Monday, July 6, 2015
Oxi: The Greek Vote | National Catholic Reporter
Oxi: The Greek Vote | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Justice is about having an unsatisfied greivance. How to handle that is the language of reform. Its not so much in this instance that we need to overturn capitalism as give Greece the methods to disregard it. That would be by Europe doing with Greek debt (and other member nation debt) what Hamilton had the United States do with revolutionariy war debt - Federalize it. Of course, this will also require a continent wide tax. My suggestion is an income tax and a corporate profits tax. Take some of that corporate profit parked in Ireland and Luxembourg and use it to help with the debt and rigged interest rates impossed on the PIIGS. Of course, a Eurodebt and Eurotax would be competition for the Dollar and the US Treasury - and we may see higher income taxes here as well. We call that a double win.
Links for 07/03/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 07/03/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Fr. Barron should not be surprised by this decision, which has been inevitable since Catholic Hospitals began denying spousal privileges to gay patients, instead deferring to estranged families. I suspect that now those same families will be demanding gay weddings.
Dr. Rowlands provides an interesting biblical treatment on immigration, although some background on the proposal the UK is opting out of would help to provide context.
No law is legally insiginficant. In DC, during the Control period, Financial Authority refused to dispense money to hospitals for performing abortions under the Medical Charities fund. This is a universal practice and was never understood to violate the Hyde Amendment, since federal money was not used. Everyone thought Hyde was not applicable until the Authority acted. The DC A.G. is not correct. The issue, by the way, is not as much abortion as Congress acting in matters where none of their constituents are concerned (and no federal money is used). Take on paying 100% of DC Medicaid, and we will talk about what it buys.
Dr. Rowlands provides an interesting biblical treatment on immigration, although some background on the proposal the UK is opting out of would help to provide context.
No law is legally insiginficant. In DC, during the Control period, Financial Authority refused to dispense money to hospitals for performing abortions under the Medical Charities fund. This is a universal practice and was never understood to violate the Hyde Amendment, since federal money was not used. Everyone thought Hyde was not applicable until the Authority acted. The DC A.G. is not correct. The issue, by the way, is not as much abortion as Congress acting in matters where none of their constituents are concerned (and no federal money is used). Take on paying 100% of DC Medicaid, and we will talk about what it buys.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Happy Birthday America | National Catholic Reporter
Happy Birthday America | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: If the Founding Fathers knew that the impetus for same sex marriage was hospitals, particularly Catholic hospitals, giving preference to estranged families over the long-time companion of the of the patient, I doubt they would have been surprised. Marx would not have been either. That is not a good thing.
Any political science or history student knows that the big three for the founders were Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau. Locke could never be confused with a Catholic (indeed, I am one of few Locke relatives who is Catholic), Montesquieu, though Catholic, married a Protestant and is known for his contributions to our governmental structure - not the Catholicism of our ideal - which did not exist - he rather liked the Protestant side, and Rousseau was born Calvinist, became Catholic and died a Deist. They would have all laughed at Weigel, except possibly to acknowledge Aristotle and the Classics, which were the educational core everywhere. Indeed, they stopped with Aristotle in their Deism and today would likely favor Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens - although they may have admired Pope Francis much more than George Weigel does. Still, the uncomfortable fact for Catholics who would appropriate the founding is that they were, by and large, Masons.
The reason MSW had to write this column is that everyone is sure that the Church will be dragged kicking and screaming into the present. As employers, they should yield right away. Many already suspect that a largely gay clergy is beating up on gay workers as a way to deflect attention from themselves (even if only they are paying attention). The fact is, the boat has sailed on civil marriage, which is regarded as sinful for Catholics to join into. If they ignore such marriages by employees who are straight, suddenly changing their minds on gay ones can only be construed as bigotry.
As for celebrating gay weddings, that won't come from outside pressure but from within the Church when families of gay couples want them to go through the same torture of pre-Cana and showing up at Church that went through and so they can celebrate the nuptials in a religious setting. Of course, what worries bishops is that their gay priesthood will bless the marriages anyway, or will get married themselves - either forcing an end to clerical celibacy or seeing a mass exodus of gay priests who can end their lonliness in the arms of another.
Any political science or history student knows that the big three for the founders were Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau. Locke could never be confused with a Catholic (indeed, I am one of few Locke relatives who is Catholic), Montesquieu, though Catholic, married a Protestant and is known for his contributions to our governmental structure - not the Catholicism of our ideal - which did not exist - he rather liked the Protestant side, and Rousseau was born Calvinist, became Catholic and died a Deist. They would have all laughed at Weigel, except possibly to acknowledge Aristotle and the Classics, which were the educational core everywhere. Indeed, they stopped with Aristotle in their Deism and today would likely favor Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens - although they may have admired Pope Francis much more than George Weigel does. Still, the uncomfortable fact for Catholics who would appropriate the founding is that they were, by and large, Masons.
