Narratives That Blind by MSW
My response:
This entire issue was likely started over gay marriage and the desire on the part of the Church to avoid what legal gay marriage would entail - priests, many of them gay, quietly blessing these unions at the behest of families. Worse they fear gay priests seeking the right to marry or leaving the priesthood to do so.
Contraception was a last minute issue, which the GOP was certainly eager to jump on (which was likely the bonehead play of the year for them, since they can't win without women). Neither MSW or the Church should have taken the bait Axelrod floated, especially since contraception insurance coverage itself was been required of the Church since December 2000 (although I suspect most Catholic organization insurance policies covered it long before that because the employees demanded it).
Religous freedom is actually a better narrative to focus on than the debate over denying Catholic politicians Communion if they don't publicly toe the pro-life line (even though the prospects of overturning Roe on federalism grounds are essentially nil - so the whole narrative is a sham). I'm sure it would not be long before some bishops would start denying Communion to politicians who support gay marriage too.
I will still be shocked if A/B Lori does not say something about this once he takes his chair in Baltimore, especially if opponents succeed in putting the issue on the ballot. Attempting to use the Communion line to force the actions of Catholic politicians goes beyond religous freedom to Christendom. Such talk has no business in our constitutional republic and the bishops as a whole are wise to discourage it. Hopefully, the Nuncio will support them in this, including quietly threatening some of them with removal if they continue to take this line, as because he is a foreign ambassador, letting bishops who essentially work for him interfere with constitutional government is essentially sedition.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The marginalized pay for the church's ideological battles
The marginalized pay for the church's ideological battles by Jamie Manson
My response: The bishops are looking in the wrong place. Their greatest danger is that the people who fund them will eventually start demanding gay marriages for their children and siblings, which is why they are so afraid of a right to civil marriage. They also fear that their own priests, half of which are gay, will quietly bless these unions - or seek permission to leave the priesthood to get married themselves - thus forcing an end to mandatory celibacy and resistance to women's ordination. Gay marriage is the straw that may break the camel's back.
My response: The bishops are looking in the wrong place. Their greatest danger is that the people who fund them will eventually start demanding gay marriages for their children and siblings, which is why they are so afraid of a right to civil marriage. They also fear that their own priests, half of which are gay, will quietly bless these unions - or seek permission to leave the priesthood to get married themselves - thus forcing an end to mandatory celibacy and resistance to women's ordination. Gay marriage is the straw that may break the camel's back.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Henneberger on Pro-Life Stereotypes
Henneberger on Pro-Life Stereotypes by MSW
My response:
It is no accident that the post covers the right to life movement as a bit looney, because their strategy is essentially incoherent and is designed for emotional impact rather than a well defined and achievable policy goal. While it is laudable to want to recognize the rights of the unborn, going back to pre-Roe law won't do that. Abortion was regulated as a medical procedure, not as murder. As such, the way it was banned really did violate the privacy rights of women because under the law the fetus was not a legal person. Of coure, privacy goes away once the fetus is "personified" in law - however doing so in the first trimester is an impossible proposition, because of the prevlance of miscarriage. If every miscarried child is a person too, than miscarriage becomes a public event to be investigated by the criminal law and subject to civil tort lawsuits. This has a practical impact on the unborn, since no malpractice carrier will allow any obstetrician to give pre-natal care in the first trimester if doing so can lead to a neglicence suit if the person under their care dies (even though that death is better for the person and the species).
The fact that the movement won't face these questions, and design compromises that deal with them, shows the extent to which it is not about policy but about emotion to be tapped for electoral politics and fundraising. Also, the woman on the ladder may have easily been a poor woman having a miscarriage who makes too much to get Medicaid but not enough to have health insurance. Think about that next time you celebrate curbside protests.
