Links for 06/30/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I am fairly sure the persecution they are talking about is the expectation that government will somehow mandate their celebration gay weddings. The truth is that the families of gay congregants will do that instead. What they really fear is judgment from God for doing so or having the nation do so - and that judgment is not over the constitution and acceptance of gay families (although they bemoan the end of traditional marriage, which was patriarchal and used to compare marriage to how Christ relates to the Church - a comparison which may be oddly apt if our understanding of Church changes with marriage). They really fear being somehow linked to the sex act in the marriage they solemnize. In other words, its about the sex - though they know that in regard to banning consensual private sodomy, that ship has sailed forever.
Bravo to Leon on this essay. It is the spirit of prophesy (which we Catholics capitalize usually) that impels us to speak about the harm done to the Palestinians - from land grabs in the territories, and formerly in Israel proper, to a lopsided response in Gaza to launching fire crackers that took weeks to hit anyone, to a wall which seeks to define two states on a one sided bases, seeminly without regard to the availability of resources on the other side.
Is it just political or demographic blow-back that are important? I think not. G_d has an opinion on this as well - and those Orthodox who wish to establish a new Temple will, at the very least, find that the Holy Ark will allude them while they trample the alien. Will Bibi have to answer to G_d. If you believe in an afterlife, I expect so - on Oren for his vigorous defense when according the prophet Ezekiel, he should join the condemnation os Bibi will repent.
Of course, as a Romani, I must join Leon in telling Bibi he has gone to far. New analysis of religious practice indicates the Roma are the Isrealite exiles - most of whom are now Catholic. Some percentage of our people stayed and converted to Chirst and then Isalm - and probably are among the Palestinians. What number, we don't know - but the ultimate irony may be that Bibi is actually persecuting the sons of Israel, making him the leading anti-Semite.
Myers-Briggs is based on Karl Jung's psycholinguistics. I have always found the test fluid, meaning that if you know the measures at all, you can adjust your answers to change the resulting type. Indeed, one might as well junk the tools and tell people what the categories are and let them pick what they feel like today. The article itself is quite fun and only a little tongue in cheek. As long as people don't goal seek when reading it, it may be more useful than the tool.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Review: A Partisan Church | National Catholic Reporter
Review: A Partisan Church | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: In the world of political science, a neo-conservative is one who hold liberal, if not marxist views and later in life decides that path goes nowhere and finds conservatism, and because most were Jewish - neo-conservatism was based on protecting Israel through a muscular Israeli and American military policy in the region. Of course, that does not necessarily apply to there three Catholic authors - although the reviewer, MSW, certainly qualifies on his Zionist views. I might say Neo-Traditionalist is the more apt term, depending on whether their conservatism is about the Church or about Israel.
The good old days where Catholic philosophy led to the enlightenment and our American ideals is what we call a convenient fiction. While St. Thomas Aquinas did prove the necessity of human freedom of choice in the nature of his soul, there was no political connotation applied at all - at least not until Rousseu - and I doubt Jean Jacques saw the connection either, although I make it frequently to justify my view of Catholic Libertarianism. Erasmus was the quintessetial Christain Humanist, and it will be interesting to see if the author mentions him a source for American thought, although I have not seen any of our subjects at meetings of the Illuminati (which,again was not pro-hierarchy). I try to emulate the idea of a Christian Humanism which sources morality not in an angry God, but one who means us to be perfectly human rather shoot for some inhuman ideal of personal sanctity (while ignoring the needs of others - opposing hierarchy is a bonus).
Is there some Catholic link to John Locke? I doubt it, he worked in reaction to Hobbes, who was no friend of Rome. The followers of Henry George like Locke, but their movement is not Catholic in the least. Distributists like Locke and based their post collapse world in Medievalism, but not in the American experiment. Chesterton, Belloc and Tolkien fit the Distributist bill, but they were not American nor do they predate the founding. Their project was in reaction to Leo's Rerum Novarum, but there is nothing particularly Americanist about it. Finally, I have not seen any of our three subjects on Distributist web sites or lists. My guess is that the neoliberal friends of George Weigel (and maybe neoliberal is the best way to describe the three) raise a loud houl about his entertaining Distributism, since it is the enemy of their libertarian philosophy, although Distributism has massive libertarian implications.
There is one source of American political philosophy that we know is enlightenment based and had an influence on our Founding Fathers. The Masons. I am pretty sure none of the three are lodge members, although as yet I have not defied the silliest Catholic doctrine on the books and opted to attend myself. Again, no Catholic link.
The good old days where Catholic philosophy led to the enlightenment and our American ideals is what we call a convenient fiction. While St. Thomas Aquinas did prove the necessity of human freedom of choice in the nature of his soul, there was no political connotation applied at all - at least not until Rousseu - and I doubt Jean Jacques saw the connection either, although I make it frequently to justify my view of Catholic Libertarianism. Erasmus was the quintessetial Christain Humanist, and it will be interesting to see if the author mentions him a source for American thought, although I have not seen any of our subjects at meetings of the Illuminati (which,again was not pro-hierarchy). I try to emulate the idea of a Christian Humanism which sources morality not in an angry God, but one who means us to be perfectly human rather shoot for some inhuman ideal of personal sanctity (while ignoring the needs of others - opposing hierarchy is a bonus).
Is there some Catholic link to John Locke? I doubt it, he worked in reaction to Hobbes, who was no friend of Rome. The followers of Henry George like Locke, but their movement is not Catholic in the least. Distributists like Locke and based their post collapse world in Medievalism, but not in the American experiment. Chesterton, Belloc and Tolkien fit the Distributist bill, but they were not American nor do they predate the founding. Their project was in reaction to Leo's Rerum Novarum, but there is nothing particularly Americanist about it. Finally, I have not seen any of our three subjects on Distributist web sites or lists. My guess is that the neoliberal friends of George Weigel (and maybe neoliberal is the best way to describe the three) raise a loud houl about his entertaining Distributism, since it is the enemy of their libertarian philosophy, although Distributism has massive libertarian implications.
There is one source of American political philosophy that we know is enlightenment based and had an influence on our Founding Fathers. The Masons. I am pretty sure none of the three are lodge members, although as yet I have not defied the silliest Catholic doctrine on the books and opted to attend myself. Again, no Catholic link.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Links for 06/29/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/29/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: On Accidental Beatitude: The Church is still objecting to the overturn of sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas and is thinking that if someone treats gay civil marriages the same as straight civil marriages than they have become a party to their sex act. When you put it in these terms, the answer is that the Church is obviously wrong and indeed, guilty of bigotry. The Church as employer should serve families and not condemn what they do in the bedroom. It can still preach in this area, although if you really look at the biblical sourcing in this area, there really is little difference between St. Paul and St. John Paul expressing their view of homosexual relations, which is from a natural law POV, and the Rebbi for Baghdad who are largely responsible for the Old Testament writings. I argue that natural law teaching is not privileged revelation, especially if there is natural law evidence that it is flat out wrong.
A re-examination of the tax status of non-profits is, and should be, part of the debate on tax reform. Of course, since wealthy people fund this debate in large measure, both by funding (tax exemptly) both think tanks and legsilators, there will always be equity issues unless you can convince them that paying taxes faster is better. As for a tax exemption over gay marriage - for employers, there administrative routes that don't involve tax exemption - and students have been having all kinds of extra-marital relations in Catholic college for a long time, just not openly. No gay couple caught having sex in such a setting has ever sued under Lawrence v. Texas as far as I know - but that is the operative case. Now, I personally favor, for tax reform, ending both payroll and income taxes and imposing a Subtract Value Added Tax - with no receipt visibility but with the ability to decrease the tax by giving a child tax credit to employees, health care, education at all levels and for some functions, diverting the money to Churches to adminster programs and schools.
Katherine Franke seems to have written her Slate piece before 9:59 a.m. last Friday. Loving was used as the precident, which stated that there is a right to marry - and essentially who you marry is private regarding. Private here does not mean secret, it means that the legislature has no business excluding people based on race. This decision extends that privacy to sexual orietation. This principle has already been laid out in Roe. v. Wade. Justice Thomas' approach to ending abortion is to simply rule that privacy does not apply because embryoes and fetuses are objects of law rather than chattel to their mothers. There are no other takers to such a position and he is among the older justices. Scalia would put the issue in state hands, which is a stupid idea and its why we have a 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment itself, and seeminly the decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart (which incorrectly used the Commerce Clause) allows Congress to adjust who a person is in this matter - not 51 legislatures, but Congress. Would Obama go along? He indicated he would make a deal on both the Partial Birth statute (which really protects no one) and all late term pregnancies. Even mid-trimester, I suspect. I don't see anyone doing anything on the matter of first trimester embryoes (no one is a fetus until the second), because the equal protection problems are huge - as miscarried embryoes and aborted embryoes would have to have the same legal status - and that is perilous for both the criminal law and for tort law - and if you don't think so, you don't know many lawyers. Dignity does not make the impossible, possible.
A re-examination of the tax status of non-profits is, and should be, part of the debate on tax reform. Of course, since wealthy people fund this debate in large measure, both by funding (tax exemptly) both think tanks and legsilators, there will always be equity issues unless you can convince them that paying taxes faster is better. As for a tax exemption over gay marriage - for employers, there administrative routes that don't involve tax exemption - and students have been having all kinds of extra-marital relations in Catholic college for a long time, just not openly. No gay couple caught having sex in such a setting has ever sued under Lawrence v. Texas as far as I know - but that is the operative case. Now, I personally favor, for tax reform, ending both payroll and income taxes and imposing a Subtract Value Added Tax - with no receipt visibility but with the ability to decrease the tax by giving a child tax credit to employees, health care, education at all levels and for some functions, diverting the money to Churches to adminster programs and schools.
Katherine Franke seems to have written her Slate piece before 9:59 a.m. last Friday. Loving was used as the precident, which stated that there is a right to marry - and essentially who you marry is private regarding. Private here does not mean secret, it means that the legislature has no business excluding people based on race. This decision extends that privacy to sexual orietation. This principle has already been laid out in Roe. v. Wade. Justice Thomas' approach to ending abortion is to simply rule that privacy does not apply because embryoes and fetuses are objects of law rather than chattel to their mothers. There are no other takers to such a position and he is among the older justices. Scalia would put the issue in state hands, which is a stupid idea and its why we have a 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment itself, and seeminly the decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart (which incorrectly used the Commerce Clause) allows Congress to adjust who a person is in this matter - not 51 legislatures, but Congress. Would Obama go along? He indicated he would make a deal on both the Partial Birth statute (which really protects no one) and all late term pregnancies. Even mid-trimester, I suspect. I don't see anyone doing anything on the matter of first trimester embryoes (no one is a fetus until the second), because the equal protection problems are huge - as miscarried embryoes and aborted embryoes would have to have the same legal status - and that is perilous for both the criminal law and for tort law - and if you don't think so, you don't know many lawyers. Dignity does not make the impossible, possible.
Supreme Court's decision on marriage called a win for love, 'a tragic error' | National Catholic Reporter
Supreme Court's decision on marriage called a win for love, 'a tragic error' | National Catholic Reporter I suspect that the concept of monogamous homosexuality is not the gay error Kurtz is concerned with - if he were to be honest, the error for this brand of Catholic is Lawence v. Texas, which ended the ability of states (and of episcopal power to influence states) to outlaw sodomy. The legal recognition of relationships involving such sex (which can be herto or homo sexual) is a morally neutral detail.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
SCOTUS's Decision and the Bishops' Response | National Catholic Reporter
SCOTUS's Decision and the Bishops' Response | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Ten years ago and civil unions was too late - and the Church would have seen it as endorsing gay sex anyway, because the Curia is obsessed with other people's sexuality. They understand little of family - celebacy blinds them to it. Civil unions and doing away with religious marriage were simply attempts at Political Correctness to soothe Church sensibilities. It was always a false compromise. The key point to act was 30 years ago when all over the country in both Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals, family members were kicking what was called then Long Term Companions out of hospital rooms and taking control of end-of-life decision-making. If the Church had stood for Love and reconciliation then, the whole movement might never have come about. And procreation is not necessary for marriage - family and love is.
On the question of individual autonomy, the Court is correct (and Chief Roberts is wrong). Society can decide some things, but not the rights of individuals. I believe the concept of rights being higher than what the group wants is why martyrdom is celebrated, so this faux concern about autonomy is misplaced. As for creation, again, foster parents create. Marriage is not just about making babies - my niece Christian is still my nice even though her father is married to my brother. Its about family.
As for Casey, it is about privacy, just like Roe, which says the public cannot legislate everything - or use legislation to form lower classes. Granted, the ultimate lower class is the unborn, but there really is no way to fix that without dealing with the fact that the aborted embryo and the miscarried embryo would have to have the same legal protections. Won't work.
Legal scholars who know 14th Amendment Law, like Garrett Epps - probably the best at it - agree with the majority on both subjects. You can read his column in The Atlantic at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-obergefell/396995/ If you are not convinced, you are defending a position, not exploring truth.
As for the bishops, I am sure that Bishop Kurtz's statement was mostly staff driven and designed to shore up the coalition between other religious conservatives on opposing Roe v Wade, which by the way the Church is wrong on too - not the abortion part but the privacy and 14th Amendment part. Indeed, until the Church is advised by someone, like say Epps, who does understand how equal protection meant that there are some issues that inevitably are beyond the legislature, even if the legislature is not wrong - then any solution on abortion is out of reach. Actually, its out of reach anyway, because the current strategy is not about solutions, its about making right-wing fundraisers rich and getting pro-lifers to work for Republican candidates. Frankly, the bishops should have used this as a moment of contrition and apologized for the conduct of Catholic Hospitals three decades ago (which at least has been corrected now by CHA). That would, of course, involve putting grace and faith before partisanship and coalition.