The reason MSW had to write this column is that everyone is sure that the Church will be dragged kicking and screaming into the present. As employers, they should yield right away. Many already suspect that a largely gay clergy is beating up on gay workers as a way to deflect attention from themselves (even if only they are paying attention). The fact is, the boat has sailed on civil marriage, which is regarded as sinful for Catholics to join into. If they ignore such marriages by employees who are straight, suddenly changing their minds on gay ones can only be construed as bigotry.
As for celebrating gay weddings, that won't come from outside pressure but from within the Church when families of gay couples want them to go through the same torture of pre-Cana and showing up at Church that went through and so they can celebrate the nuptials in a religious setting. Of course, what worries bishops is that their gay priesthood will bless the marriages anyway, or will get married themselves - either forcing an end to clerical celibacy or seeing a mass exodus of gay priests who can end their lonliness in the arms of another.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Links for 07/02/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 07/02/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: It is good the Christie mentioned and E.J. caught the reference to "hard work and his family." Of course, those who believe in hard work sometimes forget that people who work hard for less money also have a right to feed their families, no matter how large. Actually, any family deserves to be fed and housed and receive health care, regardless of whether their head is male or female, a wage earner, salaried, student or disabled. I somehow think that Christie and his GOP base won't take it that far. They certainly won't do anything about either overtime or making some employees consultants, all to mess with the pay scales so that the CEO or even the store manager or franchises can live large according to the dictates of his (or rarely her) class. That class votes Republican too, unless we convince them (the petite bourgeoisie) that they are better off with a more active government involvement in making America a fairer place.
Harold is right about the need for more "categorical rights" in the workplace - and that includes religious workplaces. Union organizing is another battle we thought we already won. While refusing to go public is good for CEOs to avoid activist investors, it might also serve workers if they can get a piece of the action and be activist shareholders - thereby having their funds hold enough employer voting stock (maybe with some kind of insurance) to make activism count for much more than is the case now at shareholders meetings. Maybe we can get corporate democracy at some point - and more union involvement - although if we want this to happen soon, we need to look at Social Security personal accounts holding, not index funds, but employer voting stock. The unions are allergic to that right now. Maybe we should give them an allergy shot. Such a regime makes overturning Citizens United unnecessary however we still need ENDA, since even employee owners can nasty on rights of gays and lesbians, The California case is essential, a line in the sand that should not be crossed. Of course, employee ownership will kill CALPERS, since in the end there will be no stock for the fund to invest in. The public pension system will, oddly, have to be strengthened if we go for employee ownership. Of course, it might force public workplaces to behave a little less hierarchically as well.
The link to Vox is to a story by someone who worked as a plantation guide, where she describes what would have to be as a belligerence about the institutional of slavery, especially from people with a working class background. The habit of wanting status by having someone be lower is quite apparent. Its who the Republicans keep working class white voters in check. A little solidarity among the poor, black and white, would change things greatly. I suspect it would prevent the next Dylan Roof type shooting, which she mentions.
Harold is right about the need for more "categorical rights" in the workplace - and that includes religious workplaces. Union organizing is another battle we thought we already won. While refusing to go public is good for CEOs to avoid activist investors, it might also serve workers if they can get a piece of the action and be activist shareholders - thereby having their funds hold enough employer voting stock (maybe with some kind of insurance) to make activism count for much more than is the case now at shareholders meetings. Maybe we can get corporate democracy at some point - and more union involvement - although if we want this to happen soon, we need to look at Social Security personal accounts holding, not index funds, but employer voting stock. The unions are allergic to that right now. Maybe we should give them an allergy shot. Such a regime makes overturning Citizens United unnecessary however we still need ENDA, since even employee owners can nasty on rights of gays and lesbians, The California case is essential, a line in the sand that should not be crossed. Of course, employee ownership will kill CALPERS, since in the end there will be no stock for the fund to invest in. The public pension system will, oddly, have to be strengthened if we go for employee ownership. Of course, it might force public workplaces to behave a little less hierarchically as well.
The link to Vox is to a story by someone who worked as a plantation guide, where she describes what would have to be as a belligerence about the institutional of slavery, especially from people with a working class background. The habit of wanting status by having someone be lower is quite apparent. Its who the Republicans keep working class white voters in check. A little solidarity among the poor, black and white, would change things greatly. I suspect it would prevent the next Dylan Roof type shooting, which she mentions.
Review: A Partisan Church, Part III | National Catholic Reporter
Review: A Partisan Church, Part III | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: That Novak and Neuhaus were not particularly anti-abortion was not a surprise. The Pro-Life movement is reactionary. Until Roe, the only activists were feminists pushing for abortion rights. Likewise, pre-Reagan, the Cold War did exist in the background - everyone was likley paying attention to theViet Nam meat grinder.
