Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Neumayr Doubles Down
Neumayr Doubles Down my comments: By the rules of what consitutes a marriage, and more important, who (its the couple, not the priest), being a lesbian in a long term marital relationship is not a sinful act and the Church cannot make it so. Canon 915 is also a bad example of proof texting - Catholic style. When Corinthians was written, or doctrinal understanding of worthiness and unworthiness to receive Communion had more to do with apostacy than sins aganst chastity (assuming homosexuality is a sin, which it is not within the context of marriage). Further, it is not up to the priest to prevent the sacrilege when it does occur - at least in the modern Church. If Ms. Jordan were formally excommunicate, then publicly denying the sacrament may be called for. She was not, so it is not the priest's business. As to her Budhist practice, it is a practice, not a faith. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. It is not apostacy to chant, meditate and show compassion. Indeed, one is hardly a Catholic if one does not due these things.
Garnett Responds to MSW
Garnett Responds to MSW MGB response: Of course MSW agrees more with Garnett than disagrees, because you basically assume that the bishops are correct on certain doctrines (gay marriage, contraception), when there are those of us on the real left who will entertain the notion that they are not. We are not rejectionists, meaning we don't claim that the bishops should simply be ignored because we should be free to disagree. Rather, we instead think that they are in error on the theology on morality and that God is on the side of change.
Silk on Stearns' Ruling
Silk on Stearns' Ruling by MSW. My response: Letting a religious institution violate the terms of the statement of work because of their beliefs, rather than simply letting them bring their faith commitment to that task to add value, would be the establishment of religion and it is not permitted. Having served as both a contract specialist in the government and as a proposal manager on grants, including to HHS, not first winning on the statement of work question by challenging its contents before the proposal was submitted was a waste of time. While there is a procedure to deal with exceptions to the statement of work in a proposal - on an issue this controversial, it was simply insane to not raise the issue loudly and publicly at the RFQ release rather than waiting until the award was announced. The Church's difficulty here is that they cannot cry pluralism as a defense when their goal is that no provider include contraceptive and abortion services to a population that arguably has been subject to rape (so Hatch does not apply). You can't try to first impose your beliefs on everyone and then complain that they are imposing theirs on you.
Cafeteria Catholics: A Longish Response to Rick Garnett
Cafeteria Catholics: A Longish Response to Rick Garnett by MSW
The difference Cuomo should have highlighted, aside from echoing JFK on the fact that Christendom has no place in American politics (with Christendom being defined as the bishops using discipline to get Catholic politicians to vote right), is the fact that not a lot can be done about abortion rights, save going through the complex task of getting Congress to grant personhood to the unborn (something states cannot constitutionally do). Quite a bit can, and is, done on the other issues - from war and peace to funding more effective adult education and family income support programs - which take money and alliances with faith based institutions to do well. Conservatives focus on what they and liberal Catholics cannot do precisely because it allows them to not do anything on those issues where progress is possible. The bishops abet them in this task, and they should not.
The theology of the empty tomb on these issues is complex, as the empty tomb is the claim that the Lord was justified in his actions on the cross. What we believe about the crucifixion has a lot to do with what be believe about morality. If Jesus was on a vision quest to experience human suffering, then the magic moment of salvation was when he cried out to God in agony in the voice of the suffering servant. If the magic moment was his death in order to satisfy divine blood lust, than morality must take take a more conservative voice - favoring orthodoxy and justification over charity and individual responsibility and punishment over community solutions to abortion. It is the key question, but I don't think this is what MSW meant.
The difference Cuomo should have highlighted, aside from echoing JFK on the fact that Christendom has no place in American politics (with Christendom being defined as the bishops using discipline to get Catholic politicians to vote right), is the fact that not a lot can be done about abortion rights, save going through the complex task of getting Congress to grant personhood to the unborn (something states cannot constitutionally do). Quite a bit can, and is, done on the other issues - from war and peace to funding more effective adult education and family income support programs - which take money and alliances with faith based institutions to do well. Conservatives focus on what they and liberal Catholics cannot do precisely because it allows them to not do anything on those issues where progress is possible. The bishops abet them in this task, and they should not.