The doctrine is wrong too. When I was in pre-Cana at St. Ann's in D.C. and had a marriage course at Regis High School in Iowa, we were told (both times) that the spouses made the marriage and the priest was a witness. Same rules have to apply. We were also told, and a few marriages by uncles affirmed (even the one in the Disciples of Christ) that fecundity is not required to marry. Anyone who really does not understand that should turn in their Theology degree for a refund. Oh, as far as Cardinal Wuerl goes, marriage can give grace, even without baptism. Jesus also taught that the married (and there is no difference in gender preference in this) become one flesh. That is a little about sex, but its mostly about unity and being a family - and having that family status be unquestioned by anyone, including the Church and legislative majorities. It is actually a wonder that this letter is out now (unless its a retread), DC and Maryland have had marriage equality for some time now. Nothing at all is new in this Archdiocese.
The whole same-sex attraction this is bunk. People are gay or not - or in the middle some place - based on biology from before they were born in a process known as Epigenesis. Any repartative therapy must be considered assault and all commentary (and it is commentary, not teaching) about such attraction being disordered must be stricken as simply wrong - not because of human preference but because natural law must actually comport to nature or it is simply formalism based on authority - and can be rejected as such by thinking people - indeed, the misuse of natural law along those lines is why many have become atheists. Hate the sin and love the sinner does not apply either, because people made by God to be gay have a right to sexual love. There is no sin unless we force promiscuity onto them, and then the sin is ours. As for how we treat employees - we need to restore spousal benefits in the Archdiocese and realize that if we treat heterosexual civil marriages one way and homosexual civil marriages another, then we have committed the sin of bigotry. There is no sugar coating it. I did not find the Cardinal's restatement of teaching beautiful. I found it ugly, and I'm heterosexual and (for now) married. The example I will give is loving my brother and his husband. Maybe that will sink in among my fellow Catholics.
Archbishop Gregory and his call to civility is a good letter. I suspect he won't be grandstanding on employee health benefits. Aymond is not correct, since the natural law case supports gay marriage if you sever the theistic link. If you disagree, read Faggothy again. Hartmayer is correct, the decision does not teach what the Church teachers. Perhaps the Church needs to be the one who changes. The coda to the decision is fitting:
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
As for McElroy, marriage is defined by society. It is the basic unit thereof. (See above). Without it, we are all wards of the government. It defines that a married couple is one person under the law, which Jesus taught. Rejecting gay marriage as non-doctrinal is a sin, pure and simple, against both the Word of God and those couples who deserve the dignity of being family (and yes, even raise children, their own or those fostered to them by family, society and even the Church (once it quits its homophobic sin). Agreeing with this bishop continues that sin.
On the subject of Catholic gay marriage, I addressed this yesterday. I think the bishops really are reacting from fear. Fear that families with gay children, parents or siblings will start approaching priests, especially gay priests, to bless such marriages or even do the full Catholic wedding. Some will say yes, at least to private blessings. They are likely more afraid of priest wantinng to marry other men or priests, or sisters other women - or even other sisters. They mostly fear young people giving up on self-loathing and rejecting the idiocy of finding homosexuality disordered and will instead marry according to their God-given sexuality and not even consider Holy Orders. This will kind of force their hand on who gets to be in ministry. Under Hossanna Tabor gays, women and the married cannot sue, but they won't have to. Profound change will be in the air. This has probably broken the camel's back. That is not liberalism, its modernism - and it always wins because the older trads always die first. 9:59 am will never come again.
On the question of individual autonomy, the Court is correct (and Chief Roberts is wrong). Society can decide some things, but not the rights of individuals. I believe the concept of rights being higher than what the group wants is why martyrdom is celebrated, so this faux concern about autonomy is misplaced. As for creation, again, foster parents create. Marriage is not just about making babies - my niece Christian is still my nice even though her father is married to my brother. Its about family.
As for Casey, it is about privacy, just like Roe, which says the public cannot legislate everything - or use legislation to form lower classes. Granted, the ultimate lower class is the unborn, but there really is no way to fix that without dealing with the fact that the aborted embryo and the miscarried embryo would have to have the same legal protections. Won't work.
Legal scholars who know 14th Amendment Law, like Garrett Epps - probably the best at it - agree with the majority on both subjects. You can read his column in The Atlantic at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-obergefell/396995/ If you are not convinced, you are defending a position, not exploring truth.
As for the bishops, I am sure that Bishop Kurtz's statement was mostly staff driven and designed to shore up the coalition between other religious conservatives on opposing Roe v Wade, which by the way the Church is wrong on too - not the abortion part but the privacy and 14th Amendment part. Indeed, until the Church is advised by someone, like say Epps, who does understand how equal protection meant that there are some issues that inevitably are beyond the legislature, even if the legislature is not wrong - then any solution on abortion is out of reach. Actually, its out of reach anyway, because the current strategy is not about solutions, its about making right-wing fundraisers rich and getting pro-lifers to work for Republican candidates. Frankly, the bishops should have used this as a moment of contrition and apologized for the conduct of Catholic Hospitals three decades ago (which at least has been corrected now by CHA). That would, of course, involve putting grace and faith before partisanship and coalition.
The doctrine is wrong too. When I was in pre-Cana at St. Ann's in D.C. and had a marriage course at Regis High School in Iowa, we were told (both times) that the spouses made the marriage and the priest was a witness. Same rules have to apply. We were also told, and a few marriages by uncles affirmed (even the one in the Disciples of Christ) that fecundity is not required to marry. Anyone who really does not understand that should turn in their Theology degree for a refund. Oh, as far as Cardinal Wuerl goes, marriage can give grace, even without baptism. Jesus also taught that the married (and there is no difference in gender preference in this) become one flesh. That is a little about sex, but its mostly about unity and being a family - and having that family status be unquestioned by anyone, including the Church and legislative majorities. It is actually a wonder that this letter is out now (unless its a retread), DC and Maryland have had marriage equality for some time now. Nothing at all is new in this Archdiocese.
The whole same-sex attraction this is bunk. People are gay or not - or in the middle some place - based on biology from before they were born in a process known as Epigenesis. Any repartative therapy must be considered assault and all commentary (and it is commentary, not teaching) about such attraction being disordered must be stricken as simply wrong - not because of human preference but because natural law must actually comport to nature or it is simply formalism based on authority - and can be rejected as such by thinking people - indeed, the misuse of natural law along those lines is why many have become atheists. Hate the sin and love the sinner does not apply either, because people made by God to be gay have a right to sexual love. There is no sin unless we force promiscuity onto them, and then the sin is ours. As for how we treat employees - we need to restore spousal benefits in the Archdiocese and realize that if we treat heterosexual civil marriages one way and homosexual civil marriages another, then we have committed the sin of bigotry. There is no sugar coating it. I did not find the Cardinal's restatement of teaching beautiful. I found it ugly, and I'm heterosexual and (for now) married. The example I will give is loving my brother and his husband. Maybe that will sink in among my fellow Catholics.
Archbishop Gregory and his call to civility is a good letter. I suspect he won't be grandstanding on employee health benefits. Aymond is not correct, since the natural law case supports gay marriage if you sever the theistic link. If you disagree, read Faggothy again. Hartmayer is correct, the decision does not teach what the Church teachers. Perhaps the Church needs to be the one who changes. The coda to the decision is fitting:
"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
As for McElroy, marriage is defined by society. It is the basic unit thereof. (See above). Without it, we are all wards of the government. It defines that a married couple is one person under the law, which Jesus taught. Rejecting gay marriage as non-doctrinal is a sin, pure and simple, against both the Word of God and those couples who deserve the dignity of being family (and yes, even raise children, their own or those fostered to them by family, society and even the Church (once it quits its homophobic sin). Agreeing with this bishop continues that sin.
On the subject of Catholic gay marriage, I addressed this yesterday. I think the bishops really are reacting from fear. Fear that families with gay children, parents or siblings will start approaching priests, especially gay priests, to bless such marriages or even do the full Catholic wedding. Some will say yes, at least to private blessings. They are likely more afraid of priest wantinng to marry other men or priests, or sisters other women - or even other sisters. They mostly fear young people giving up on self-loathing and rejecting the idiocy of finding homosexuality disordered and will instead marry according to their God-given sexuality and not even consider Holy Orders. This will kind of force their hand on who gets to be in ministry. Under Hossanna Tabor gays, women and the married cannot sue, but they won't have to. Profound change will be in the air. This has probably broken the camel's back. That is not liberalism, its modernism - and it always wins because the older trads always die first. 9:59 am will never come again.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Links for 06/26/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/26/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: On marriage equality, I don't particularly care what the USCCB has to say. Its their fears I find interesting, the unstated one being that killing self-loathing will hurt the recruitment of priests and that gay marrieds will approach their likely gay priest for a blessing and it will be given.
I like La Stampa's style in going after Acton with a full frontal attack on Capitalism. Acton would have been better off staying quiet and telling their capitalistic funders to lay low for a while. Of course, rich people don't think they ever have to lay low.
It is true that Archbishop Wenski lives where the water meets the shore. Still, he has a lot of Cubans in his See who like Rubio, Cruz and Bush. Encouraging them to engage rather than to rant is a good idea, but one which I doubt they will take him up on. Any Republican agreeing with what is one of the best condemnations of capitalism since Marx is unlikely.
Jessica Wrobleski's column on Francis, David Brooks, Rheinhold Neibur and her undergraduates is intersting. How do you reconcile Laudato Si' with the modern world? How do you get your orange juice, which I confess I just drank, without peonage in the fields? Does he really mean that Capitalism must change? Must one be a revolutionary to be a good Catholic? In a word, I say yes. What he is seeking is what must become, and maybe a bit further than what he is seeking - where workers not only get a better deal, but as I suggest, that they own the operation and cooperatively make or buy what they need, rather than acting as individuals in the marketplace. Francis offers the choice between destruction, exploitation and death or life and love. Until people get how stark that is, no one will move beyond the familiar and chose life and the future. Its that serious.
Camosy's story is interesting, although one should understand that the protection of women against criminalizing abortion (and under equal protection principles, if you prosecute the doctor, you really must prosecute the mother too - and the father if he is involved) is a fairly serious issue - even though both sides have largely allowed it to become entwined with electoral politics, the pro-life side most shamelessly in their corruption of the Catholic Church in a massive fraud (that their stated approach is even possible). The Pope is correct that children should never be a throw-away commodity, including in Catholic adoption agencies.
Society and the Church must come forward to make sure every child can be born and receive a life where a little conspicuous consumption every now and then is a privilege. That means assisting teens to get married and funding their school (paying them to attend - both parents) and not condemning what is evolutionarily logical sexual activity. It means a $1000 per month per child tax credit distributed during the tax year, mostly with pay or as part of a stipend rather than with a refund. It especially means that we must up our game in helping Downs children succeed and grow into adulthood and in providing assistance to parents as well - especially in cases which are not as easy to deal with where disability is profound and likely fatal in years rather than decade - or profound and not fatal. This needs to start now, before the public funding is available. Each diocese must act to show we put our money where our mouth is for all Downs children in the diocese and all Catholic employees with children. We can lobby for the public funding too - but both kinds of socialism are necessary - especially as the government cannot constitutionally intervene to simply ban such abortions without wreaking havoc on families with usuccessful first trimester pregnancies.
I like La Stampa's style in going after Acton with a full frontal attack on Capitalism. Acton would have been better off staying quiet and telling their capitalistic funders to lay low for a while. Of course, rich people don't think they ever have to lay low.
It is true that Archbishop Wenski lives where the water meets the shore. Still, he has a lot of Cubans in his See who like Rubio, Cruz and Bush. Encouraging them to engage rather than to rant is a good idea, but one which I doubt they will take him up on. Any Republican agreeing with what is one of the best condemnations of capitalism since Marx is unlikely.
Jessica Wrobleski's column on Francis, David Brooks, Rheinhold Neibur and her undergraduates is intersting. How do you reconcile Laudato Si' with the modern world? How do you get your orange juice, which I confess I just drank, without peonage in the fields? Does he really mean that Capitalism must change? Must one be a revolutionary to be a good Catholic? In a word, I say yes. What he is seeking is what must become, and maybe a bit further than what he is seeking - where workers not only get a better deal, but as I suggest, that they own the operation and cooperatively make or buy what they need, rather than acting as individuals in the marketplace. Francis offers the choice between destruction, exploitation and death or life and love. Until people get how stark that is, no one will move beyond the familiar and chose life and the future. Its that serious.
Camosy's story is interesting, although one should understand that the protection of women against criminalizing abortion (and under equal protection principles, if you prosecute the doctor, you really must prosecute the mother too - and the father if he is involved) is a fairly serious issue - even though both sides have largely allowed it to become entwined with electoral politics, the pro-life side most shamelessly in their corruption of the Catholic Church in a massive fraud (that their stated approach is even possible). The Pope is correct that children should never be a throw-away commodity, including in Catholic adoption agencies.
Society and the Church must come forward to make sure every child can be born and receive a life where a little conspicuous consumption every now and then is a privilege. That means assisting teens to get married and funding their school (paying them to attend - both parents) and not condemning what is evolutionarily logical sexual activity. It means a $1000 per month per child tax credit distributed during the tax year, mostly with pay or as part of a stipend rather than with a refund. It especially means that we must up our game in helping Downs children succeed and grow into adulthood and in providing assistance to parents as well - especially in cases which are not as easy to deal with where disability is profound and likely fatal in years rather than decade - or profound and not fatal. This needs to start now, before the public funding is available. Each diocese must act to show we put our money where our mouth is for all Downs children in the diocese and all Catholic employees with children. We can lobby for the public funding too - but both kinds of socialism are necessary - especially as the government cannot constitutionally intervene to simply ban such abortions without wreaking havoc on families with usuccessful first trimester pregnancies.