My response:
It is no accident that the post covers the right to life movement as a bit looney, because their strategy is essentially incoherent and is designed for emotional impact rather than a well defined and achievable policy goal. While it is laudable to want to recognize the rights of the unborn, going back to pre-Roe law won't do that. Abortion was regulated as a medical procedure, not as murder. As such, the way it was banned really did violate the privacy rights of women because under the law the fetus was not a legal person. Of coure, privacy goes away once the fetus is "personified" in law - however doing so in the first trimester is an impossible proposition, because of the prevlance of miscarriage. If every miscarried child is a person too, than miscarriage becomes a public event to be investigated by the criminal law and subject to civil tort lawsuits. This has a practical impact on the unborn, since no malpractice carrier will allow any obstetrician to give pre-natal care in the first trimester if doing so can lead to a neglicence suit if the person under their care dies (even though that death is better for the person and the species).
The fact that the movement won't face these questions, and design compromises that deal with them, shows the extent to which it is not about policy but about emotion to be tapped for electoral politics and fundraising. Also, the woman on the ladder may have easily been a poor woman having a miscarriage who makes too much to get Medicaid but not enough to have health insurance. Think about that next time you celebrate curbside protests.
Monday, April 9, 2012
MSW Responds to Bowman & Garnett on HHS Mandates
MSW Responds to Bowman & Garnett on HHS Mandates by MSW
My response:
This is not merely a question of the rights of relgious organizations to resist government policy, but to resist what is considered essential medical care as determined by the Institutes of Medicine. The entitlement to coverage comes from the medical profession, not NARAL-Pro Choice America.
The new law did not institute requiring coverage of contraception - that was done by EEOC in 2000 - a fact that MSW consistently ignored. What is new is that coverage by employers is now mandatory (although I am not aware of Catholic employers who don't provide it now) and to be offered without copayment. The general ommission of this fact on both sides of the debate shows that both sides have an electoral interest in more heat and less light.
Ultimately, the religious liberty question is deeply tied to the moral question of contraception. Sterilization for economic or eugenic reasons is always wrong and should be resisted - but the Church should do this for its part by raising salaries by $12,000 per year for any staff member who adds a child to their family, regardless of wage - and by excommunicating Catholic employers who don't follow their example. Sterilization for medical necessity, however, is not the same thing and it is only prudishness tht resists it.
The question of abortion inducing drugs rests on the question of whether they do, in fact, end a human life rather than a potential human life. Since before gastrulation, the blastocyst is controlled by only the maternal genes, it must be inferred that it is also controlled by the soul which existed in the Ovum before fertilization - which is the soul or life force of the mother (the higher determines and is shown by the lower). Therefore, there is no life issue and the only objection is the sexual morality of employees. No employer, not even a religious one, has any right to say on it or to deny health insurance because of such objections.
The individual mandate will likely be considered constitutional and will likely lead to single payer, as it is inadequate to keep people insured in the face of pre-existing condition provisions and community rating (which will raise basic rates beyond where some can afford them).
My response:
This is not merely a question of the rights of relgious organizations to resist government policy, but to resist what is considered essential medical care as determined by the Institutes of Medicine. The entitlement to coverage comes from the medical profession, not NARAL-Pro Choice America.
The new law did not institute requiring coverage of contraception - that was done by EEOC in 2000 - a fact that MSW consistently ignored. What is new is that coverage by employers is now mandatory (although I am not aware of Catholic employers who don't provide it now) and to be offered without copayment. The general ommission of this fact on both sides of the debate shows that both sides have an electoral interest in more heat and less light.
Ultimately, the religious liberty question is deeply tied to the moral question of contraception. Sterilization for economic or eugenic reasons is always wrong and should be resisted - but the Church should do this for its part by raising salaries by $12,000 per year for any staff member who adds a child to their family, regardless of wage - and by excommunicating Catholic employers who don't follow their example. Sterilization for medical necessity, however, is not the same thing and it is only prudishness tht resists it.
The question of abortion inducing drugs rests on the question of whether they do, in fact, end a human life rather than a potential human life. Since before gastrulation, the blastocyst is controlled by only the maternal genes, it must be inferred that it is also controlled by the soul which existed in the Ovum before fertilization - which is the soul or life force of the mother (the higher determines and is shown by the lower). Therefore, there is no life issue and the only objection is the sexual morality of employees. No employer, not even a religious one, has any right to say on it or to deny health insurance because of such objections.
The individual mandate will likely be considered constitutional and will likely lead to single payer, as it is inadequate to keep people insured in the face of pre-existing condition provisions and community rating (which will raise basic rates beyond where some can afford them).