The theology of the empty tomb on these issues is complex, as the empty tomb is the claim that the Lord was justified in his actions on the cross. What we believe about the crucifixion has a lot to do with what be believe about morality. If Jesus was on a vision quest to experience human suffering, then the magic moment of salvation was when he cried out to God in agony in the voice of the suffering servant. If the magic moment was his death in order to satisfy divine blood lust, than morality must take take a more conservative voice - favoring orthodoxy and justification over charity and individual responsibility and punishment over community solutions to abortion. It is the key question, but I don't think this is what MSW meant.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Bishop Robinson and the redemption of Eros
Bishop Robinson and the redemption of Eros by Eugene Collin Kennedy. My response: Eros is healthy, however the issue goes beyond just eros to the whole relationship between man and God and how we essentially understand God. The doctrine of a natural order that must be upheld is actually a sophistry to create a standard of perfection that God must uphold in his justice while not having violation of that order diminish God himself. There is no such order outside of human experience, which is the Bishop's ultimate point. A perfect God is not damaged by violations of moral principles, we are or aren't. If we are not, then the moral principle is up for grabs.
A Horrible Court Decision in Mass.
A Horrible Court Decision in Mass. by MSW My response: The Church can certainly live out its Gospel message in the charitable realm acting as Church - but it must use its own money to do so. Once it takes public money to do so, it must act as an agent of the state. It can not impose its own conditions for doing the state's business on the state without being seen as becoming an established religion. The statement of work is not negotiable. The Church is certainly free to bring its sense of mission to the public work it does, but it cannot dictate what work is to be done, especially if it becomes the exclusive provider. If all Churches were funded without competition, say with a tax credit, there could be a marketplace of solutions. If there is only one, then it must toe the public line. If the bishops wish to force the state to adhere to their demands, that is Christendom - and it violates the establishment clause. Period.
Monday, March 26, 2012
The ACA Heads to SCOTUS
The ACA Heads to SCOTUS by MSW
I also have always believed that this penalty is, in fact, a tax, and that the Court will likely quickly rule that it is and that further consideration of its constitutionality must wait until the tax is collected, leaving all other issues in abeyance until that occurs – although, frankly, it would be an act of judicial malpractice to let clients go forward on a what would be a Quixotic quest against the taxing power to bring this up again.
That is the first hurdle and it is the out that the Court is looking for to avoid the complicated constitutional question. The second is that the dollars funding the public relations campaign against the law are not brought out because the donors object to the mandate, but because the non-wage income payroll taxes which will take effect soon are costing rich people money - especially since there are no offsets to paying them or passing the cost to customers - essentially turning these taxes into a VAT. Indeed, a VAT would be less objectionable than keeping these taxes in place, because the burden is more broadly shared, more visible and refundable at the border.
As an aside, the objection to using the threat of loss of federal funding to enforce Medicaid reforms is a long objection of so called “Federalists” (who are in truth, states rights supporters, which is something different) has never gained much traction, from using highway funding to enforce the 55 mile per hour speed limit to using the same funding to force a 21 year old drinking age. It is an unsophisticated objection. I made the same argument in Iowa Model legislature when in High School – contending that the clause prohibiting differing regulations of commerce or revenue applied. Any first year law student or historian will point out that this clause applies to international trade, not the regulation of interstate commerce or the use of intergovernmental funds. We suspect that the Court has likely allowed it to be argued to kill this argument once and for all. To expect either a radical rethinking of the Commerce Clause or intergovernmental funding requirements will occur at this time is the legal equivalent of believing in unicorns.
