Patrick Reilly Slanders Jesuits by Michael Sean Winters
I suspect that the Provincial did not know of the activities of the University in this area. It would be below his attention. Sometimes one must be obnoxious to be noticed.
I also suspect that health care reform will remove the need for Planned Parenthood to provide many of the services they now provide. Eventually, they will be defunded because there will be nothing left to them but abortion.
If the child tax credit is raised to living wage levels (with state matches), most clients would not go to Planned Parenthood at all. One would think that this is enough to get Republicans to support both the ACA and the expansion of the credit. If you expect that, though, you would likely be mistaken.
The GOP needs Planned Parenthood to distract us from the plutocracy they have created. The provisions defunding it would have never passed if it was not a sure bet that the Senate would evicerate them.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
New Report on Catholic Attitudes Towards LGBT Issues
New Report on Catholic Attitudes Towards LGBT Issues from Michael Sean Winters
There are fewer older Latinos in the US among Latino families, since many are recent immigrants and people who immigrate are likely more socially liberal because of both youth and openess to change.
Studies like this give bishops the Willies, since eventually Catholic families will demand that gay unions are blessed, even if they are originally contracted civilly. Indeed, many post divorce unions are "blessed" this way, even if there has been no annullment.
The number of gay priests makes this a problematic one for episcopal discipline. I have a feeling more than a few priests have the attitude that what the bishop does not know, won't hurt him.
In a generation, many of those priests will be bishops and once they compare notes in private, you will see profound doctrinal change on this issue.
All comments about relativism aside, the Church only exists in the conversations people have about it. When the conversation changes overtly, there is not much CDF can do about it - if CDF even survives the predicted (and quickly upcoming) destruction of Rome by both St. Malachy and Our Lady of Fatima.
There are fewer older Latinos in the US among Latino families, since many are recent immigrants and people who immigrate are likely more socially liberal because of both youth and openess to change.
Studies like this give bishops the Willies, since eventually Catholic families will demand that gay unions are blessed, even if they are originally contracted civilly. Indeed, many post divorce unions are "blessed" this way, even if there has been no annullment.
The number of gay priests makes this a problematic one for episcopal discipline. I have a feeling more than a few priests have the attitude that what the bishop does not know, won't hurt him.
In a generation, many of those priests will be bishops and once they compare notes in private, you will see profound doctrinal change on this issue.
All comments about relativism aside, the Church only exists in the conversations people have about it. When the conversation changes overtly, there is not much CDF can do about it - if CDF even survives the predicted (and quickly upcoming) destruction of Rome by both St. Malachy and Our Lady of Fatima.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Pastor says it's time to 'let go,' accept new missal as inevitable
Pastor says it's time to 'let go,' accept new missal as inevitable by Tom Roberts
This could go one of two ways. The people may actually like the new translation, especially those of us who are older. Some say it is quite impressive, as the Extraordinary Rite is impressive. Indeed, I see little difference between the new Roman Rite and most of the Extraordinary Rite.
They could have saved a lot of time and trouble by simply translating the Extraordinary Rite at Vatican II, rather than also writing a new Mass. I suspect the new Roman Rite is an attempt at synthesis.
The other option is that people will hate the new Roman Rite and the process by which it was foisted upon us. Given the current Reapproachment with Orthodoxy, this might well be the moment that the American Church demands a more, to use the term of art, Autocephalic Status - our own Patriarch and Rite.
The English speaking Church could also demand the same thing as a whole - although given how the African Church in both the Anglican and Catholic Traditions is growing ever more conservative while the English North is not, perhaps this would be a good time for Africa to link with Alexandria rather than Rome. Indeed, when such things were being worked out originally, the ancient Church of Alexandria was given jurisdiction for all of African Christianity. Perhaps this is the moment to honor that traditional right.
This could go one of two ways. The people may actually like the new translation, especially those of us who are older. Some say it is quite impressive, as the Extraordinary Rite is impressive. Indeed, I see little difference between the new Roman Rite and most of the Extraordinary Rite.
They could have saved a lot of time and trouble by simply translating the Extraordinary Rite at Vatican II, rather than also writing a new Mass. I suspect the new Roman Rite is an attempt at synthesis.
The other option is that people will hate the new Roman Rite and the process by which it was foisted upon us. Given the current Reapproachment with Orthodoxy, this might well be the moment that the American Church demands a more, to use the term of art, Autocephalic Status - our own Patriarch and Rite.