Easter
Easter by MSW
My meditation:
The resurrection of Jesus is the most radical of acts, since it reminds us that the social message of love, tolerance and equality Jesus delivered is endorsed by the Father. It also validates the fact that the Jesus who promised not to drink of the fruit of the vine on Holy Thursday, but did so after he echoed the cry of the Suffering Servant in Psalm 22 was justified by God, so that it is in his emotional suffering rather than his bloody death that we are saved - that God offers solidarity rather than demanding obedience, with a moral law that is for our purposes rather than some incomprehensible divine purpose.
Actually, considering alternatives to the resurrection strengthens faith in it. The alternatives all involve annihilation, either because we cease, we experience some kind of godless Nirvana or because we are nakedly exposed to the immensity of an eternal God in an eternal instant where we can't help but be absorbed into God in an eternal and unceasing perfect moment beyond time (which is the scariest prospect of all). Rather, we are resurrected as ourselves with a Christ who joins us in death so that we may join him in new life. You can't get to that place, however, unless you consider the alternatives. That is the difference between believing in the resurrection and believing in the belief of resurrection.
In order to really believe in resurrection, you must pass through suffering and despair - and not just by experiencing the sacraments of initiation. This is why we have Lent - to give those whose lives do not crush them the opportunity for self-mortification. If Luther had realized that, we would be living in a different world.
My meditation:
The resurrection of Jesus is the most radical of acts, since it reminds us that the social message of love, tolerance and equality Jesus delivered is endorsed by the Father. It also validates the fact that the Jesus who promised not to drink of the fruit of the vine on Holy Thursday, but did so after he echoed the cry of the Suffering Servant in Psalm 22 was justified by God, so that it is in his emotional suffering rather than his bloody death that we are saved - that God offers solidarity rather than demanding obedience, with a moral law that is for our purposes rather than some incomprehensible divine purpose.
Actually, considering alternatives to the resurrection strengthens faith in it. The alternatives all involve annihilation, either because we cease, we experience some kind of godless Nirvana or because we are nakedly exposed to the immensity of an eternal God in an eternal instant where we can't help but be absorbed into God in an eternal and unceasing perfect moment beyond time (which is the scariest prospect of all). Rather, we are resurrected as ourselves with a Christ who joins us in death so that we may join him in new life. You can't get to that place, however, unless you consider the alternatives. That is the difference between believing in the resurrection and believing in the belief of resurrection.
In order to really believe in resurrection, you must pass through suffering and despair - and not just by experiencing the sacraments of initiation. This is why we have Lent - to give those whose lives do not crush them the opportunity for self-mortification. If Luther had realized that, we would be living in a different world.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
What did Jesus do between Good Friday and Easter?
What did Jesus do between Good Friday and Easter? by Daniel Burke.
My comments: We now know that the afterlife is a spiritual place, not a physical one. The paradise narrative of the story of the Good Thief can be the only truth. The fantasy that Jesus searched for Adam is just that, since Adam of Eden is a figure of myth, not fact, in a story about human nature. Man lived for Aeons before that mythical Adam was even born (and yes, he was born, not fashioned).
The more interesting question is what is the afterlife and what is the nature of the eternal soul? To argue only from philosophy is frightening, as all roads lead to annihilation, either because the soul simply dies or it rests until the resurrection in Sheol or it faces the immensity of God outside of time (how can man exist that way?) or moves to some kind of Nirvana. To argue from scripture, however, is to find a merciful God who will not totally destroy our individualities in death, who will instead raise us up in some form or another. The details matter little - what matters is that Jesus will be there for us.
My comments: We now know that the afterlife is a spiritual place, not a physical one. The paradise narrative of the story of the Good Thief can be the only truth. The fantasy that Jesus searched for Adam is just that, since Adam of Eden is a figure of myth, not fact, in a story about human nature. Man lived for Aeons before that mythical Adam was even born (and yes, he was born, not fashioned).