The opposition to reform is well funded and sophisticated. We believe it has nothing to do with mandates, the Commerce Clause or Medicaid funding. The real reason conservative major donors don't like the law is the funding mechanism for much of reform. Wealthy donors are writing checks because of provisions creating additional taxes on un-earned income that fix Medicare Part A funding and fund other health care reform, essentially turning the Hospital Insurance Tax into a Value Added Tax with an exemption on profits paid to the 98%. Fighting for repeal on this basis, however, would only be politically unpopular. Only judicial repeal would of the whole law stops this tax hike, although there is no justification for not severing this portion from the law, even if the mandate falls.
Note that whenever this tax applies to those whose holding operate in less than a perfectly competitive market, in other words to most commerce in 21st century America, the costs will likely be passed to the consumer and it would be more honest to simply enact a Value Added Tax or VAT-like Net Business Receipts Tax.
I also have always believed that this penalty is, in fact, a tax, and that the Court will likely quickly rule that it is and that further consideration of its constitutionality must wait until the tax is collected, leaving all other issues in abeyance until that occurs – although, frankly, it would be an act of judicial malpractice to let clients go forward on a what would be a Quixotic quest against the taxing power to bring this up again.
That is the first hurdle and it is the out that the Court is looking for to avoid the complicated constitutional question. The second is that the dollars funding the public relations campaign against the law are not brought out because the donors object to the mandate, but because the non-wage income payroll taxes which will take effect soon are costing rich people money - especially since there are no offsets to paying them or passing the cost to customers - essentially turning these taxes into a VAT. Indeed, a VAT would be less objectionable than keeping these taxes in place, because the burden is more broadly shared, more visible and refundable at the border.
As an aside, the objection to using the threat of loss of federal funding to enforce Medicaid reforms is a long objection of so called “Federalists” (who are in truth, states rights supporters, which is something different) has never gained much traction, from using highway funding to enforce the 55 mile per hour speed limit to using the same funding to force a 21 year old drinking age. It is an unsophisticated objection. I made the same argument in Iowa Model legislature when in High School – contending that the clause prohibiting differing regulations of commerce or revenue applied. Any first year law student or historian will point out that this clause applies to international trade, not the regulation of interstate commerce or the use of intergovernmental funds. We suspect that the Court has likely allowed it to be argued to kill this argument once and for all. To expect either a radical rethinking of the Commerce Clause or intergovernmental funding requirements will occur at this time is the legal equivalent of believing in unicorns.
The opposition to reform is well funded and sophisticated. We believe it has nothing to do with mandates, the Commerce Clause or Medicaid funding. The real reason conservative major donors don't like the law is the funding mechanism for much of reform. Wealthy donors are writing checks because of provisions creating additional taxes on un-earned income that fix Medicare Part A funding and fund other health care reform, essentially turning the Hospital Insurance Tax into a Value Added Tax with an exemption on profits paid to the 98%. Fighting for repeal on this basis, however, would only be politically unpopular. Only judicial repeal would of the whole law stops this tax hike, although there is no justification for not severing this portion from the law, even if the mandate falls.
Note that whenever this tax applies to those whose holding operate in less than a perfectly competitive market, in other words to most commerce in 21st century America, the costs will likely be passed to the consumer and it would be more honest to simply enact a Value Added Tax or VAT-like Net Business Receipts Tax.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Friendly Advice to USCCB
Friendly Advice to USCCB from MSW. My response (from MGB): The problem is that bishops effectively are Lords of the Manor, when that system of government is mostly out of style for the reason that it does not work. The USCCB's bureaurcatic problem is that it hires true believers rather than folks who will give them the bad news. Of course, that traces back to not wanting to hear the bad news in the first place. You can't hear it if you think you are always right. There is no cure for invincible hubris. That, of course, comes back to how they are selected. The Church won't break if we change that. It might if we don't. Since the Lord promised that it would never break, I expect change because I have faith in the Lord (not in the hierarchy).