The English speaking Church could also demand the same thing as a whole - although given how the African Church in both the Anglican and Catholic Traditions is growing ever more conservative while the English North is not, perhaps this would be a good time for Africa to link with Alexandria rather than Rome. Indeed, when such things were being worked out originally, the ancient Church of Alexandria was given jurisdiction for all of African Christianity. Perhaps this is the moment to honor that traditional right.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Cardinal Rigali Must Go | National Catholic Reporter
Cardinal Rigali Must Go | National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters
The solution is easy. Each parish council needs to establish itself as a legal non-profit corporation and set up a new checking account controlled by it and not the pastor and insruct the parishoners to give to it and not the parish. That account would then pay for everything but would not send any money to the Cardinal until 1. he transfers all parish property to the corporation, 2. establishes all diocesan entities as non-profits with independent boards 3. let the council hire the priest and 4. resigns when this is done. Peter's pence should be withheld until the same bodies, in unison, elect the new archbishop and the Vatican recognizes this as legitimate.
The faithful realize that until they set up alternate payment arrangements, things like this will continue.
The solution is easy. Each parish council needs to establish itself as a legal non-profit corporation and set up a new checking account controlled by it and not the pastor and insruct the parishoners to give to it and not the parish. That account would then pay for everything but would not send any money to the Cardinal until 1. he transfers all parish property to the corporation, 2. establishes all diocesan entities as non-profits with independent boards 3. let the council hire the priest and 4. resigns when this is done. Peter's pence should be withheld until the same bodies, in unison, elect the new archbishop and the Vatican recognizes this as legitimate.
The faithful realize that until they set up alternate payment arrangements, things like this will continue.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Why We March | National Catholic Reporter
Why We March National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters
My reaction:
In most jurisdictions, abortion was not considered manslaughter. It was considered the equivalent of killing a puppy.
Overturning Roe judicially would actually make things worse, at least in the way that Scalia would do it, by denying federal supremacy on the question. Now, the way Justice Clarence Thomas would do it, by not allowing the states latitude but instead declaring the humanity of the unborn, might not.
The experience of slavery showed how a multi-state solution to this problem will not work. Indeed, overturning Roe would simply have more people travel to other states for abortion than they do currently (or to other countries), while those who cannot afford to travel would seek back alley abortions again (as some do now). Also, overturning Roe in this way would also gut other federal precident on equal protection.
That would be worse.
The March for Life is destructive because it focuses on Roe, which though unjust to the unborn, was constitutional (because the Constitution is unjust to the unborn until the Congress uses its power to make it not so). As long as Roe is the focus, the movement remains locked in the pipe dream of its removal and will find itself in the swarmy embrace of the Federalist Society and its fringe theories about the rights of states.
My reaction:
In most jurisdictions, abortion was not considered manslaughter. It was considered the equivalent of killing a puppy.
Overturning Roe judicially would actually make things worse, at least in the way that Scalia would do it, by denying federal supremacy on the question. Now, the way Justice Clarence Thomas would do it, by not allowing the states latitude but instead declaring the humanity of the unborn, might not.
The experience of slavery showed how a multi-state solution to this problem will not work. Indeed, overturning Roe would simply have more people travel to other states for abortion than they do currently (or to other countries), while those who cannot afford to travel would seek back alley abortions again (as some do now). Also, overturning Roe in this way would also gut other federal precident on equal protection.
That would be worse.
The March for Life is destructive because it focuses on Roe, which though unjust to the unborn, was constitutional (because the Constitution is unjust to the unborn until the Congress uses its power to make it not so). As long as Roe is the focus, the movement remains locked in the pipe dream of its removal and will find itself in the swarmy embrace of the Federalist Society and its fringe theories about the rights of states.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Abortion policy's legal and moral realities | National Catholic Reporter
Abortion policy's legal and moral realities | National Catholic Reporter An NCR Interview with George Dennis O'Brien
My response:
I disagree with the authorn and Aquinas on ensoulment. The question of ensoulment centers on what a soul is. Materialistically, which is the only thing we can test out, it is the life force that begins deliberative development and holds off entropy, which occurs rather markedly at death and does not occur before gasrulation.
Prior to gastrulation, removing stem cells from the blastocyst won't result in any lasting damage to the child - indeed twinning could occur - either by nature or manufacture. Of late, Catholic theologians have been making the unfounded claim that at this time God adds a soul. Poppycock! During this time period before gastrulation, hybids with a non-human parent develop in exactly the same way as fully human blastocysts. Unless you infer that the non-human hybrid has a soul, you cannot infer that the human blastocyst does as well. Science has also shown that the maternal DNA controls developoment at this stage - that development based on both parents does not occur until gastrulation.
At gastrulation, something is different. Development comes from the genes of both parents and seems to have a different motivating force, which could be called a soul.
As to the question of the Bishops and abortion - if they have a position on outlawing abortion, it is incumbent upon them to produce legislation that deals with the issues of criminality, malpractice if the fetus dies and enforcement, including the onerous power to investigate miscarriages (without which your abortion law contains an exception planned parenthood could drive a truck through). Until the bishops man up and produce a bill, they cannot deny anyone Communion for opposing something that does not exist.