The more interesting question is what is the afterlife and what is the nature of the eternal soul? To argue only from philosophy is frightening, as all roads lead to annihilation, either because the soul simply dies or it rests until the resurrection in Sheol or it faces the immensity of God outside of time (how can man exist that way?) or moves to some kind of Nirvana. To argue from scripture, however, is to find a merciful God who will not totally destroy our individualities in death, who will instead raise us up in some form or another. The details matter little - what matters is that Jesus will be there for us.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Mrs. Kennedy and Bishop McManus
Mrs. Kennedy and Bishop McManus by MSW
My comments: To ben an heir to the apostles simply means they are exercising the apostolic function - which is to witness to the resurrection. In truth, the biblical office of overseer is best translated as Pastor, rather than as bishop. The evolution of the role of pastor of a city Church to feudal lord of the diocese is an entirely human evolution, not something ordained by God. Indeed, if you take the washing of the feet at the Last Supper seriously, current episcopal roles are entirely against what Jesus wanted, turning the ceremony on Holy Thursday into an empty ritual.
As far as abandoning the pro-life poltical cause, I am suspicious of any Cathlic politician who does not, since the movement is based on the fraud that Roe v. Wade can or should be repealed in such a way as to transfer authority over the issue to the states so that abortion can again be regulated as a medical procedure with the equivalent penalty of shooting your neighbor's dog, thereby bringing back the black market for abortions. NO, NO, NO, NO!
To criticize Mrs. Kennedy for resisting using ecclesiatical discipline to force the hand of Catholic politicians in violation of their constitutional oaths is, to a very real extent, not only countenance but require sedition (due to the nature of episcopal appointment by a foreign government). Frankly, it is Bishop McManus who should be disciplined. Sadly, Catholic politicians have never raised this point, nor has our Catholic Vice President. Catholic politicians have never shown much courage in actually telling the bishops when they are wrong on abortion and Christendom and why. The Administration should make it clear to the Nuncio that the bishops should not use ecclesial discipline to pressure Catholic politicians to violate their constitutional oaths (that doing so is seditious).
Speaker Pelosi came close, although was wrong on the facts, relying on her faulty misunderstanding of why birth control used to be considered legitimate by Catholic ethicists because the possibility of twinning showed that pre-gastrulation blastocysts could not be people and extending that doubt to the question of whether abortion can be allowed because prior to the brain being sufficiently developed to allow for a thinking soul to function (which in light of modern neuroscience is a faulty understanding of what a soul is).
My comments: To ben an heir to the apostles simply means they are exercising the apostolic function - which is to witness to the resurrection. In truth, the biblical office of overseer is best translated as Pastor, rather than as bishop. The evolution of the role of pastor of a city Church to feudal lord of the diocese is an entirely human evolution, not something ordained by God. Indeed, if you take the washing of the feet at the Last Supper seriously, current episcopal roles are entirely against what Jesus wanted, turning the ceremony on Holy Thursday into an empty ritual.
As far as abandoning the pro-life poltical cause, I am suspicious of any Cathlic politician who does not, since the movement is based on the fraud that Roe v. Wade can or should be repealed in such a way as to transfer authority over the issue to the states so that abortion can again be regulated as a medical procedure with the equivalent penalty of shooting your neighbor's dog, thereby bringing back the black market for abortions. NO, NO, NO, NO!
To criticize Mrs. Kennedy for resisting using ecclesiatical discipline to force the hand of Catholic politicians in violation of their constitutional oaths is, to a very real extent, not only countenance but require sedition (due to the nature of episcopal appointment by a foreign government). Frankly, it is Bishop McManus who should be disciplined. Sadly, Catholic politicians have never raised this point, nor has our Catholic Vice President. Catholic politicians have never shown much courage in actually telling the bishops when they are wrong on abortion and Christendom and why. The Administration should make it clear to the Nuncio that the bishops should not use ecclesial discipline to pressure Catholic politicians to violate their constitutional oaths (that doing so is seditious).
Speaker Pelosi came close, although was wrong on the facts, relying on her faulty misunderstanding of why birth control used to be considered legitimate by Catholic ethicists because the possibility of twinning showed that pre-gastrulation blastocysts could not be people and extending that doubt to the question of whether abortion can be allowed because prior to the brain being sufficiently developed to allow for a thinking soul to function (which in light of modern neuroscience is a faulty understanding of what a soul is).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)