Thursday, March 22, 2012
See For Yourself
See For Yourself by MSW. My response: I suspect we would pay more attention to what the bishops say on these issues, including when we agree, if they would spend more time listening to us before speaking for the entire Church. Some of us have expertise in these matters that is greater than what they (or their staffs) have.
Warning for Dems in Pew Survey
Warning for Dems in Pew Survey by MSW
This has as much to do with lies by the Susan B. Anthony fund on the effects of health care reform as it does any action having to do with contraception. This poll as limited usefullness unless there is a crosstab having to do with 2008 voting preferences. If the change in the belief on Obama and hostility to religion is all among McCain voters who watch FoxNews, then it says more about the success of that meme rather than the actions of the administration on women's health.
I'm sure if you phrased the question on whether religous employers should have the right to get between a woman and her doctor, you would get a very different answer. Indeed, the two facts that apologists for the bishops ignore are that contraceptive coverage has been required since December 2000 and that it was not feminists in HHS that decided it should be covered with no copay, but the National Institutes of Medicine.
This has as much to do with lies by the Susan B. Anthony fund on the effects of health care reform as it does any action having to do with contraception. This poll as limited usefullness unless there is a crosstab having to do with 2008 voting preferences. If the change in the belief on Obama and hostility to religion is all among McCain voters who watch FoxNews, then it says more about the success of that meme rather than the actions of the administration on women's health.
I'm sure if you phrased the question on whether religous employers should have the right to get between a woman and her doctor, you would get a very different answer. Indeed, the two facts that apologists for the bishops ignore are that contraceptive coverage has been required since December 2000 and that it was not feminists in HHS that decided it should be covered with no copay, but the National Institutes of Medicine.
The Ryan Budget: The Law of the Jungle
The Ryan Budget: The Law of the Jungle by MSW
My comments: Libertarianism is no cancer. Indeed, the hierarchy of the Church could use a decent respect for liberty and tolerance, which they seem to be deficient in, even as they call for respect of their conscience rights while ignoring the conscience rights of church employees (or, for that matter, members). Speaking in our name on issues in the public square while being tone deaf to our wishes is not sufficient for us to follow their lead, so most of us don't.
Catholic Randians (and there are more libertarians than Randians) like to think that charity is a private matter, which it is. What they are tone deaf to is the demand for justice, which is a matter for the state. It includes the responsibility to either require a living wage or, if this would be a hardship to most employers, to have the state backstop the ability to pay one with tax subsidies for families. Randians in the Church can be forgiven for not highlighting this, as the Church is notorious for underpaying its staff. Indeed, there would be no birth control issue if every pregnancy were met with a $12,000 a year salary boost (after taxes and tax benefits are factored in).
The GOP is just tone deaf enough to pass the Ryan Budget, even if it is political suicide. Ryan's own district won't like it, so his career in Congress won't be long if he has any kind of decent opponent. This is not a negotiating document or a political document, its a fundraising document.
If the GOP were willing to negotiate, premium support actually works in the context of health care reform, as long as they drop the pipe dream of repeal. It does not work outside of it, where seniors can be excluded. It is a key part of Social Insurance, which is necessary in the interests of justice to hold seniors and their families harmless for accidents of birth and death. Large families or families where the parents have died are no more entitled to a windfall on this front than small families or families with living seniors are responsible for bearing the cost of their support and care. Social insurance gives every family an equal standard of living in relation to the responsibility to care for their elders. Providing the emotional care is bad enough without having the prospect of bankruptcy going with it. Of course, a free market might have families with seniors demand the ability to cover them on the family insurance policy, which means everyone still pays for the care of seniors, but unevenly.
The Church's opposition on assisted suicide would be strengthened, no weakened, if it would return to its tolerance of letting people die when it is there time, essentially passive euthenasia. The tribalist buy-in to the pro-life's fetish for preserving all life, even when hopeless, needs to stop, as is the implicit acceptance that people die early when you ease their pain aggressively. The purpose of suffering is personal epiphany, not some egotistic desire to appease an angry God with self-torture.