My response:
I disagree with the authorn and Aquinas on ensoulment. The question of ensoulment centers on what a soul is. Materialistically, which is the only thing we can test out, it is the life force that begins deliberative development and holds off entropy, which occurs rather markedly at death and does not occur before gasrulation.
Prior to gastrulation, removing stem cells from the blastocyst won't result in any lasting damage to the child - indeed twinning could occur - either by nature or manufacture. Of late, Catholic theologians have been making the unfounded claim that at this time God adds a soul. Poppycock! During this time period before gastrulation, hybids with a non-human parent develop in exactly the same way as fully human blastocysts. Unless you infer that the non-human hybrid has a soul, you cannot infer that the human blastocyst does as well. Science has also shown that the maternal DNA controls developoment at this stage - that development based on both parents does not occur until gastrulation.
At gastrulation, something is different. Development comes from the genes of both parents and seems to have a different motivating force, which could be called a soul.
As to the question of the Bishops and abortion - if they have a position on outlawing abortion, it is incumbent upon them to produce legislation that deals with the issues of criminality, malpractice if the fetus dies and enforcement, including the onerous power to investigate miscarriages (without which your abortion law contains an exception planned parenthood could drive a truck through). Until the bishops man up and produce a bill, they cannot deny anyone Communion for opposing something that does not exist.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Bp Tobin "Unimpressed" With Obama's Tucson Speech | National Catholic Reporter
Bp Tobin "Unimpressed" With Obama's Tucson Speech | National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters
As long as repealing Roe is the sin qua non of the pro-life movement, Bishop Tobin, A/B Dolan and Michael Sean Winters will be stuck in a rut. While Roe was tragic, it was not wrong.
Jurisdictionally, the ruling is correct - whether a fetus is a person or not cannot be an issue decided by the States (and should not be - doing so would tear the nation apart much as the question of slavery did). The 14th Amendment makes this a federal question. The unambiguous language of the amendment also makes birth the absolute marker for recognition - however Congress can adjust it under its enforcement powers under the amendment and its rights as THE sovereign legislature.
Focusing on Roe is also irresponsible, meaning it relieves the pro-life movement and its leaders in the hierarchy from dealing with the quandry of HOW to extend rights to the unborn. It is not up to Obama,or even to Catholic legislators to come up with this solution - it is up to the partisans to do so.
The onus of change is clearly on the movement. Until it has a proposal, neither Obama nor Biden need do the movement's work for them. We can, however, point out the obstacles the movement must overcome to put forward legislation:
- dealing with making sure that natural miscarriages don't produce malpractice suits because a legal person dies without at the same time violating the equal protection rights of these legal persons
- deciding how criminal responsibility is meted out in killing a legal person without violating the equal protection rights of doctors by exempting mothers
- deciding how much power to give the state in investigating the deaths of legal persons - or how to avoid investigators borrowing families who have had miscarriages without leaving a hole in the law so big that the law is unenforceable.
It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to resolve these quandries for you and until you propose a bill that deals with them (essentially by ignoring first trimester pregnancies), it is irresponsible to say that Abortion is the number one issue on which politicians are to be judged. In fact, without some draft legislation that addresses the issues I raise responsibly, ABORTION IS NOT A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE AT ALL.
As long as repealing Roe is the sin qua non of the pro-life movement, Bishop Tobin, A/B Dolan and Michael Sean Winters will be stuck in a rut. While Roe was tragic, it was not wrong.
Jurisdictionally, the ruling is correct - whether a fetus is a person or not cannot be an issue decided by the States (and should not be - doing so would tear the nation apart much as the question of slavery did). The 14th Amendment makes this a federal question. The unambiguous language of the amendment also makes birth the absolute marker for recognition - however Congress can adjust it under its enforcement powers under the amendment and its rights as THE sovereign legislature.
Focusing on Roe is also irresponsible, meaning it relieves the pro-life movement and its leaders in the hierarchy from dealing with the quandry of HOW to extend rights to the unborn. It is not up to Obama,or even to Catholic legislators to come up with this solution - it is up to the partisans to do so.
The onus of change is clearly on the movement. Until it has a proposal, neither Obama nor Biden need do the movement's work for them. We can, however, point out the obstacles the movement must overcome to put forward legislation:
- dealing with making sure that natural miscarriages don't produce malpractice suits because a legal person dies without at the same time violating the equal protection rights of these legal persons
- deciding how criminal responsibility is meted out in killing a legal person without violating the equal protection rights of doctors by exempting mothers
- deciding how much power to give the state in investigating the deaths of legal persons - or how to avoid investigators borrowing families who have had miscarriages without leaving a hole in the law so big that the law is unenforceable.
It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to resolve these quandries for you and until you propose a bill that deals with them (essentially by ignoring first trimester pregnancies), it is irresponsible to say that Abortion is the number one issue on which politicians are to be judged. In fact, without some draft legislation that addresses the issues I raise responsibly, ABORTION IS NOT A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE AT ALL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)