6-3 = 6.4 Million | National Catholic Reporter
6-3 = 6.4 Million | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The ACA is essentially the Heritage Foundation approach to health care reform (the liberal approach is single payer, or a public option that will lead to single payer), but with taxes on unearned or the PC term, non-wage income acrued by the wealthiest taxpayers. Since then, these financial worthies have been funding any and all approaches to overturn the law, since a corrections bill that simply repeals the taxes would either have to install a larger VAT or be ruled out of order under the Budget Act. Of course, any corrections bill would not pass this Congress anyway, even to correct the flaws in the language.
That kind of partisanship is the source of Justice Scalia's dissent. The definition of a rigged process would be a Congress that cannot function or compromise and a judiciary that will not act. Luckily, we have gone beyond that in this country.
It is no surprise that Chief Justice Roberts led an approach in upholding the provision of the law that he has taken since his service on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. His respect is for the law, not the current regime. If it all possible, he will find a construction that makes a law passed by Congress constitutional or uphold the workability of a statue rather than going with the unworkable alternative.
Sister Carol's remarks show why the ACA exists. Hospitals care for everyone, especially in her Association. Formerly, public hospitals did the same thing - but they have largely been overrun by for-profit hospital chains and HMOs, which may not treat patients beyond stabilizing them if they don't want to. The ACA means that all of these hospitals should have someone to bill, rather than sending collections departments and agencies after their patients. It also means that, at least in theory, individuals can see a primary care doctor before their disease becomes an emergency - although perhaps sick leave reform is necessary to make that possiblility a reality. Still, it was a good day.
That kind of partisanship is the source of Justice Scalia's dissent. The definition of a rigged process would be a Congress that cannot function or compromise and a judiciary that will not act. Luckily, we have gone beyond that in this country.
It is no surprise that Chief Justice Roberts led an approach in upholding the provision of the law that he has taken since his service on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. His respect is for the law, not the current regime. If it all possible, he will find a construction that makes a law passed by Congress constitutional or uphold the workability of a statue rather than going with the unworkable alternative.
Sister Carol's remarks show why the ACA exists. Hospitals care for everyone, especially in her Association. Formerly, public hospitals did the same thing - but they have largely been overrun by for-profit hospital chains and HMOs, which may not treat patients beyond stabilizing them if they don't want to. The ACA means that all of these hospitals should have someone to bill, rather than sending collections departments and agencies after their patients. It also means that, at least in theory, individuals can see a primary care doctor before their disease becomes an emergency - although perhaps sick leave reform is necessary to make that possiblility a reality. Still, it was a good day.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Links for 06/25/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/25/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Silk has a couple of good ones, although I have to say that once the federal troops left after the election of 1872, slavery was essentially back in business in sharecropping and peonage as well convict labor. Flying the Battle Flag anew was an attempt to unify those who would lose their position over blacks as a source of cheap labor and to make poor whites stay within the system as well. Nowadays, its the Latinos who are getting the business from the southern boot in their chests. As for the new encyclical, it is political, but it is also an economic manifesto. Viva Francisco!
Christiana Peppard of Fordham also echos the economic nature of the document and goes further back to Caritas in Veritate, which was also the continuation of the Church's economic teaching post St. John Paul II. The last two popes do not mince words on economic justice and Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio should not be splicing them. Perhaps the Jewish candidate on the left is the best suited to take up what is needed.
On the topic of struggle, there is a link to a CNN broadcast where my friend Donna Brazile talks about President Obama's interview the other day and puts it in the context of the overall struggle for dignity. Its a must see clip, which someone seemed to tape on their phone and post.
Christiana Peppard of Fordham also echos the economic nature of the document and goes further back to Caritas in Veritate, which was also the continuation of the Church's economic teaching post St. John Paul II. The last two popes do not mince words on economic justice and Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio should not be splicing them. Perhaps the Jewish candidate on the left is the best suited to take up what is needed.
On the topic of struggle, there is a link to a CNN broadcast where my friend Donna Brazile talks about President Obama's interview the other day and puts it in the context of the overall struggle for dignity. Its a must see clip, which someone seemed to tape on their phone and post.
More Laudato Si' - Magistra No | National Catholic Reporter
More Laudato Si' - Magistra No | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: D.C. McCallister does not seem to realize that there are two sets of beatitudes and one actually speaks of real, not spiritual, poverty. She ignores the fact that the kingdom of God is both a state of mind and the guide to a kingdom in dealing with the poor. She misses Matthew 25, which even if figurative, says that to encounter Christ, you must do so in the poor - and Francis even repeats this, not ony with words but with deeds. Indeed, the text from Romans does not justify cheap grace - rather it extols service to the poor as a sign of salvation. In my view, salvation is the first step, not the last, of justification. Francis knows of such steps, as they originated with St. Ignatius and parallel the twelve steps of recovery. Franics shows us deeds, he is not the dilletante that DC seems to be.
I had thought I had already replied to David Brooks, but I can not find the post. This is an easy one, however. Brooks misunderstands (as does MSW) the difference between the free market and capitalism. That latter exists in non-monetary exchanges, where two individuals or groups trade one item or service for another. Capitalism is different - and it is what the Pope objects to. This is the system whereby capital, and its designated point person the CEO, seek to control all aspects of production and distribution (including monopsonistic hiring and monopolistic selling), with the returns going to owners (who only get what is called a normal return - the expected dividend for the industry) and the remainder of the profit that does not buy new equipment (often bond funded to take advantage of tax laws that the CEOs lobby for) goes to the CEO. Francis is right to object to it. It is organized crime, not a free market. Its a bridge to far for self-interest (rather than mutual income, which is the hallmark of a free market).
As for libery and democracy, this one is easy and MSW would quit talking about it if he read and responded to comments. Liberty is simply the realization that individuals have God-give free will, which seeks but cannot find the Good that fulfills it on this plane of existence because that Good is God. Therefore, man has options - and some pick better than others. Now, elites can try to force the democracy to their moral ends - this was the quite obvious and quite absurd mission of the Organization for Marriage. The liberty piece is that the Constitution recognizes, even when the Church does not, that there are some spheres of life that the democracy has no business delving into - as will be affirmed in the next few days by the Supreme Court on this very issue. This is not outside the thought of the enlightenment, which essentially says through Rousseau that unless the General Will is unanimous, it is or at least can be tyranny as it violates the God-given free will discussed above (which is my synthesis of Aquianas and Rousseau - consider the circle squared).
Some things deserve personal protection (like seeking concupiscence) and some do not, like fracking (Brooks' straw man) - especially if fracking can damage water sources that the energy developer did not pay to use - and it does damage water on a small scale. The mere fact that it has not done so on a larger scale does not imply it cannot - assuming it cannot is simply a failure of imagination. We do have regulations on this, but they are usually for the good of the industry, not the common good. Not exactly democracy, unless you mean the best democracy money can buy. Seems like Francis is right, the problem is capitalism - including the problems with democracy.
Are there ways out? Sure. Francis has not been briefed on them, but they exist in some form of enhanced cooperative socialism. In my book I call it Inter-Independence. E.J.Dione has a copy he has not yet reviewed or given me notes on. MSW is welcome to ask him for it if he is not going to use it.
I had thought I had already replied to David Brooks, but I can not find the post. This is an easy one, however. Brooks misunderstands (as does MSW) the difference between the free market and capitalism. That latter exists in non-monetary exchanges, where two individuals or groups trade one item or service for another. Capitalism is different - and it is what the Pope objects to. This is the system whereby capital, and its designated point person the CEO, seek to control all aspects of production and distribution (including monopsonistic hiring and monopolistic selling), with the returns going to owners (who only get what is called a normal return - the expected dividend for the industry) and the remainder of the profit that does not buy new equipment (often bond funded to take advantage of tax laws that the CEOs lobby for) goes to the CEO. Francis is right to object to it. It is organized crime, not a free market. Its a bridge to far for self-interest (rather than mutual income, which is the hallmark of a free market).
As for libery and democracy, this one is easy and MSW would quit talking about it if he read and responded to comments. Liberty is simply the realization that individuals have God-give free will, which seeks but cannot find the Good that fulfills it on this plane of existence because that Good is God. Therefore, man has options - and some pick better than others. Now, elites can try to force the democracy to their moral ends - this was the quite obvious and quite absurd mission of the Organization for Marriage. The liberty piece is that the Constitution recognizes, even when the Church does not, that there are some spheres of life that the democracy has no business delving into - as will be affirmed in the next few days by the Supreme Court on this very issue. This is not outside the thought of the enlightenment, which essentially says through Rousseau that unless the General Will is unanimous, it is or at least can be tyranny as it violates the God-given free will discussed above (which is my synthesis of Aquianas and Rousseau - consider the circle squared).
Some things deserve personal protection (like seeking concupiscence) and some do not, like fracking (Brooks' straw man) - especially if fracking can damage water sources that the energy developer did not pay to use - and it does damage water on a small scale. The mere fact that it has not done so on a larger scale does not imply it cannot - assuming it cannot is simply a failure of imagination. We do have regulations on this, but they are usually for the good of the industry, not the common good. Not exactly democracy, unless you mean the best democracy money can buy. Seems like Francis is right, the problem is capitalism - including the problems with democracy.
Are there ways out? Sure. Francis has not been briefed on them, but they exist in some form of enhanced cooperative socialism. In my book I call it Inter-Independence. E.J.Dione has a copy he has not yet reviewed or given me notes on. MSW is welcome to ask him for it if he is not going to use it.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Links for 06/24/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/24/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I suspect that his All Holiness does not care what comes out of Grand Rapids one bit. I am sure that all who agree with Acton on papal infallibility would like them to get a new name, although in this case it does seem to fit their M.O. with Francis. That name is the same kind of Big Lie as the Susan B. Anthony Fund, as no feminist would ever be coopted by the pro-life movement, even a century ago.
I suspect the conference on Padre Serra's canonization points to the need to bring back the Devil's Advocate - although I suspect no CDF DA's would use forced conversion as a bar to sainthood, even now. It also points to lingering injustices and allows an examination of exactly who the Church is serving in Latin America and who it is ignoring and leaving to the Pentacostals. Are we for the poor or the capitalists? In a world where the Trans Pacific Pact is a major issue, perhaps this is the perfect time to ask such questions.
The House Democratic Leader's job is to pass the President's program, which is hard to do because she is no longer Speaker. She knows she ticked some folks off, like most of the Sanders supporters (apparantly Hillary likes TPP), but I don't think her seat is in danger - besides, her next job is to fight off the inevitable Constitutional Amendment to undo what the Supreme Court will do to traditional marriage this week - pull the plug. As for TPP, it is much more a shift of political authority than of economic reality, which happens anyway. It is visiting the worst features of NAFTA on the world, outside of China, anyway. Hopefully we don't become more like China in order to compete with them.
I suspect the conference on Padre Serra's canonization points to the need to bring back the Devil's Advocate - although I suspect no CDF DA's would use forced conversion as a bar to sainthood, even now. It also points to lingering injustices and allows an examination of exactly who the Church is serving in Latin America and who it is ignoring and leaving to the Pentacostals. Are we for the poor or the capitalists? In a world where the Trans Pacific Pact is a major issue, perhaps this is the perfect time to ask such questions.
The House Democratic Leader's job is to pass the President's program, which is hard to do because she is no longer Speaker. She knows she ticked some folks off, like most of the Sanders supporters (apparantly Hillary likes TPP), but I don't think her seat is in danger - besides, her next job is to fight off the inevitable Constitutional Amendment to undo what the Supreme Court will do to traditional marriage this week - pull the plug. As for TPP, it is much more a shift of political authority than of economic reality, which happens anyway. It is visiting the worst features of NAFTA on the world, outside of China, anyway. Hopefully we don't become more like China in order to compete with them.
The Synod Starts to Take Shape | National Catholic Reporter
The Synod Starts to Take Shape | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I am comforted by the shephard who will preside over the Synod, but I hope that the people were actively solicited to give our input, including those who do not attend Mass regularly or cannot do to night jobs and all sorts of other things, like lack of transporation. These are the very people who need help in their marriage and family life, or in picking up the pieces when it falls apart. If you want renewed evangelization, start there, but not with an invitation to go to Confession - that puts guilt into it and won't attract anyone. Taking the guilt out is what I hope this Synod accomplishes for both gay kids and remarried adults. This will let grace in. If pastoral focus can do this, then let pastoral focus work. I suspect some doctrinal change is necessary. This may be too much for a Synod, but it is exactly why we convene Ecumenical Councils - and the fact that we seem to be pastorally moving into unity with Constantinople will make such a Council interesting.
Gay marriage will wait for the demand from families for Catholic ceremonies for their kids, siblings and parents, but that will come. As for Gender Identity issues, transgender and intersex identity issues are not new, no matter how much some want to blame these things on modernism. Regardless, they are the realm of medicine and psychology, not religion. The best we can say about them is nothing at all, save that any treatment, like treatment for cancer, is no barrier to worship and be Catholic. Indeed, inclusion of these children of God, like gay teens, is one sure preventative to suicide. We can go with acceptance or self-euthanasia. Choose.
Gay marriage will wait for the demand from families for Catholic ceremonies for their kids, siblings and parents, but that will come. As for Gender Identity issues, transgender and intersex identity issues are not new, no matter how much some want to blame these things on modernism. Regardless, they are the realm of medicine and psychology, not religion. The best we can say about them is nothing at all, save that any treatment, like treatment for cancer, is no barrier to worship and be Catholic. Indeed, inclusion of these children of God, like gay teens, is one sure preventative to suicide. We can go with acceptance or self-euthanasia. Choose.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Links for 06/23/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/23/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I never read Herman Cain and my spam filter knows better than to admit his ramblings, or those of his equally shady staff, into my in-box. I won't respond to such incompetence and insaity either.