The Medicaid changes are a throw-away. Reagan's New Federalism, as well as several tax reform proposals actually have Medicaid being entirely federalized in exchnage for dropping tax deductions for state tax payments. Droppping these deductions in tax reform AND block granting Medicaid will be a non-starter for most governors, even Republicans.
To be fair to Ryan, the responsibility to close loopholes rests with the Ways and Means Committee, not the Budget Committee. I don't see him instructing Ways and Means to do tax reform that drops all deductions, which is what it would take to get this done - however the 25% rate that Ryan wants needs to be replaced with a 27% rate, unless you enact a VAT on top of it and drop special rates for dividends and capital gains. Then you can go lower, but probably need to drop the 10% rate in doing so and take most families off the tax rolls.
Not cutting defense is a non-starter, although merely going with the cuts the Pentagon proposed might be middle ground. Budget balance will never be the goal with either party, just structural balance until the nations which buy our debt complain.
My comments: Libertarianism is no cancer. Indeed, the hierarchy of the Church could use a decent respect for liberty and tolerance, which they seem to be deficient in, even as they call for respect of their conscience rights while ignoring the conscience rights of church employees (or, for that matter, members). Speaking in our name on issues in the public square while being tone deaf to our wishes is not sufficient for us to follow their lead, so most of us don't.
Catholic Randians (and there are more libertarians than Randians) like to think that charity is a private matter, which it is. What they are tone deaf to is the demand for justice, which is a matter for the state. It includes the responsibility to either require a living wage or, if this would be a hardship to most employers, to have the state backstop the ability to pay one with tax subsidies for families. Randians in the Church can be forgiven for not highlighting this, as the Church is notorious for underpaying its staff. Indeed, there would be no birth control issue if every pregnancy were met with a $12,000 a year salary boost (after taxes and tax benefits are factored in).
The GOP is just tone deaf enough to pass the Ryan Budget, even if it is political suicide. Ryan's own district won't like it, so his career in Congress won't be long if he has any kind of decent opponent. This is not a negotiating document or a political document, its a fundraising document.
If the GOP were willing to negotiate, premium support actually works in the context of health care reform, as long as they drop the pipe dream of repeal. It does not work outside of it, where seniors can be excluded. It is a key part of Social Insurance, which is necessary in the interests of justice to hold seniors and their families harmless for accidents of birth and death. Large families or families where the parents have died are no more entitled to a windfall on this front than small families or families with living seniors are responsible for bearing the cost of their support and care. Social insurance gives every family an equal standard of living in relation to the responsibility to care for their elders. Providing the emotional care is bad enough without having the prospect of bankruptcy going with it. Of course, a free market might have families with seniors demand the ability to cover them on the family insurance policy, which means everyone still pays for the care of seniors, but unevenly.
The Church's opposition on assisted suicide would be strengthened, no weakened, if it would return to its tolerance of letting people die when it is there time, essentially passive euthenasia. The tribalist buy-in to the pro-life's fetish for preserving all life, even when hopeless, needs to stop, as is the implicit acceptance that people die early when you ease their pain aggressively. The purpose of suffering is personal epiphany, not some egotistic desire to appease an angry God with self-torture.
The Medicaid changes are a throw-away. Reagan's New Federalism, as well as several tax reform proposals actually have Medicaid being entirely federalized in exchnage for dropping tax deductions for state tax payments. Droppping these deductions in tax reform AND block granting Medicaid will be a non-starter for most governors, even Republicans.
To be fair to Ryan, the responsibility to close loopholes rests with the Ways and Means Committee, not the Budget Committee. I don't see him instructing Ways and Means to do tax reform that drops all deductions, which is what it would take to get this done - however the 25% rate that Ryan wants needs to be replaced with a 27% rate, unless you enact a VAT on top of it and drop special rates for dividends and capital gains. Then you can go lower, but probably need to drop the 10% rate in doing so and take most families off the tax rolls.
