at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050704065.html. In his daily blog, Michael Sean Winters reviews her comments in a way that indicates he does not get what she was talking about. You can read his comments at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2864.
I think Winters missed her point about the commonality of spiritual experience, which she tried to show with neuroscience, as cited in Barbara Bradley Haggerty's book Fingerprints of God. She contrasted Haggerty's views with Graham's worldview and apparently MSW's on Christian exceptionalism. Her conclusion was that God does not play favorites in making connections - with her proof being that the neurostate associated with prayer is not a result of the act of praying but the result of God responding and establishing some kind of connection. In other words, she is positing the universality (and measurability) of grace.
I agree that God does not play favorites arbitrarily - and certainly not on racial lines. I do believe He does have favorite ontologies, however we are judged based on how we do them as individuals, not groups. Judging groups would not be favored by God under such a theory. Whether one is for or against Jesus is not a matter of self-identification or group identity, but how one conforms their actions to the law of Love. Anyone can do that and group membership does not assure anyone that they are doing it well. What is most exceptional about Jesus were his divinity and universality. Jesus said that if you were doing his work, you were for him - as many of his parables reveal. The judge of the sheep and the goats did not go in for labels, he cared about results - by their fruits ye shall know them.
In recent days, many of the commenters on Winter's daily blog have wondered over the issue of lurkers being led astray (and the state of orthodoxy of the Jesuits and why they employ Winters). To an extent, the left and the right are arguing past each other on many issues. I think conservatives have a fantasy that what they have been taught is immutable and that violating that immutability will lead others astray and into damnation. At the core of this seems to be a belief that the moral law exists for divine happiness rather than human happiness - which is heretical because a God that can be made unhappy is not a god at all (God being happiness itself).
This reminds me of a discussion in ethics class in minor seminary about whether we ought to follow the moral law because doing so makes us completely happy or because the perfection of God demands it. I got a B because I did not believe in a duty to God. We are not necessary for God, God is necessary for us. Once we believe we are necessary for God, we replicate the pride of Lucifer. The fruit of that pride is uncharitability to others, including and especially in the political sphere, where the DC area is ground zero and some of the argument is fiercest. Both sides share some of the blame for this tone, however the greater tragedy is an uncharitable morality on the right that departs from the Law of Love while seeking the letter of the law. This is especially the case in the Church's rather recent teaching that homosexuality is disordered, which has led some Catholic gay teens to suicide. If driving someone to suicide is not leading them astray, I cannot image what is.
I think Winters missed her point about the commonality of spiritual experience, which she tried to show with neuroscience, as cited in Barbara Bradley Haggerty's book Fingerprints of God. She contrasted Haggerty's views with Graham's worldview and apparently MSW's on Christian exceptionalism. Her conclusion was that God does not play favorites in making connections - with her proof being that the neurostate associated with prayer is not a result of the act of praying but the result of God responding and establishing some kind of connection. In other words, she is positing the universality (and measurability) of grace.
I agree that God does not play favorites arbitrarily - and certainly not on racial lines. I do believe He does have favorite ontologies, however we are judged based on how we do them as individuals, not groups. Judging groups would not be favored by God under such a theory. Whether one is for or against Jesus is not a matter of self-identification or group identity, but how one conforms their actions to the law of Love. Anyone can do that and group membership does not assure anyone that they are doing it well. What is most exceptional about Jesus were his divinity and universality. Jesus said that if you were doing his work, you were for him - as many of his parables reveal. The judge of the sheep and the goats did not go in for labels, he cared about results - by their fruits ye shall know them.
In recent days, many of the commenters on Winter's daily blog have wondered over the issue of lurkers being led astray (and the state of orthodoxy of the Jesuits and why they employ Winters). To an extent, the left and the right are arguing past each other on many issues. I think conservatives have a fantasy that what they have been taught is immutable and that violating that immutability will lead others astray and into damnation. At the core of this seems to be a belief that the moral law exists for divine happiness rather than human happiness - which is heretical because a God that can be made unhappy is not a god at all (God being happiness itself).
This reminds me of a discussion in ethics class in minor seminary about whether we ought to follow the moral law because doing so makes us completely happy or because the perfection of God demands it. I got a B because I did not believe in a duty to God. We are not necessary for God, God is necessary for us. Once we believe we are necessary for God, we replicate the pride of Lucifer. The fruit of that pride is uncharitability to others, including and especially in the political sphere, where the DC area is ground zero and some of the argument is fiercest. Both sides share some of the blame for this tone, however the greater tragedy is an uncharitable morality on the right that departs from the Law of Love while seeking the letter of the law. This is especially the case in the Church's rather recent teaching that homosexuality is disordered, which has led some Catholic gay teens to suicide. If driving someone to suicide is not leading them astray, I cannot image what is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)