Working Class Perspectives must give Sanders equal play or the name is fake. I suspect Hillary is more concerned with middle class persepectives, since they vote more. Such is the tragedy of the current Democratic Party.
Professor Ospino is correct about the Latino vote. Its is not monolithic, especially among families with over a century of US Citizenship (as compared to the newcomersb from Cuba or Central America, who vote entirely differently). I wonder if Cuban descent is used as a category in most surveys. Given two Cubans in the race, I would hope so.
I though sexual assualt had been removed from the chain of command. I think because is was debated, everyone assumed it had been done. Its going to be harder now with a GOP Senate. If commanders in the field treated rapists like they treat disserters or cowards, you would see the ranks demand this. Sadly, they turn the other way when a comrade is raped. While an assist from the Archbishop for the Military Services would help, indeed, the entire chaplain corps, I don't see them making this as important as their Fortnight for Freedom.
Working Class Perspectives must give Sanders equal play or the name is fake. I suspect Hillary is more concerned with middle class persepectives, since they vote more. Such is the tragedy of the current Democratic Party.
Professor Ospino is correct about the Latino vote. Its is not monolithic, especially among families with over a century of US Citizenship (as compared to the newcomersb from Cuba or Central America, who vote entirely differently). I wonder if Cuban descent is used as a category in most surveys. Given two Cubans in the race, I would hope so.
I though sexual assualt had been removed from the chain of command. I think because is was debated, everyone assumed it had been done. Its going to be harder now with a GOP Senate. If commanders in the field treated rapists like they treat disserters or cowards, you would see the ranks demand this. Sadly, they turn the other way when a comrade is raped. While an assist from the Archbishop for the Military Services would help, indeed, the entire chaplain corps, I don't see them making this as important as their Fortnight for Freedom.
Sin & Grace in Charleston | National Catholic Reporter
Sin & Grace in Charleston | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Sadly, Dylan Roof almost did not kill those people. We was almost moved by their faith, but something urged him on, which was racism. He was seeing them as people and stopped. The interesting reaction is from older white people who thought they had given up on racism (against the descendents of slaves), which is likely why Roof could not find anyone in the CCC to give him guidance (and talk him out of his stupidity). White racists, north and south, made this mess and have not cleaned it up, so we have Roof and the Ferguson PD. Sadly, racial overtones still do exist among the white elite. Look at the Tea Party or listen to Limbaugh or watch FoxNews and they are not subtly hidden when they speak of Obama. If ony he had joined his local Republican Committee he would be picking candidates rather than picking of the faithful.
Racism, by the way, is artificial, but it did not just spring up. It was essential to Cotton Capitalism in the South, both to justify slavery and to create for poor whites, look Roof, and excuse for the planter aristocracy to have it all while they lived on the margins of society. Today, it exists against Latinos, especially the immigrants, who pick our morning orange juice and grind our sausage (both pork and turkey) - and I could go on. Its no accident that the same people who were sold on racism against blacks are now so virulently against immigration in a way that can only be descirbed as racist. Indeed, their plea that the immigrants have broken the law could be used to justify the convict labor after the war where unlucky freemen were sentenced to work farms or mines for the profit of the white elite. Indeed, I am not sure that robotics could suceed in the South - there would be no one for the poor whites to hate but the rich capitalists. Only then will racism go away and unity commence. Of course, the rich Southern capitalists fear socialism most of all. They should.
Racism, by the way, is artificial, but it did not just spring up. It was essential to Cotton Capitalism in the South, both to justify slavery and to create for poor whites, look Roof, and excuse for the planter aristocracy to have it all while they lived on the margins of society. Today, it exists against Latinos, especially the immigrants, who pick our morning orange juice and grind our sausage (both pork and turkey) - and I could go on. Its no accident that the same people who were sold on racism against blacks are now so virulently against immigration in a way that can only be descirbed as racist. Indeed, their plea that the immigrants have broken the law could be used to justify the convict labor after the war where unlucky freemen were sentenced to work farms or mines for the profit of the white elite. Indeed, I am not sure that robotics could suceed in the South - there would be no one for the poor whites to hate but the rich capitalists. Only then will racism go away and unity commence. Of course, the rich Southern capitalists fear socialism most of all. They should.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Links for 06/22/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/22/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Neal Dewing of the inaptly named Federalist (more like Confederate) did not seem to get the point of capitalism being part of the moral issue, or he absolutely does not want to. For Heaven's sake, they have an E-Trade ad on their banner! They are not just in bed with capitalism, its leaving a C-note for them on the dresser.
Bowles' research is interesting, although his cooperative experiments actually form a different egalitarian culture. The market individualists aka libertarians are still there, as are the hierarchs in the Church and the Despots who are in charge of more than you think.
I doubt his Eminence is on the John Ellis Bush Christmas card list. I am shocked JEB knew who he was. I am fairly sure that FoxNews is lying whenever their lips are moving, but especially when they are misrepresenting what Cardinal Wuerl says about the encyclical being not definitive. Now we know how the right wing is responding, with lies! Not shocked.
Bowles' research is interesting, although his cooperative experiments actually form a different egalitarian culture. The market individualists aka libertarians are still there, as are the hierarchs in the Church and the Despots who are in charge of more than you think.
I doubt his Eminence is on the John Ellis Bush Christmas card list. I am shocked JEB knew who he was. I am fairly sure that FoxNews is lying whenever their lips are moving, but especially when they are misrepresenting what Cardinal Wuerl says about the encyclical being not definitive. Now we know how the right wing is responding, with lies! Not shocked.
The Trade Bill Gets Even Worse; GOP Spits in Pope Francis's Eye | National Catholic Reporter
The Trade Bill Gets Even Worse; GOP Spits in Pope Francis's Eye | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The canary in the coal mine on capitalism ruining workers lives to the point of revolution is the advancement of trade and the firing of workers whose jobs are not necessarily less productive, but less costly when currency markets and low cost country wages are included. There are a few solutions. One is to actually tame trade rather than trying to win every point. It cannot happen as the Republicans are constitionally incapable of that kind of subtlety. The second is a Marxian revolution. People have been predicting one for over 150 years, but like the Rapture, it might actually occur. Three is to start with employee-ownership in the US (moving to full bore financial and consumer capitalism) and then bringing the same deal to overseas workers in the same company or in the supply chain - with the promise of wages that buy the same amount in the US and overseas, regardless of what the currency markets are doing. I like option 3 myself. Option 1 only leads to option 2. I suspect Pope Francis would agree with me if were briefed on it.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Links for 06/19/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/19/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The gold pens are out at Milleniel. I suspect there no red ones. Still, not sure there is any momentum to the Encyclical after this week, unless something happens that can only be warming.
Henneberger's story is interesting. I think she nails the situation pretty well. If the conservatives want to keep the story alive, of course, they are free to - as it keeps global warming in the public eye. I suspect they will let the story die and not try to crash his party, as I hope security will be good enough so they cannot.
Bishop O'Connell and Archbishop Cupich say the right words (and there are links to some video remarks), which is good. Hopefully all American bishops will, even if it hurts. Lets hope they also head off any attempts to lobby the Pope on this issue. If this teaching is going to be more than a media event, it is the bishops who must keep it alive by discussing it and having PSM do workshops on it. Of course, Parish Social Ministry (I refuse to use new titles), can also move forward systematically even before the bishops ask them to.
Henneberger's story is interesting. I think she nails the situation pretty well. If the conservatives want to keep the story alive, of course, they are free to - as it keeps global warming in the public eye. I suspect they will let the story die and not try to crash his party, as I hope security will be good enough so they cannot.
Bishop O'Connell and Archbishop Cupich say the right words (and there are links to some video remarks), which is good. Hopefully all American bishops will, even if it hurts. Lets hope they also head off any attempts to lobby the Pope on this issue. If this teaching is going to be more than a media event, it is the bishops who must keep it alive by discussing it and having PSM do workshops on it. Of course, Parish Social Ministry (I refuse to use new titles), can also move forward systematically even before the bishops ask them to.
Laudato Si' - Magistra No | National Catholic Reporter
Laudato Si' - Magistra No | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The right wingers have been looking for ways to distance themselves from Catholic Social Teaching since Leo XIII. I suspect they will not be allowed to do it for long, especially against this Pope. While they think he is all warm and fuzzy, the people who write them checks (the little ones, not the big ones, love Francis). Sadly, I suspect a short news cycle on both sides.
Acton's Jayabalan talks non-negotiables, as if the capitalism we practice now is somehow blessed by God (I suspect they think it is) or is not entirely exploitive. Sadly, Francis did not go far enough in condemning it. If Acton is referring to abortion, then it could go a long way in fighting it if it supported a child tax credit of $1000 per month per child distributed with payroll. I bet if they even heard it, their response would be crickets. As for markets, let me repeat - capitalism is not a free market system, its a rigged game. Hopefully that part will be emphasized further, by both the Pope and a certain presidential candidate I know from Vermont.
Acton's Samual Gregg talked to Business Spectator. I did not even know that rag existed. It can only go worse from there. He does not like what Francis says about markets either. Of coure, it takes monopolistic structures to have a coal economy and an industrial sector that is capable of polluting and of depending on the demand for goods by consumers (who, I must emphasize, will get all Marxian if they can't afford to live on their wages).
Weigels piece is bizarre (although I like the title) - in infering that the Encyclical should be a cost-benefit analysis of climate policy. That is about as nutty as it gets because the answer is, of course, no. Oddly, George's Trinitarian comments seem to jibe with those of MSW. I am sure that was fun to read. Weigel resists the replacement of God with science, as MSW does. Of course, that does not mean we should not use reason in determining the rightness of economic or environmental policy, especially if you admit to a humanistic Deity and moral system that follows from that.
The mythical story of Adam and Eve is about blame based thinking. Its why Eve at the apple (she blamed God for not making her think like Him) and Adam blamed Eve and Eve the serpent. The knowledge of good and evil we inherit is ulitmately what we must use judge capitalism and global warming.
The solution has to be creative and must deal with both capitalism and the environment, as I wrote yesterday to suggest that food producing homes paid for through employment in cooperatives, which do the financing as well. Such employment conditions will also solve life issues at both ends. (and someone tell Francis that the moral standing of extracted stem cells is the same, regardless of whether they come from adults or blastocysts (not embryos). That is a fight for another day, however. Weigel seems to have gotten this right, although he did not stress the problems with capitalism, he did give a pretty good summary from his point of view. There were no red and gold pens here. He certainly did not follow the lead of the Acton Institute and argue economics, which is why he probably did not mention them.
Greg Gutfeld is an idiot. Francis is more Marxist than Malthusian (which he is not, by the way).
Sadly, I suspect that the shelf life of this story is about over, except to the extent the Encyclical is used as a reference by Catholic writers and a a whipping boy by the right wing. Still, next week will bring some other story. We got a lot of mileage out of the run up and unless someone makes noise eitherway, there is not much more to say.
Acton's Jayabalan talks non-negotiables, as if the capitalism we practice now is somehow blessed by God (I suspect they think it is) or is not entirely exploitive. Sadly, Francis did not go far enough in condemning it. If Acton is referring to abortion, then it could go a long way in fighting it if it supported a child tax credit of $1000 per month per child distributed with payroll. I bet if they even heard it, their response would be crickets. As for markets, let me repeat - capitalism is not a free market system, its a rigged game. Hopefully that part will be emphasized further, by both the Pope and a certain presidential candidate I know from Vermont.
Acton's Samual Gregg talked to Business Spectator. I did not even know that rag existed. It can only go worse from there. He does not like what Francis says about markets either. Of coure, it takes monopolistic structures to have a coal economy and an industrial sector that is capable of polluting and of depending on the demand for goods by consumers (who, I must emphasize, will get all Marxian if they can't afford to live on their wages).
Weigels piece is bizarre (although I like the title) - in infering that the Encyclical should be a cost-benefit analysis of climate policy. That is about as nutty as it gets because the answer is, of course, no. Oddly, George's Trinitarian comments seem to jibe with those of MSW. I am sure that was fun to read. Weigel resists the replacement of God with science, as MSW does. Of course, that does not mean we should not use reason in determining the rightness of economic or environmental policy, especially if you admit to a humanistic Deity and moral system that follows from that.
The mythical story of Adam and Eve is about blame based thinking. Its why Eve at the apple (she blamed God for not making her think like Him) and Adam blamed Eve and Eve the serpent. The knowledge of good and evil we inherit is ulitmately what we must use judge capitalism and global warming.
The solution has to be creative and must deal with both capitalism and the environment, as I wrote yesterday to suggest that food producing homes paid for through employment in cooperatives, which do the financing as well. Such employment conditions will also solve life issues at both ends. (and someone tell Francis that the moral standing of extracted stem cells is the same, regardless of whether they come from adults or blastocysts (not embryos). That is a fight for another day, however. Weigel seems to have gotten this right, although he did not stress the problems with capitalism, he did give a pretty good summary from his point of view. There were no red and gold pens here. He certainly did not follow the lead of the Acton Institute and argue economics, which is why he probably did not mention them.
Greg Gutfeld is an idiot. Francis is more Marxist than Malthusian (which he is not, by the way).
Sadly, I suspect that the shelf life of this story is about over, except to the extent the Encyclical is used as a reference by Catholic writers and a a whipping boy by the right wing. Still, next week will bring some other story. We got a lot of mileage out of the run up and unless someone makes noise eitherway, there is not much more to say.
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Links for 05/18/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 05/18/15 | National Catholic Reporter MSW. MGB: Meghan Clark's five takeaways are interesting. Some of them should bring great comfort to the followers of Henry George (who took it upon himself to answer Leo in Rerum Novarum). I think everyone likes the St. Francis references. The abortion mentions are important. I wonder if the right wingers who are paid to discredit the global warming findings will even notice them?