Not cutting defense is a non-starter, although merely going with the cuts the Pentagon proposed might be middle ground. Budget balance will never be the goal with either party, just structural balance until the nations which buy our debt complain.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Cohn: "Stunning Immorality of Ryan Budget"
Cohn: "Stunning Immorality of Ryan Budget" by MSW
My take on Ryan:
This is just for show. With the Budget Control Act, his committee is largely irrelevant - as it should be. His Medicaid proposals are a non-starter, because they would hurt current seniors who need nursing home care and the Tea Party would never allow them to go through, nor would AARP. The Medicare proposals he lays out are incoherent, because they include repealing Obamacare. The only way premiu...um support works is if both mandates and pre-existing condition reforms in the law remain in place.
The only tax change that will pass is a grand bargain at 28%, not 25%. That 3% is the difference between structural balance and ever expanding debt. Obama holds all the cards, since he can get the same level of revenue, and then some, by vetoing any extension of the Bush tax cuts. If Grover Norquist and the leadership don't get the inevitability of more revenue, the donors who will be paying it certainly do, provided they believe that Obama won't geek on extending the Bush cuts.
The conflict is all for electoral show. Once all the congressional primaries have been held, a deal will be reached because GOP donors want it that way, unless they already know Obama will geek on extending temporary tax cuts (in which case we might as well all vote for Romney).
My take on Ryan:
This is just for show. With the Budget Control Act, his committee is largely irrelevant - as it should be. His Medicaid proposals are a non-starter, because they would hurt current seniors who need nursing home care and the Tea Party would never allow them to go through, nor would AARP. The Medicare proposals he lays out are incoherent, because they include repealing Obamacare. The only way premiu...um support works is if both mandates and pre-existing condition reforms in the law remain in place.
The only tax change that will pass is a grand bargain at 28%, not 25%. That 3% is the difference between structural balance and ever expanding debt. Obama holds all the cards, since he can get the same level of revenue, and then some, by vetoing any extension of the Bush tax cuts. If Grover Norquist and the leadership don't get the inevitability of more revenue, the donors who will be paying it certainly do, provided they believe that Obama won't geek on extending the Bush cuts.
The conflict is all for electoral show. Once all the congressional primaries have been held, a deal will be reached because GOP donors want it that way, unless they already know Obama will geek on extending temporary tax cuts (in which case we might as well all vote for Romney).
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Bishop urges change in 'church teaching concerning all sexual relationships'
Bishop urges change in 'church teaching concerning all sexual relationships'
The bishop is absolutely correct that a rethinking is necessary. The question of first princples is not just about sex, but whether all morality is for God or for man. Was the sacrifice of Jesus a blood offering to an angry God or a vision quest by a loving God to feel human brokenness? When Jesus said that his yoke is easy and his burden light, was he telling the truth? If so, how can we believe that every sexual sin is mortal - especially when venial sin's actual meaning is "sins of Venus" - which implies sex?
While a total rethinking of all sexual morality is required, which would include a reexamination of birth control (and how using birth control is no different procreatively than sex after menopause), rethinking whether homosexual sex is licit within the bounds of a monogamous sacramental relationship need not involve such rethinking, as blessing such relationships is affirming and well within the scriptural teaching that when two become one in marriage, they leave their families and cleave to their spouse. This is as true for gays as it is for straights, especially when a gay spouse faces uncooperative family members in trying to assume their God-given role as next of kin in hospital care.
The bishop is absolutely correct that a rethinking is necessary. The question of first princples is not just about sex, but whether all morality is for God or for man. Was the sacrifice of Jesus a blood offering to an angry God or a vision quest by a loving God to feel human brokenness? When Jesus said that his yoke is easy and his burden light, was he telling the truth? If so, how can we believe that every sexual sin is mortal - especially when venial sin's actual meaning is "sins of Venus" - which implies sex?