The Deneen interivew on Vatican Radio is interesting as citing the encyclical as a challenge to think differently about morality and the environment, and not just Catholics. Of course, my response earlier today was about thinking differently about authority, but I think we get to the same place.
The Spectator stuck its head out, mockingly of course, saying that the Pope was saying the science is settled (kinda is) and they should talk to their confessor - of course it is more that they should talk to a scientist. Or maybe an economist (hard to want to do when you have been bought off like most of the conservative talking heads and politicians). I am not sure it will be possible to keep track of all the negative noise from that sector for the rest of the week.
American Catholic is calling the Pope a leftist. He might be. Actually, the term modernist used to be more appropriate. Perhaps it still is. Of course, there is plenty in the encyclical for liberation theologists like me to be happy about. I am also both American and Catholic and challenge that web site's right to monopolize the term. Of course, more and more American Catholics are not bothering to wake up on Sunday morning until its time for brunch. Perhaps the page fits right in.
The Deneen interivew on Vatican Radio is interesting as citing the encyclical as a challenge to think differently about morality and the environment, and not just Catholics. Of course, my response earlier today was about thinking differently about authority, but I think we get to the same place.
The Spectator stuck its head out, mockingly of course, saying that the Pope was saying the science is settled (kinda is) and they should talk to their confessor - of course it is more that they should talk to a scientist. Or maybe an economist (hard to want to do when you have been bought off like most of the conservative talking heads and politicians). I am not sure it will be possible to keep track of all the negative noise from that sector for the rest of the week.
American Catholic is calling the Pope a leftist. He might be. Actually, the term modernist used to be more appropriate. Perhaps it still is. Of course, there is plenty in the encyclical for liberation theologists like me to be happy about. I am also both American and Catholic and challenge that web site's right to monopolize the term. Of course, more and more American Catholics are not bothering to wake up on Sunday morning until its time for brunch. Perhaps the page fits right in.
Laudato Si' arrives | National Catholic Reporter
Laudato Si' arrives | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I am briefly responding to MSW's comments and after I read the Encyclical, may comment at length. I am also interested in hearing whether the final version and the supposed leaked draft were at all similar. Now to MSW's points:
1. I would not expect an Encyclical without scriptural quotes, which provide the context of why any encyclical is important - because they are an extension of the Gospel (something the Protestants don't get). I love the fact that he cited his All Holiness as an equal, if not a superior. That kind of humility is what is needed to renew western Christianity, since it removes the objections to papism. On the text itself, I will need to read it (there is no link) to see how it was treated - as tradition and myth or fact (which I doubt this Pope would do - as it would be ironic to adopt science on climate change and deny it on evolution - my have we come along way in a century since Pius X condemned Modernism).
2. The quotes from St. Francis are charming and bring to mind the vitality of one of my old college friend's father. I can see Francis that way, both past and present. Will that be enough to force the powers that be in the technocracy to repent? I doubt it - no matter what star quality the Holy Father brings to the party. It will take a demand from many more people for more than environmental justice but also economic justice - and a hope that this does not simply add more consumers and make matters worse.
3. The Church has come a long way since Gallileo was condemned for calling the old geocentric paradigm of creation erroneous and calling into question the position of man, and with him, God, as the center of the universe. Now we are affirming science and affirming that God resides with the poor, not the powerful. The powerful don't like that, especially those who see their power as coming from God, not as a gift but something merited. It is odd that salvation is free and not a matter of merit but wealth is an earned benefit.
4. I like where the Pope went on economic justice for workers. I wish he had gone farther in calling for workers to be made not only partial, but full owners with full control, replacing hierarchism with democracy. Of course, since the Holy Father and I don't speak and he apparently does not read my blog, the omission is not surprising. Indeed, if he had called for workplace ownership and democracy, he would very quickly have to allow the faithful to elect their own bishops rather than having him make the final choices. I could see him sending the tierna to the people for a vote and I could see the local clergy doing it. It would be off putting to demand democracy on the shop floor and not implement it in the Church.
5. I don't see Francis as a Green, unless he does do the democracy thing, but his comments certainly do qualify him for membership in Occupy! Welcome brother Jorge! As for personal ecology, it is not easy. Getting all the right trash and recycle bins takes effort, as does collecting them. Buying food that does not send killing chemicals into the Severn River and the Bay is almost impossible, although my sister and current hostess tries. Even more expensive would be to grow your own food with customized lighting (actually better for the plants, it really is a miracle we eat at all given how much of sunlight is toxic to growing) and a larger house (or a Condo Unit!). Employee onwership looks more essential all the time. Indeed, it would take that much change in living to really open the hearts and minds of most people, just as living in more humble quarters in both Buenos Aires and Rome remind Francis of his lifestyle choices. St. Francis of Assisi could have been a great spiritual writer, but it would have meant nothing had he not renounced wealth first. We could live at harmony with Earth, but it will take cooperation with each other to do it. Just making the poor richer will simply make matters worse.
1. I would not expect an Encyclical without scriptural quotes, which provide the context of why any encyclical is important - because they are an extension of the Gospel (something the Protestants don't get). I love the fact that he cited his All Holiness as an equal, if not a superior. That kind of humility is what is needed to renew western Christianity, since it removes the objections to papism. On the text itself, I will need to read it (there is no link) to see how it was treated - as tradition and myth or fact (which I doubt this Pope would do - as it would be ironic to adopt science on climate change and deny it on evolution - my have we come along way in a century since Pius X condemned Modernism).
2. The quotes from St. Francis are charming and bring to mind the vitality of one of my old college friend's father. I can see Francis that way, both past and present. Will that be enough to force the powers that be in the technocracy to repent? I doubt it - no matter what star quality the Holy Father brings to the party. It will take a demand from many more people for more than environmental justice but also economic justice - and a hope that this does not simply add more consumers and make matters worse.
3. The Church has come a long way since Gallileo was condemned for calling the old geocentric paradigm of creation erroneous and calling into question the position of man, and with him, God, as the center of the universe. Now we are affirming science and affirming that God resides with the poor, not the powerful. The powerful don't like that, especially those who see their power as coming from God, not as a gift but something merited. It is odd that salvation is free and not a matter of merit but wealth is an earned benefit.
4. I like where the Pope went on economic justice for workers. I wish he had gone farther in calling for workers to be made not only partial, but full owners with full control, replacing hierarchism with democracy. Of course, since the Holy Father and I don't speak and he apparently does not read my blog, the omission is not surprising. Indeed, if he had called for workplace ownership and democracy, he would very quickly have to allow the faithful to elect their own bishops rather than having him make the final choices. I could see him sending the tierna to the people for a vote and I could see the local clergy doing it. It would be off putting to demand democracy on the shop floor and not implement it in the Church.
5. I don't see Francis as a Green, unless he does do the democracy thing, but his comments certainly do qualify him for membership in Occupy! Welcome brother Jorge! As for personal ecology, it is not easy. Getting all the right trash and recycle bins takes effort, as does collecting them. Buying food that does not send killing chemicals into the Severn River and the Bay is almost impossible, although my sister and current hostess tries. Even more expensive would be to grow your own food with customized lighting (actually better for the plants, it really is a miracle we eat at all given how much of sunlight is toxic to growing) and a larger house (or a Condo Unit!). Employee onwership looks more essential all the time. Indeed, it would take that much change in living to really open the hearts and minds of most people, just as living in more humble quarters in both Buenos Aires and Rome remind Francis of his lifestyle choices. St. Francis of Assisi could have been a great spiritual writer, but it would have meant nothing had he not renounced wealth first. We could live at harmony with Earth, but it will take cooperation with each other to do it. Just making the poor richer will simply make matters worse.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Links for 06/17/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/17/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Berkowitz demonstrates his neoconservative credentials in attacking the boycott movement as it relates to Israel and the territories. He would have a point if the Likud chose an Israeli Arab to lead it and the Kinneset. That even suggesting this would leave people dumbfounded makes the point of the boycotters. Indeed, if Israel did not welcome Palestinians to work in those ugly and inconvenient jobs in Israel then send them back every night (unless they are blockading them and depriving them of work and food, he might have a point about apartheid or the lack thereof. Still, I am not a boycotter, I would prefer acquiring a controlling interest in companies in offending countries and in that nation's debt and then use that leverage to demand change. Berkowitz makes it sounds like we need to simply determine borders and sleeping arrangements, taking care of the situation and moving on. Israel is what Ferguson used to be, a Sundown Town. Time to change, and if the political establishment and its defenders find the suggestion that change is needed to be a form of anti-Semetism (funny, since I am Samaritan-Roma), something stronger is essential.
Acton is in Grand Rapids, conservatism central. Still, as someone who at least does not scorn the concept of liberty - especially when it relates to the autonomy of the conscience and its use in discerning natural law, as well as my Catholicism, I might have found this fun - as long as someone was paying. Still, libertarianism without some form of socialism, Catholic or not, is incomplete. Indeed, socialism without a healthy respect for personal autonomy is also something to be avoided.
Trump is a pompous clown, which is hard to carry off with a straight face. Its not Dr. Carson doing performance art, its Trump. Leading his announcement by attacking Mexico is about the worst thing he can do to help the GOP survive in the long term or win elections in the short term, particularly in 2016. The evening news was nice to him, not repeating his screed of financial self-congratulation. He is the magnification of Carli Fiorina and Harman Cain. Lets hope he is the last - or at least the last capitalist to do it.
Acton is in Grand Rapids, conservatism central. Still, as someone who at least does not scorn the concept of liberty - especially when it relates to the autonomy of the conscience and its use in discerning natural law, as well as my Catholicism, I might have found this fun - as long as someone was paying. Still, libertarianism without some form of socialism, Catholic or not, is incomplete. Indeed, socialism without a healthy respect for personal autonomy is also something to be avoided.
Trump is a pompous clown, which is hard to carry off with a straight face. Its not Dr. Carson doing performance art, its Trump. Leading his announcement by attacking Mexico is about the worst thing he can do to help the GOP survive in the long term or win elections in the short term, particularly in 2016. The evening news was nice to him, not repeating his screed of financial self-congratulation. He is the magnification of Carli Fiorina and Harman Cain. Lets hope he is the last - or at least the last capitalist to do it.
The Encyclical Cometh, Part II | National Catholic Reporter
The Encyclical Cometh, Part II | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: On the first point, it is not true to say that this Encyclical is not political, as the Pope is the head of the Vatican City State - so there are diplomatic implications from here to Kyoto. This is as important as the moral message, which is based on natural law - any scriptural connection also likely stems from natural law teaching rather than any direct divine revelation. Indeed, such inspiration usually occurs within the confines of, you guessed it, natural law. As such, the only thing authoritative is the quality of the reasoning - which is not reserved to the Pope or the hierarchy but to any who seek the truth honestly (the Temple Priests did not think Jesus had the right to speak the truth, so they killed him - lets not make the same mistake). Still, I suspect that there will be some good arguments that at least have to be considered. Any forced agreement, however, is simply Catholic Relativism - truth for Catholics alone). Hopefully, the message of this papacy is that we are done with such nonsense and can seek the truth rather than be given it. Then, at some point, the authority of the message, which is truth, becomes powerful, not just for its own sake but because the mass of Catholics and others of good faith demand it be considered. If it is not considered now, Mother Nature will do the job for us.
On the second point, as for the Catholic dissenters, if you can call them Catholic (although I will because I expect the same treatment when I point out inconvenient truths), they may have something to say that, if dealt with, makes the teaching stronger. I pretty much doubt that, but they are as free to take their shot as I am to point out the political hypocrisy of the pro-life movement. I am worried more about who is funding their search for truth. I suspect they are not among the pure of heart in that regard.
On the third point, I have already explained what I think of the authority of papal writing exercises. As for people saying Francis is a Democrat - if only and I wish. I think he is more of a socialist and as one I can really live with that.
On the fourth point, Donald Trump is an example of Plutocracy, not Americanism. While the nature of America is reflected in our debates on economics and science, that has to do with the tribalism we inherited from the rest of the world. We seem to be everyone. If the world agreed among itself, no doubt American would fall in line. America would likely go first. Like the third and second point, the problem really is Capitalism itself - of which American is the biggest purveyor and strongest champion. Hopefully Francis will say something about that. Of course, that would really bring out the critics.
I did not see the draft and would never seek such things. Consumption may be a disease of the rich, but it is what keeps the middle and working classes from revolting when they figure out that the bosses are living so comfortably. No plant manager, even in the third world, lives in slum housing. The issue is still capitalism, with a side of development, and more people in underdeveloped countries, not less, brings the conversation on capitalism to a head yet again. Maybe if we get it right this time, we can develop the third world without enslaving it first. I do hope Francis talks about that.
On the second point, as for the Catholic dissenters, if you can call them Catholic (although I will because I expect the same treatment when I point out inconvenient truths), they may have something to say that, if dealt with, makes the teaching stronger. I pretty much doubt that, but they are as free to take their shot as I am to point out the political hypocrisy of the pro-life movement. I am worried more about who is funding their search for truth. I suspect they are not among the pure of heart in that regard.
On the third point, I have already explained what I think of the authority of papal writing exercises. As for people saying Francis is a Democrat - if only and I wish. I think he is more of a socialist and as one I can really live with that.
On the fourth point, Donald Trump is an example of Plutocracy, not Americanism. While the nature of America is reflected in our debates on economics and science, that has to do with the tribalism we inherited from the rest of the world. We seem to be everyone. If the world agreed among itself, no doubt American would fall in line. America would likely go first. Like the third and second point, the problem really is Capitalism itself - of which American is the biggest purveyor and strongest champion. Hopefully Francis will say something about that. Of course, that would really bring out the critics.
I did not see the draft and would never seek such things. Consumption may be a disease of the rich, but it is what keeps the middle and working classes from revolting when they figure out that the bosses are living so comfortably. No plant manager, even in the third world, lives in slum housing. The issue is still capitalism, with a side of development, and more people in underdeveloped countries, not less, brings the conversation on capitalism to a head yet again. Maybe if we get it right this time, we can develop the third world without enslaving it first. I do hope Francis talks about that.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Links for 05/16/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 05/16/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The twenty week Pain Capable abortion bill should never pass and paid family leave is yet another instance of helping people until they are born, although adding a few months is a nice gesture in the right direction. Late term abortions after twenty weeks do show a stimulus response to those nasty procedures used to kill the child - but that calls more for inducing labor at whatever point and letting the child die a natural death - or providing pain relief to the fetus. In most cases, such abortions are medically indicated, with the notable exception of Downs children. But if you want to save the Downs babies, ramp up the support from the Church in helping raise them, even the most profoundly disabled - and do with before any government contract is let to fund it. I think the term is pay up or shut up.
Thavis is on the right track, but as I said in another post, the sheep should have been the ones to recieve the resignation (not just the clergy) and then select the replacement from the local clergy, who would nominate candidates to vote on. Until that happens, everything we have been saying about solidarity is a lie.
I read the Polico piece as I was having lunch with my fellow homeless people yesterday. As I understand it, they were trying to get a new vote today. Of coures, compromise after compormise guts the advantage of fast track, as all the possible amendments will now probably be considered as part of the authorization to vote without amendments. Surreal.
Thavis is on the right track, but as I said in another post, the sheep should have been the ones to recieve the resignation (not just the clergy) and then select the replacement from the local clergy, who would nominate candidates to vote on. Until that happens, everything we have been saying about solidarity is a lie.
I read the Polico piece as I was having lunch with my fellow homeless people yesterday. As I understand it, they were trying to get a new vote today. Of coures, compromise after compormise guts the advantage of fast track, as all the possible amendments will now probably be considered as part of the authorization to vote without amendments. Surreal.
Solidarity & Accountability | National Catholic Reporter
Solidarity & Accountability | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I wrote yesterday about the solidarity summit and will repost those remarks on the NCR page as a comment to these notes.
I wrote yesterday about the solidarity summit and will repost those remarks on the NCR page as a comment to these notes.
Couching solidarity in the New Evangelization is interesting, although it is not dissimilar to me including a chapter on Christian Humanism in my tome featuring Cooperativism, or more acurately cooperative socialism - which allows people to approach socialist thought without the fear of being damned for doing so. This also requires believers to approach some brand of socialist thought because NOT doing so risks damnation. What fun.
The Cardinal talks about certain trends, which Benedict worried too much about. Relativism may or may not assume a lack of objective truth - but it is correct in stating that this truth, which is God - is not present in Her pure form in our time - else we would be compelled to stop everything and worship. We only see shadows of the Holy Spirit in our lives (and Spirit is feminine). As far as the natural moral order, there isn't one. Its a logical device that allows sin an existence beyond the here and now - because sin cannot make a mark on God or diminish Her happiness, since She is happiness. That is why stating that homosexuality is disordered is a lie, because there is no order outside of actual human beings.
No Catholic prelate should ever complain about Secularism. There was a time when Papists where a despised minority - and not just the Irish or now the Latinos. Secularism means we can carve out our own space rather than beg the sufferance of an established national church. It also means that because we are the plurality religion today that we cannot force other faiths to conform to our doctrines - although some Evangelicals seem eager to do so on abortion, birth control and the defese of marriage. Not my kind of solidarity.
Materialism is linked to relativism. It essentially means that in the modern day, natural law arguments must rely on evidence, not either faith or authority. It also means that the march of history toward socialism is without God, which I do not believe. Indeed, the materialist impulse alienates more potential socialists than cooperation (cooperative socialism) as an expression of faith. As for personal material well being, its not a bad thing - what is bad is its unequal sharing, although consumption mutes those differences (we can all use the same double ply bathroom tissue unless we are very poor) and gives society a solidarity that workers would have more of if they labored without material reward.
Still, on arguments about birth control, the soul and abortion, and the death penalty, materialistic thinking must play a part. Danger as an argument must play more of a part than innocense, which is a moral criterion. Further, since neuroscience has killed the ghost in the machine theory of how the soul acts, we must look to what is present before and absent at death to determine how the soul manifests itself in life - not in the brain but in every cell - and then track back to when that spark started. Still, we can prove a materialistic life force. The eternal life force, or soul, is and always must be a matter of faith, which is not a bad thing.
Individualism is also akin to relativism - it means each person can make up their minds on spiritual, natural law and material matters. To some extent, this is good, as the alternative is the kind of regimented recreation found in bad science fiction novels. Still, it can go too far and is why we need both religion and cooperative systems (both governmental and individually socialistic) to moderate them.
The Cardinal lists a series of cultural idetities. Some would add religion to that list of things which must be put in perspective and either integrated or discarded. Of course, it is views, not people, who are to be discarded. Not the weak and not the heretics. Of course, its not the decline of these identites but their exploitation, sometimes with the cooperation of the Church, which has helped gut the union movement.
On the Cardinal's second point on the natural need for solidarity, which seemed to be about religion, the counter-factual is a hard one because religion has been an organizing part of society since the god-kings started raising temples to store food many thousands of years ago. Since then we had wars and we've had movements toward justice and peace, followed by more wars of religion. Natural Law can be source on purely secular grounds, even assuming a benevolent and humanistic God (a non-humanistic God, by the way, is not to be trusted - or his priests should not be). While we can certainly use solidarity to teach natural law, its ethics have to be an individual adventure at some point. Of course, religion is not about ethics, it is about common belief (which is belief because it cannot be proved by evidence) and celebration. That last part is why cooperative socialist communities should include a priest (gender not important - actually, it is important - not ordaining women is a blotch on Solidarity).
The third part about the Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching can be figured out without the Church, however the Church seems to have done a better job with this than those who would turn workers into factors of production rather than teammates or societies which consider Caste outsider untouchable or women to still be property. Even, and some would say, especially, the Catholic Church is behind the times in eliminating the otherness of women, which seems to be even more extreme among some Muslim sects (certainly not all). The parable of the Last Judgment (which I suspect occurs for each soul, not as some cosmic event) is enhaced with the story of Cain and Abel. In the final judgement, the ultimate recipient of Charity is Jesus. So if Jesus is the God in Cain and Abel, should not He recieve the first fruits rather than the leavings? Good shelter? Good education? Good wages?
The last part was on the role of CST. His sharing of not crossing picket lines in western PA was probably enough, but he went on to speak about ecology as the next great challenge, in preparation for the release of the new papal encyclical. I would have chosen changing workers into owners myself - not like Enron but with workers, through their unions, actually being in control and expanding solidarity in that way. While St. John Paul II called labor unions the mouthpiece of workers, I would add that they are also the heart and soul of the movement, including the movement to civil rights, in partnership with the Church.
When I found that the Archbishop of St. Paul was allowed to resign, suprisingly with one of his Auxilliaries, I was not at all displeased - not in the least bit. Not only did they protect their priests over their flock in the most obscene matters, but they covered it up. The Archbishop also took it upon himself to take the lead on opposing marriage equality without actually asking his flock what they thought about it - as if they have a responsibility to follow his lead, even when he is wrong - and he was very wrong. I will repeat what I always say on this issue - marriage requires only functionality, not fecundity - its why old couples can marry in the Church; the couple makes the marriage, not the celebrant - unless gays are lesser beings before God - they have the same right (first time I stated it that starkly, and not the last); and finally that the Church has itself to blame by denying the dignity of long time companions as spouses in times of extremis, often barring them from hospitals if the family so choses (and they have not right to chose if the couple is of one flesh spiritually).
Hopefully, these bishops will see the error of their ways and have the opportunity to repent and renounce their error.
What is more troubling, of course, was that in matters such as these, the resignation was not effective upon its tendering and that Rome had the final say, not the people of God in St. Paul. This has solidarity implicaitons as well, and shows that the bishops have a solidarity with Rome that they don't have with their own people (and frankly, this archbishop should have been posted where he is from, Detroit). Sadly, this is a tale of two churches, but its not Washington v. St. Paul. Its the hierarchy v. the people. At least this time the people won.
On Bill Donohue's opinion, he has even less solidarity with Catholics than the bishops. Not sure why his opinion bares reporting.
I wrote yesterday about the solidarity summit and will repost those remarks on the NCR page as a comment to these notes.
Couching solidarity in the New Evangelization is interesting, although it is not dissimilar to me including a chapter on Christian Humanism in my tome featuring Cooperativism, or more acurately cooperative socialism - which allows people to approach socialist thought without the fear of being damned for doing so. This also requires believers to approach some brand of socialist thought because NOT doing so risks damnation. What fun.
The Cardinal talks about certain trends, which Benedict worried too much about. Relativism may or may not assume a lack of objective truth - but it is correct in stating that this truth, which is God - is not present in Her pure form in our time - else we would be compelled to stop everything and worship. We only see shadows of the Holy Spirit in our lives (and Spirit is feminine). As far as the natural moral order, there isn't one. Its a logical device that allows sin an existence beyond the here and now - because sin cannot make a mark on God or diminish Her happiness, since She is happiness. That is why stating that homosexuality is disordered is a lie, because there is no order outside of actual human beings.
No Catholic prelate should ever complain about Secularism. There was a time when Papists where a despised minority - and not just the Irish or now the Latinos. Secularism means we can carve out our own space rather than beg the sufferance of an established national church. It also means that because we are the plurality religion today that we cannot force other faiths to conform to our doctrines - although some Evangelicals seem eager to do so on abortion, birth control and the defese of marriage. Not my kind of solidarity.
Materialism is linked to relativism. It essentially means that in the modern day, natural law arguments must rely on evidence, not either faith or authority. It also means that the march of history toward socialism is without God, which I do not believe. Indeed, the materialist impulse alienates more potential socialists than cooperation (cooperative socialism) as an expression of faith. As for personal material well being, its not a bad thing - what is bad is its unequal sharing, although consumption mutes those differences (we can all use the same double ply bathroom tissue unless we are very poor) and gives society a solidarity that workers would have more of if they labored without material reward.
Still, on arguments about birth control, the soul and abortion, and the death penalty, materialistic thinking must play a part. Danger as an argument must play more of a part than innocense, which is a moral criterion. Further, since neuroscience has killed the ghost in the machine theory of how the soul acts, we must look to what is present before and absent at death to determine how the soul manifests itself in life - not in the brain but in every cell - and then track back to when that spark started. Still, we can prove a materialistic life force. The eternal life force, or soul, is and always must be a matter of faith, which is not a bad thing.
Individualism is also akin to relativism - it means each person can make up their minds on spiritual, natural law and material matters. To some extent, this is good, as the alternative is the kind of regimented recreation found in bad science fiction novels. Still, it can go too far and is why we need both religion and cooperative systems (both governmental and individually socialistic) to moderate them.
The Cardinal lists a series of cultural idetities. Some would add religion to that list of things which must be put in perspective and either integrated or discarded. Of course, it is views, not people, who are to be discarded. Not the weak and not the heretics. Of course, its not the decline of these identites but their exploitation, sometimes with the cooperation of the Church, which has helped gut the union movement.
On the Cardinal's second point on the natural need for solidarity, which seemed to be about religion, the counter-factual is a hard one because religion has been an organizing part of society since the god-kings started raising temples to store food many thousands of years ago. Since then we had wars and we've had movements toward justice and peace, followed by more wars of religion. Natural Law can be source on purely secular grounds, even assuming a benevolent and humanistic God (a non-humanistic God, by the way, is not to be trusted - or his priests should not be). While we can certainly use solidarity to teach natural law, its ethics have to be an individual adventure at some point. Of course, religion is not about ethics, it is about common belief (which is belief because it cannot be proved by evidence) and celebration. That last part is why cooperative socialist communities should include a priest (gender not important - actually, it is important - not ordaining women is a blotch on Solidarity).
The third part about the Foundation of Catholic Social Teaching can be figured out without the Church, however the Church seems to have done a better job with this than those who would turn workers into factors of production rather than teammates or societies which consider Caste outsider untouchable or women to still be property. Even, and some would say, especially, the Catholic Church is behind the times in eliminating the otherness of women, which seems to be even more extreme among some Muslim sects (certainly not all). The parable of the Last Judgment (which I suspect occurs for each soul, not as some cosmic event) is enhaced with the story of Cain and Abel. In the final judgement, the ultimate recipient of Charity is Jesus. So if Jesus is the God in Cain and Abel, should not He recieve the first fruits rather than the leavings? Good shelter? Good education? Good wages?
The last part was on the role of CST. His sharing of not crossing picket lines in western PA was probably enough, but he went on to speak about ecology as the next great challenge, in preparation for the release of the new papal encyclical. I would have chosen changing workers into owners myself - not like Enron but with workers, through their unions, actually being in control and expanding solidarity in that way. While St. John Paul II called labor unions the mouthpiece of workers, I would add that they are also the heart and soul of the movement, including the movement to civil rights, in partnership with the Church.
When I found that the Archbishop of St. Paul was allowed to resign, suprisingly with one of his Auxilliaries, I was not at all displeased - not in the least bit. Not only did they protect their priests over their flock in the most obscene matters, but they covered it up. The Archbishop also took it upon himself to take the lead on opposing marriage equality without actually asking his flock what they thought about it - as if they have a responsibility to follow his lead, even when he is wrong - and he was very wrong. I will repeat what I always say on this issue - marriage requires only functionality, not fecundity - its why old couples can marry in the Church; the couple makes the marriage, not the celebrant - unless gays are lesser beings before God - they have the same right (first time I stated it that starkly, and not the last); and finally that the Church has itself to blame by denying the dignity of long time companions as spouses in times of extremis, often barring them from hospitals if the family so choses (and they have not right to chose if the couple is of one flesh spiritually).