While a total rethinking of all sexual morality is required, which would include a reexamination of birth control (and how using birth control is no different procreatively than sex after menopause), rethinking whether homosexual sex is licit within the bounds of a monogamous sacramental relationship need not involve such rethinking, as blessing such relationships is affirming and well within the scriptural teaching that when two become one in marriage, they leave their families and cleave to their spouse. This is as true for gays as it is for straights, especially when a gay spouse faces uncooperative family members in trying to assume their God-given role as next of kin in hospital care.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Dillon on Contraceptives & Expectations
Dillon on Contraceptives & Expectations by MSW at NCR
Going back to Ozzie and Harriet is not what society needs. She does raise an interesting point, however, on the empowerment of women to work or not work - or if they have the better job to allow their spouses to stay home and care for the children. As younger women are now better educated than women, this is increasingly an option, provided women are socialized to accept a non-working spouse (even after the kids go to school - golf anyone?)
Rather than stepping between women and the coverage that their doctors say is essential to them, which sometimes are necessary for reasons other than birth regulation, it should, as an employer, pay women a living wage (or their husbands) - defined as a $12,000 raise whenever a child is born - or even on the way so that the family can relocate to bigger housing before the blessed event occurs. If Catholic Charities, Parishes, Catholic Schools and Catholic Hospitals all adopted that policy, none of their employees would opt for contraception for economic reasons. Of course, conservatives are likely to quickly object, saying that individuals should be responsible for their child bearing decisions. Our task, and indeed the task of Catholic theologicans, should be to say in no uncertain terms that they can't have it both ways.
The Church should provide an example of living wage policy. Sadly, it is not the case. They should also use the efforts they are wasting on contraception (even though no one is listening) to advocate for a large enough child tax credit so that economics is not a factor in childbearing - or even so that it actually encourages it. I would even go further and advocate the excommunication of Catholic employers who don't pay such a living wage, since they are essentially participating in the decision to abort or use contraception. Of course to do that, the Church must offer such a wage and make sure its vendors do the same thing.
Sadly, the reason that this is still an issue is that Catholic theologians have dropped the ball. Natural science tells us that until gastrulation, the development of the blastocyst is entirely controlled by the DNA of the mother, even though the paternal DNA is present. It is not until gastrulation that paternal DNA interacts with maternal DNA in development and that bad matches or incomplete DNA is weeded out and the whole of the genetic code controls the development of the child. In classical ethics, the higher follows the lower - which means the actions of the physical shows what is happening on the spiritual level. This seems to indicate that if the maternal DNA is in charge, it is the mother's life energy that is in control of development before gastrulation.
This brings up the point of where the soul resides. Neuroscience has shown it does not reside in consciousness. Consciousness is an effect of thought, not its cause. If there is a soul (and because I believe in the resurrection as witnessed by the apostles, so I do), it resides not in the brain only but in every cell of the body, including the egg. It has to be the energy that stops entropy from acting on the body and that energy must begin at gastrulation, but cannot exist before. It is no longer acceptable to allow the argument to exist that ensoulment cannot occur until the brain can receive a soul - since neuroscience proves this is not the case. Either there is no soul or it is in every cell. Theologians should champion an "ever cell" theory of ensoulment - even if doing so requires that they concede that Humanae Vitae was in error on this issue. The reason they can't bring them selves to do that is a question for sociology, not theology.
Going back to Ozzie and Harriet is not what society needs. She does raise an interesting point, however, on the empowerment of women to work or not work - or if they have the better job to allow their spouses to stay home and care for the children. As younger women are now better educated than women, this is increasingly an option, provided women are socialized to accept a non-working spouse (even after the kids go to school - golf anyone?)