Hopefully, these bishops will see the error of their ways and have the opportunity to repent and renounce their error.
What is more troubling, of course, was that in matters such as these, the resignation was not effective upon its tendering and that Rome had the final say, not the people of God in St. Paul. This has solidarity implicaitons as well, and shows that the bishops have a solidarity with Rome that they don't have with their own people (and frankly, this archbishop should have been posted where he is from, Detroit). Sadly, this is a tale of two churches, but its not Washington v. St. Paul. Its the hierarchy v. the people. At least this time the people won.
On Bill Donohue's opinion, he has even less solidarity with Catholics than the bishops. Not sure why his opinion bares reporting.
Monday, June 15, 2015
Links for 06/15/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/15/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Oh, Boo Hoo for Crisis Magazine, who seemingly can't take what it dishes out. And lose the name Crisis. Vatican II and the movement to the left economically, as well as the unmasking of the pro-life movement as electoral in nature is progress, not Crisis.
Since the Journal piece is dated next year, I suspect it was not source material for the new Encyclical, although we will see about that when it is published. Just to be clear, however, the heat crisis and the energy crisis are different things. We are not at peak oil (the spike in price had to do with irregularities in the trading rules of the NY Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) that have been fixed in accordance with Dodd-Frank) and there is plenty of coal. Global warming happens because of heat and because these fuels really are not going away soon, so there is resistence to stopping them while they are cheap to extract. Of course, Helium3 fusion fixes both heat and supply, but people who have invested in dirty fuels will still hate the change. The real problem, therefore, is capitalism. That is the moral part, the scientific parts, not so much for theology.
A wonderful story about a woderful mother. I hope they have a wonderful lawyer to sue the SUV manufacturer.
Since the Journal piece is dated next year, I suspect it was not source material for the new Encyclical, although we will see about that when it is published. Just to be clear, however, the heat crisis and the energy crisis are different things. We are not at peak oil (the spike in price had to do with irregularities in the trading rules of the NY Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) that have been fixed in accordance with Dodd-Frank) and there is plenty of coal. Global warming happens because of heat and because these fuels really are not going away soon, so there is resistence to stopping them while they are cheap to extract. Of course, Helium3 fusion fixes both heat and supply, but people who have invested in dirty fuels will still hate the change. The real problem, therefore, is capitalism. That is the moral part, the scientific parts, not so much for theology.
A wonderful story about a woderful mother. I hope they have a wonderful lawyer to sue the SUV manufacturer.
Erroneous Autonomy: A Conversation on Solidarity & Faith | National Catholic Reporter
Erroneous Autonomy: A Conversation on Solidarity & Faith | National Catholic Reporter This is today, but part of being poor means I can't go (and part of being a bad scheduler). Here is what I would have tried to say, with no guarantee that anyone would be allowed comments this long:
In defining Solidarity, let’s start by defining what it’s not. It’s not Capitalism. So what is Capitalism? Capitalism is a system where the factors of production, which are wholly owned and controlled by the owners and managers of the firm (which can be either a public corporation or privately owned) are deployed to maximize profit for the owners – and since 1981, for the CEOs.
Solidarity is not that. Indeed, it is more than the unity of a single factor. It is unity of all the factors – including the various trade, craft and industrial workers, engineering, marketing, distribution and professional workers and even management and executives. Going further, it could eventually include suppliers and franchisees and could even include the people who build and finance member homes, build member roads, provide power and provide education, health and social services (say, the local Archdiocese or as members of the cooperative) to what is now arguably, not just a company, but a cooperative, preferably one that is governed democratically – including the selection of leaders. Essentially, it includes both suppliers and customers – although much of both of these categories may now be internal to the enterprise, although there would certainly be both external suppliers and external customers.
Going to the second part of the day, it would include citizens and immigrants (documented or not), but would also include members who work for an overseas subsidiary or supplier. Rather than bringing them to America, we solidarity and cooperation brings America to them, with equal ownership rights in the enterprise and pay that provides an equal standard of living, as well as equal influence as voting members. Of course, this would be the most subversive development yet, because the best workers would join firms that practice international solidarity (if only for the pay), requiring that capitalist firms match cooperative firms and ending the competitive abuse that makes capitalism work. It would also change the habits of governance in the host countries, ending the rationale for the American defense complex. Nothing says solidarity more than lowering your weapons.
Interestingly enough, if infrastructure, education, health, and social services are part of the sodality and defense is overcome by international peace, then solidarity produces the ultimate goal of liberty while pursuing its opposite, the end of government. The fantasy that each person should, or even can, do everything by themselves is crushed when the group does it better than he ever could – so that all that is left for the libertarian is to grow up and join up.
In defining Solidarity, let’s start by defining what it’s not. It’s not Capitalism. So what is Capitalism? Capitalism is a system where the factors of production, which are wholly owned and controlled by the owners and managers of the firm (which can be either a public corporation or privately owned) are deployed to maximize profit for the owners – and since 1981, for the CEOs.
Solidarity is not that. Indeed, it is more than the unity of a single factor. It is unity of all the factors – including the various trade, craft and industrial workers, engineering, marketing, distribution and professional workers and even management and executives. Going further, it could eventually include suppliers and franchisees and could even include the people who build and finance member homes, build member roads, provide power and provide education, health and social services (say, the local Archdiocese or as members of the cooperative) to what is now arguably, not just a company, but a cooperative, preferably one that is governed democratically – including the selection of leaders. Essentially, it includes both suppliers and customers – although much of both of these categories may now be internal to the enterprise, although there would certainly be both external suppliers and external customers.
Going to the second part of the day, it would include citizens and immigrants (documented or not), but would also include members who work for an overseas subsidiary or supplier. Rather than bringing them to America, we solidarity and cooperation brings America to them, with equal ownership rights in the enterprise and pay that provides an equal standard of living, as well as equal influence as voting members. Of course, this would be the most subversive development yet, because the best workers would join firms that practice international solidarity (if only for the pay), requiring that capitalist firms match cooperative firms and ending the competitive abuse that makes capitalism work. It would also change the habits of governance in the host countries, ending the rationale for the American defense complex. Nothing says solidarity more than lowering your weapons.
Interestingly enough, if infrastructure, education, health, and social services are part of the sodality and defense is overcome by international peace, then solidarity produces the ultimate goal of liberty while pursuing its opposite, the end of government. The fantasy that each person should, or even can, do everything by themselves is crushed when the group does it better than he ever could – so that all that is left for the libertarian is to grow up and join up.
The Encyclical Cometh | National Catholic Reporter
The Encyclical Cometh | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Pope Francis is the consumate homilist, which means he knows scripture better than the vast majority of his flock, or even the vast majority of his priests. For that reason, I hope he does not get into the didactics of scripture and prior papal writing, as I am sure MSW is expecting him to do. Rather, I would love to see a comparison of the original Sumeric story to the Genesis story (which shifted from man being created to serve the gods and their priests to resting on the seventh day). This can be transposed onto a comparison between Capitalism and the communist Church of the Acts of the Apostles and the need to bring more solidarity and cooperation into the economy.
As for a full frontal assault on consumerism, it is worth noting that consumption is what keeps workers from revolting. No consumption is, of course, not an option, but smart consumption is - even if it does nothing to prevent warming (that would be Helium3 fusion and electric cars - which should be introduced before we run out of gasoline and coal). It is not enough for the Church to require a good public sector life boat for the poor, especially those in drought striken or flooded regions - it must require that they be given an escape from capitalism, where the local god-kings have been replaced with the CEOs. My comments today on the CUA AFL-CIO conference on solidarity contain much more on that.
As for a full frontal assault on consumerism, it is worth noting that consumption is what keeps workers from revolting. No consumption is, of course, not an option, but smart consumption is - even if it does nothing to prevent warming (that would be Helium3 fusion and electric cars - which should be introduced before we run out of gasoline and coal). It is not enough for the Church to require a good public sector life boat for the poor, especially those in drought striken or flooded regions - it must require that they be given an escape from capitalism, where the local god-kings have been replaced with the CEOs. My comments today on the CUA AFL-CIO conference on solidarity contain much more on that.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Are Christians By Defnition Oddballs? | National Catholic Reporter
Are Christians By Defnition Oddballs? | National Catholic Reporter by Ken Briggs. MGB: Christianity, which arose in the Greco-Roman world, has a moral system which more or less follows natural law reasoning. To the extent to which that reasoning has become dominated by authoritarians (which saps rather than strenghtens its legitimacy) and has gone down the wrong path is the extent to which it has failed its membership, who have responded by leaving or stayed and demanded a bit more democracy in both thought and authority, especially regarding child protection. Of the Evangelicals, I wonder how many are leaving because of the seeming reapproachment with Rome - or because they have found the racists roots in some of their Southern conferences and found found them putrid? What shocks me, frankly, are the ones who stay - although many joining the Emergent Church.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Links for 06/12/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/12/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I did not catch where a poll was mentioned on global warming, et al, but I am a believer in the fact that God speaks through people, not just clergy and doctrine (if the latter is even true) - and as far as I know the only essentials are belief in what was democratically decided at Chalchedon (voting by elected bishops, who in that day were more like pastors in all but the metropolises). Even then, there is room for fudging, like with Copts. Still undecided on Filioque, but I suspect Rome as the more reasonable belief. Abortion and gay marriage are matters best determined by natural law reasoning - and legal reasoning as well - and what the Church can do with the former must be within what is possible with the latter. As for Donohue, the only quesitons I have are who is paying him and why anyone is listening to him. I make for much more challenging copy.
I feel for Archbishop Martin, he and his brother bishops wanted to go at this issue harder and the jerks in the Congregation for Priests, or similar fools, rebuked them. I would be discouraged too and would likely ignore the Vatican and dare them to make something of it.
Physician assisted suicide is not something to be voted on and repealed and on and on. Medical practice in this area has been evolving since courts ruled that Karen Ann Quinlan could be taken off life support (and she did not die right away). It played out again with Terri Schaivo. Hospice is now making it easier, but people wait to long to get it and have some time to prepare for death, although maybe arriving is all they need. When attitudes change more, I am sure people will sue to ask that they be allowed to self-terminate or terminate with assistance in a consequence free environment. My bets are that state courts will say no and federal courts will say yes, thus ending the matter. The only thing I have to say about the moral end is that God is not an Ogre and he's probably tired of people (if an eternal being existing in a divine instant can be tired) blaming some privilege He has to start and end life for all this nonsense. Dogma made in fear is probably always wrong. Frankly, self-terminations are also part of God's plan.
I feel for Archbishop Martin, he and his brother bishops wanted to go at this issue harder and the jerks in the Congregation for Priests, or similar fools, rebuked them. I would be discouraged too and would likely ignore the Vatican and dare them to make something of it.
Physician assisted suicide is not something to be voted on and repealed and on and on. Medical practice in this area has been evolving since courts ruled that Karen Ann Quinlan could be taken off life support (and she did not die right away). It played out again with Terri Schaivo. Hospice is now making it easier, but people wait to long to get it and have some time to prepare for death, although maybe arriving is all they need. When attitudes change more, I am sure people will sue to ask that they be allowed to self-terminate or terminate with assistance in a consequence free environment. My bets are that state courts will say no and federal courts will say yes, thus ending the matter. The only thing I have to say about the moral end is that God is not an Ogre and he's probably tired of people (if an eternal being existing in a divine instant can be tired) blaming some privilege He has to start and end life for all this nonsense. Dogma made in fear is probably always wrong. Frankly, self-terminations are also part of God's plan.
Naptime at the USCCB | National Catholic Reporter
Naptime at the USCCB | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I would add the environment to the list. Glad of the Kurtz statement, which I bet is staff driven. The lack of a mention of Francis and the Synod makes me wonder how the feedback process is going. As for religious freedom on the agenda, no one seems willing to call out the bishops for wanting religious power, not religious freedom. Of course, once that is made clear the issue is gone except among the really old guard. Like Cordileone, whose flock should be able to remove him, since the Nuncio cannot. I know MSW is frightened of such talk since what would the Church be without authority from the top, but there it is. As for the executive session, I suspect they talked about November's meeting in Baltimore. That probably really was a sleeper. Always fun to have a meeting to plan a meeting, but maybe it can be provincials only. Now that would be fun.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Links for 06/11/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/11/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: It seems Cupich has a mess to clean up with the conduct of one of his auxiliaries. Lets see if this bishop is held to account.
Salon reminds us that Santorum is not the only Catholic in the GOP race or the only one putting party before Church, especially regarding capitalism and the death penalty. Of course, I am not so sure that the teaching on life has been perfected. Abortions and executions are not about guilt or innocence but about danger. If the offender is dangerous, both within as well as outside the prison, death is appropriate. Equally, if a pregnancy poses a mortal danger to the mother (and the child has nope hope of survival either), then this belief that we are somehow playing God and that God will strike back must be changed. Of course, the conclusion requires thinking without fear, and that is just not found in the GOP at all and not so much in Rome either.
Lovely remarks by Francis at the General Audience, but the wondering on marriage and exended families was all MSW. Exteneded families are mostly crushed by distance - they were most effective when people lived close to each other. My family relied on going to relatives in Minnesota when my dad lost his job as the Viet Nam war and defense spending wound down - its how we know our cousins so well - and they came down in force when each of our parents passed. My mother's family was not so close, given that my grandfather married twice. While my brother used to see the Uncle from the marriage in his restaurant, he is now in a care center and none of us has contact with his daughter, whom we have never met. Will the Synod on Families help that or hurt that? I think that anything that eases hurt feelings ultimately will help, although not necessarily by example. My mother-in-law divorced her husband and that pattern has passed to the next generation, including the break-up of my marriage. Will an annulment or the Synod help? Maybe. Lets hope so.