Rather than stepping between women and the coverage that their doctors say is essential to them, which sometimes are necessary for reasons other than birth regulation, it should, as an employer, pay women a living wage (or their husbands) - defined as a $12,000 raise whenever a child is born - or even on the way so that the family can relocate to bigger housing before the blessed event occurs. If Catholic Charities, Parishes, Catholic Schools and Catholic Hospitals all adopted that policy, none of their employees would opt for contraception for economic reasons. Of course, conservatives are likely to quickly object, saying that individuals should be responsible for their child bearing decisions. Our task, and indeed the task of Catholic theologicans, should be to say in no uncertain terms that they can't have it both ways.
The Church should provide an example of living wage policy. Sadly, it is not the case. They should also use the efforts they are wasting on contraception (even though no one is listening) to advocate for a large enough child tax credit so that economics is not a factor in childbearing - or even so that it actually encourages it. I would even go further and advocate the excommunication of Catholic employers who don't pay such a living wage, since they are essentially participating in the decision to abort or use contraception. Of course to do that, the Church must offer such a wage and make sure its vendors do the same thing.
Sadly, the reason that this is still an issue is that Catholic theologians have dropped the ball. Natural science tells us that until gastrulation, the development of the blastocyst is entirely controlled by the DNA of the mother, even though the paternal DNA is present. It is not until gastrulation that paternal DNA interacts with maternal DNA in development and that bad matches or incomplete DNA is weeded out and the whole of the genetic code controls the development of the child. In classical ethics, the higher follows the lower - which means the actions of the physical shows what is happening on the spiritual level. This seems to indicate that if the maternal DNA is in charge, it is the mother's life energy that is in control of development before gastrulation.
This brings up the point of where the soul resides. Neuroscience has shown it does not reside in consciousness. Consciousness is an effect of thought, not its cause. If there is a soul (and because I believe in the resurrection as witnessed by the apostles, so I do), it resides not in the brain only but in every cell of the body, including the egg. It has to be the energy that stops entropy from acting on the body and that energy must begin at gastrulation, but cannot exist before. It is no longer acceptable to allow the argument to exist that ensoulment cannot occur until the brain can receive a soul - since neuroscience proves this is not the case. Either there is no soul or it is in every cell. Theologians should champion an "ever cell" theory of ensoulment - even if doing so requires that they concede that Humanae Vitae was in error on this issue. The reason they can't bring them selves to do that is a question for sociology, not theology.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Bishops losing on birth control as religious liberty issue
Bishops losing on birth control as religious liberty issue The key clue is they've stopped talking about it at the pulpit. This issue was never a winner for them, as it turns out they've been paying for policies that include birth control since early 2001 as the result of an EEOC decision in December 2000. The fact that coverage is part of the status quo sort of eliminates their argument that the new policy is extreme.
GOP Results: Game On!
GOP Results: Game On! by Michael Sean Winters
There is no danger of Santorum winning the nomination, since the caucus states that Santorum "won" will mostly go to the establishment front runner. As far as Gingrich, unless he does really well in Louisianna, no one will be talking about him, whether he formally leaves the race or not. Romney v. Santorum is a test of who owns the GOP in 2012. What happens in 2016 is anyone's guess, but the demographics for them in Alabama and Mississippi will really start turning against them soon (just not this year). As far as birth control/religious freedom - MSW needs to take his share of the blame for using this space to gin up this issue more than it deserved and dragging the bishops and GOP into the wilderness with them.
There is no danger of Santorum winning the nomination, since the caucus states that Santorum "won" will mostly go to the establishment front runner. As far as Gingrich, unless he does really well in Louisianna, no one will be talking about him, whether he formally leaves the race or not. Romney v. Santorum is a test of who owns the GOP in 2012. What happens in 2016 is anyone's guess, but the demographics for them in Alabama and Mississippi will really start turning against them soon (just not this year). As far as birth control/religious freedom - MSW needs to take his share of the blame for using this space to gin up this issue more than it deserved and dragging the bishops and GOP into the wilderness with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)