William Bole's piece is well timed, but I see no new ground and neither does he. Of course, he did not metion the possibility of repudiation of capitalism and did not mention the work on the environment that Benedict did in Caritas in Veritate (and if I missed it it was because it was too short). This is largely part of a feedback loop from what was published by Paul Allen - so this is a fourth generation comment about what might appearl. My bet is on attacking capitalism.
Salon reminds us that Santorum is not the only Catholic in the GOP race or the only one putting party before Church, especially regarding capitalism and the death penalty. Of course, I am not so sure that the teaching on life has been perfected. Abortions and executions are not about guilt or innocence but about danger. If the offender is dangerous, both within as well as outside the prison, death is appropriate. Equally, if a pregnancy poses a mortal danger to the mother (and the child has nope hope of survival either), then this belief that we are somehow playing God and that God will strike back must be changed. Of course, the conclusion requires thinking without fear, and that is just not found in the GOP at all and not so much in Rome either.
Lovely remarks by Francis at the General Audience, but the wondering on marriage and exended families was all MSW. Exteneded families are mostly crushed by distance - they were most effective when people lived close to each other. My family relied on going to relatives in Minnesota when my dad lost his job as the Viet Nam war and defense spending wound down - its how we know our cousins so well - and they came down in force when each of our parents passed. My mother's family was not so close, given that my grandfather married twice. While my brother used to see the Uncle from the marriage in his restaurant, he is now in a care center and none of us has contact with his daughter, whom we have never met. Will the Synod on Families help that or hurt that? I think that anything that eases hurt feelings ultimately will help, although not necessarily by example. My mother-in-law divorced her husband and that pattern has passed to the next generation, including the break-up of my marriage. Will an annulment or the Synod help? Maybe. Lets hope so.
William Bole's piece is well timed, but I see no new ground and neither does he. Of course, he did not metion the possibility of repudiation of capitalism and did not mention the work on the environment that Benedict did in Caritas in Veritate (and if I missed it it was because it was too short). This is largely part of a feedback loop from what was published by Paul Allen - so this is a fourth generation comment about what might appearl. My bet is on attacking capitalism.
The Accountability of Bishops | National Catholic Reporter
The Accountability of Bishops | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Absent the election and dismissal of bishops by the people or the priests (which would bring about such things as female ordination, gay church weddings, a more realistic abortion politics and more accountability - regardless of what MSW fears, or maybe that is what he fears), putting what used to be the Roman Inquisition in charge of policing Bishops (instead of the Congregation for Bishops or the Secretariat of State) is about as good as it gets. Of course, going all-in on this matter has consequences for the liability of the Vatican in dealing with cases of serial molestation. When you are in charge, you must pay when something goes wrong. Taking charge of this matter means that from now on, any mistakes or ommissions mean some Rafael will be sold to cover the damages. Diplomatic immunity cannot and should never have been a legitimate excuse to shield the Vatican from the responsiblity for those who are in fact its employees. You cannot have your cake and eat it to - local or Vatican art auction. You can't have neither.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Links for 06/10/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/10/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Its not the thought of canonizing global warming that is the problem, its the canonizing of the carbon tax as a solution - or worse, the implicit or even explicit attack on capitalism that will really sting. If this goes too far, it could talk Republicans out of the abortion stable, where the GOP does nothing but gathers voters and not doing anything they want. Losing that voting bloc would be bad for business.
Latino Catholics mostly live in the part of the country with drought and they go to Chruch. White Catholic hardly go outsided, especially those that watch Fox News. They go to parishes where they give lots of money and want to hear all about abortion and not at all about climate change. This is technically not the first encyclical, bacause he an Benedict shared the last one.2
Santorum is just too stupid to stop digging himself into a hole. He won't get past Florida next year. Huck will win Iowa. Iowans are committed (to right to life) not stupid.
Latino Catholics mostly live in the part of the country with drought and they go to Chruch. White Catholic hardly go outsided, especially those that watch Fox News. They go to parishes where they give lots of money and want to hear all about abortion and not at all about climate change. This is technically not the first encyclical, bacause he an Benedict shared the last one.2
Santorum is just too stupid to stop digging himself into a hole. He won't get past Florida next year. Huck will win Iowa. Iowans are committed (to right to life) not stupid.
Obama at the CHA | National Catholic Reporter
Obama at the CHA | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB On the compromise, the bishops and the sisteers. The bishops always said that they would accept a transition to the state quo with the same abortion rules, however the assumption came into play that employers would drop care subsidized by the health insurance exclusion and put their employees in the exchanges, where were more like the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, which did have an abortion ban. Stupak was fine in the House, but not in the Senate and for just that reason. Had Republicans agreed to vote for final passage for a compromise, there would have been one. The pro-lifers and the bishops among them did not want the loss - not for the unborn but for their egos, which was apparent when the retaliation occurred by the bishops and the fraudulently named Susan B. Anthony Fund (who essentially lied about the ACA to defeat the pro-life Democrats who would have been very useful to Boehner later).
Its really a silly issue. Abortons are cheap and first trimester ones are paid for with cash 80% of the time. You are more likely to have your money go to abortion when you eat fast food than when you sign up for insurance.
As for the free market option, they could have pushed it - indeed they could have put in a bridge between the medical savings account and the catastrophic policy with a medical line of credit. Of course, sinced health is not a normal good, doing so has people receive as much care as comprehensive insurance, so there are no cost savings.
The archbishops who attended added the right note. Of course, I don't expect the likes of Dolan, Lori, Chaput, Rigali or Burke would be invited.
As for right to die issues, they will never be framed as suicide, although even Catholic hospitals pull the plug on a dead patient or medicate the pain level perceived rather than leave it low to preserve life. It is not God's will that everyone wake up, but its nice (and rare) when they do.
Sister Carol is truly a national leader. I am sure she did not take her vows with that in mind. As for the bishops, if they want to quit being national jokes, they will forget the word contraception for a while, and also stay away from feighned outrage over gay marriage. Had they allowed Catholic hospitals to treat same sex partners as spouses, there would have been no push that way.
Its really a silly issue. Abortons are cheap and first trimester ones are paid for with cash 80% of the time. You are more likely to have your money go to abortion when you eat fast food than when you sign up for insurance.
As for the free market option, they could have pushed it - indeed they could have put in a bridge between the medical savings account and the catastrophic policy with a medical line of credit. Of course, sinced health is not a normal good, doing so has people receive as much care as comprehensive insurance, so there are no cost savings.
The archbishops who attended added the right note. Of course, I don't expect the likes of Dolan, Lori, Chaput, Rigali or Burke would be invited.
As for right to die issues, they will never be framed as suicide, although even Catholic hospitals pull the plug on a dead patient or medicate the pain level perceived rather than leave it low to preserve life. It is not God's will that everyone wake up, but its nice (and rare) when they do.
Sister Carol is truly a national leader. I am sure she did not take her vows with that in mind. As for the bishops, if they want to quit being national jokes, they will forget the word contraception for a while, and also stay away from feighned outrage over gay marriage. Had they allowed Catholic hospitals to treat same sex partners as spouses, there would have been no push that way.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Links for 06/09/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/09/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Education needs to do three things. Train you to think for yourself. Marshall evidence to prove your point (or change your mind - which is as important). Present your thoughts and conclusions convincing to others. Usually, that means in the professioal world, even if no one is paying you,
The Archbishop has very nice remarks about Bishop Sullivan, who my wife and I knew. He was something. Congratulations to Sister Carol on CHA's centennial and to the consecrated women who started that mission well over 100 years ago. Their service to the poor has done as much or more to spread the Gospel then all the politically tinged bishops' letters put together (some of which hurt more than they help). The speech is an excellent read. Interesting mention of Sr. Mary Gavin in the founding of AA, which decided not to run its own hospitals. In a world where drug addicts are sent to private prisons to work as slaves in prison industries, perhaps we should shift their punishment to treatment in CHA hospitals,
Vox.com shows that it is not cost or frequency of delivery that taxes the system, its price. As consolidation and intellectual property rules keep the prices going up and up, perhaps some of these activities need to be subject to price regulation as a pubic utility.
The Archbishop has very nice remarks about Bishop Sullivan, who my wife and I knew. He was something. Congratulations to Sister Carol on CHA's centennial and to the consecrated women who started that mission well over 100 years ago. Their service to the poor has done as much or more to spread the Gospel then all the politically tinged bishops' letters put together (some of which hurt more than they help). The speech is an excellent read. Interesting mention of Sr. Mary Gavin in the founding of AA, which decided not to run its own hospitals. In a world where drug addicts are sent to private prisons to work as slaves in prison industries, perhaps we should shift their punishment to treatment in CHA hospitals,
Vox.com shows that it is not cost or frequency of delivery that taxes the system, its price. As consolidation and intellectual property rules keep the prices going up and up, perhaps some of these activities need to be subject to price regulation as a pubic utility.
Erroneous Autonomy: A Conversation on Solidarity & Faith | National Catholic Reporter
Erroneous Autonomy: A Conversation on Solidarity & Faith | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: If you are free next week, I will see you there. It is good that the AFL-CIO and the Church are joining in this effort. They have appeared to quarrel for too long when their quarrels were instigated elsewhere.
I don't agree with Michael that all liberty is a bad thing. I am also for builiding people up so that they can be more indendent - as we all don't like brussel sprouts for dinner. Neither the drug war nor prohibition worked, nor did an abortion ban that punished the procedure less than what you would get now for shooting your neighbor's dog. I don't believe solidarity means sameness or moral coercion by either the Church or the State. Hopefully the conference will draw that line too. Hopefully some Q&A time will also allow comments, just in case.
I don't agree with Michael that all liberty is a bad thing. I am also for builiding people up so that they can be more indendent - as we all don't like brussel sprouts for dinner. Neither the drug war nor prohibition worked, nor did an abortion ban that punished the procedure less than what you would get now for shooting your neighbor's dog. I don't believe solidarity means sameness or moral coercion by either the Church or the State. Hopefully the conference will draw that line too. Hopefully some Q&A time will also allow comments, just in case.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Links for 06/08/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/08/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Kathleen spoke more about the conservative echo chamber than selling papers. I hope Caitlyn paid them well for the mention. She actually looks better than her ex-wife. On the abortion rate, I suspect the improving economy explains my more families are having their children, which is what the most ardent feminist wants too - wanted and well cared for kids. Want to lower it further, increase the child tax credit even more and make it refunable and distribute it with pay. As for the D-Day leader descendents, I am so enough of a history buff to get excited about this.
Five Things to Remember | National Catholic Reporter
Five Things to Remember | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: My top five based on MSW's top five
1. Religious power is not religious liberty. Let your staff make their own moral choices.
2. Child sexual abuse is not a moral choice. Its probably a sickness, but it is also a crime. Don't use religious power or your lawyers to evade punishment or responsibility to the flock.
3. Gay marriage is inevitable because the youth believe in it - and its your fault for not treating long term compansions as spouses when their spouses were in the hospital. Sacramental marriage is between two people with an optional priest and fecundity is not required, only functionality. Its not your place to define the functionality that others were born with.
4. Quit fighting Modernism, it always wins because those who espouse it always live longer. There is a world out there outside what the Magesterium seems to be aware of. Throw it out.
5. God loves you. Trust Her.
1. Religious power is not religious liberty. Let your staff make their own moral choices.
2. Child sexual abuse is not a moral choice. Its probably a sickness, but it is also a crime. Don't use religious power or your lawyers to evade punishment or responsibility to the flock.
3. Gay marriage is inevitable because the youth believe in it - and its your fault for not treating long term compansions as spouses when their spouses were in the hospital. Sacramental marriage is between two people with an optional priest and fecundity is not required, only functionality. Its not your place to define the functionality that others were born with.
4. Quit fighting Modernism, it always wins because those who espouse it always live longer. There is a world out there outside what the Magesterium seems to be aware of. Throw it out.
5. God loves you. Trust Her.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Links for 06/05/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 06/05/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW, MGB: I declare the jobs report mediocre. While some left the labor market to retire, others are still on the sidelines waiting for austerity to be ended.
Unless its a Papal Mass, I avoid EWTN. I would hope Kaspar would not only handle this guy, but complain to his Ordinary about what he is doing.
Congrats to Micheal Gerson for putting his body on the line by reporting from one of the worst places on earth, although the South Sudanese would not say so. I went to school with a couple of heirs apparent to major Sudanese Christian tribes (James and Martin). They hated what the Arabs were doing to their part of the country. They made it stop at all costs, but I am not sure they anticipated what was next.
Unless its a Papal Mass, I avoid EWTN. I would hope Kaspar would not only handle this guy, but complain to his Ordinary about what he is doing.
Congrats to Micheal Gerson for putting his body on the line by reporting from one of the worst places on earth, although the South Sudanese would not say so. I went to school with a couple of heirs apparent to major Sudanese Christian tribes (James and Martin). They hated what the Arabs were doing to their part of the country. They made it stop at all costs, but I am not sure they anticipated what was next.
Sarajevo | National Catholic Reporter
Sarajevo | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Interesting counter point to the recent links and features on Catholic identity. Catholic actually means universal, a bold claim, but to be true it must stand for human identity, not our one sect. Catholicism is its best when it is not about Catholics or Catholic opinion (or Dogma). Its why Catholic Charities, who hires everyone and helps everyone (we also thought that about CRS) is the most Catholic part of the Church. It is apt that Francis visit there and help rekindle that spirit. I am tempted to wonder about the role of General Clark in the peace as well, but that can wait for another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)