Interestingly, when Reagan took office and the bishops began preaching about economic justice and nuclear war, our three heroes sided with Reagan. I suspect that where they stood related to where they sat (and who were writing for). That, and Reagan ignited strong passions, for and against. That up to half his tenure was an Alzheimers nightmare means that like the whole presidency was dominated by strong advisors, not bad if the President is strong, disasterous if he is failing. What had them pick Reagan over the bishops - probably the spirit of Vatican II was unsettling to them (at the time it dominated parts of the USCCB) and they found a spiritual ally in Rome with Saint John Paul II - although the parallel between Reagan and John Paul late in life is astounding. We made him a Saint for his physical struggles - rather than retiring him. MSW cautions liberals to not put politics before faith - although being politically liberal and being a modernist are actually two different things. As for resisting some of our current John Paul bishops (you know who they are), I respond that it is they who are resisting the Pope while they also resist the President as the Pro-life Amen Corner of the Republican Party. They should read this book and heed its lessons.
Still, for a blow by blow of how Reagan, et al (personally, I think Bush Sr. was pulling the strings) and the bishops dealt with (and locked horns over) Central America and nuclear policy, this book is a good place to start, although until Bush has been dead for a while, the truth may not be clear - if ever.
Neuhaus' attacks on liberation theology as somehow culturally captive are interesting. The train of thought that such relativism must be stopped is taken up separately by Pope Benedict XVI, although what we finally get from Benedict is a kind of Magisterial Catholic Relativism that is unaware that it has moved from a search for truth to a moral Catholic ghetto. Of course, now we have a pope in Francis who may actually be a Liberationist. No wonder our three heroes are taken aback by current developments.
Our heroes v. the American bishops is the subject of the last chapter. It is fun that the author decries the bishops for secular concerns when our heroes do so defending Reagan, who is a political, rather than religious figure. They also did not like the political priests emerging. I know a few of those, who were actually giving voice to the thought that we were better taken over by the Russians than destroying them at the cost of our souls. This is in the ear where limited nuclear war was being stated as a possibility. They surmised that the strength of Christianity would emerge from the occupation. Of coures, recent events in Iraq and the extinction of the Japanese Church during its closed period who that sometimes martyrs are just murder victims (so I guess a fully loaded nuclear arsenal may not be a bad thing after all). That are heroes were also critical of partisanship by the bishops is not just ironic, its a sick joke, which can be diagramed with the red and gold pens of your choice.
Is the Church a political lobbyist? It has such people at Catholic Health and Catholic Charities because poverty is a political thing. It has Chaplains too, although I doubt they speak of defense spending - although I am sure they have something to say (probably wrong) about military gay Catholic weddings. They speak the truth as they know it from natural law, but sometimes they get a bit caught in the belief in its infallibility to realize that natural law does change as society does - and as our knowledge base advances. Where the neocons become neotrads is where they resist the possibility that what they have been taught is wrong. Some of those Republican bishops go the same place - and are abetted by their own partisan leanings in defending past error. That we know they have done so is the theme of the book and of MSW's review. I tend to agree.
Interestingly, when Reagan took office and the bishops began preaching about economic justice and nuclear war, our three heroes sided with Reagan. I suspect that where they stood related to where they sat (and who were writing for). That, and Reagan ignited strong passions, for and against. That up to half his tenure was an Alzheimers nightmare means that like the whole presidency was dominated by strong advisors, not bad if the President is strong, disasterous if he is failing. What had them pick Reagan over the bishops - probably the spirit of Vatican II was unsettling to them (at the time it dominated parts of the USCCB) and they found a spiritual ally in Rome with Saint John Paul II - although the parallel between Reagan and John Paul late in life is astounding. We made him a Saint for his physical struggles - rather than retiring him. MSW cautions liberals to not put politics before faith - although being politically liberal and being a modernist are actually two different things. As for resisting some of our current John Paul bishops (you know who they are), I respond that it is they who are resisting the Pope while they also resist the President as the Pro-life Amen Corner of the Republican Party. They should read this book and heed its lessons.
Still, for a blow by blow of how Reagan, et al (personally, I think Bush Sr. was pulling the strings) and the bishops dealt with (and locked horns over) Central America and nuclear policy, this book is a good place to start, although until Bush has been dead for a while, the truth may not be clear - if ever.
Neuhaus' attacks on liberation theology as somehow culturally captive are interesting. The train of thought that such relativism must be stopped is taken up separately by Pope Benedict XVI, although what we finally get from Benedict is a kind of Magisterial Catholic Relativism that is unaware that it has moved from a search for truth to a moral Catholic ghetto. Of course, now we have a pope in Francis who may actually be a Liberationist. No wonder our three heroes are taken aback by current developments.
Our heroes v. the American bishops is the subject of the last chapter. It is fun that the author decries the bishops for secular concerns when our heroes do so defending Reagan, who is a political, rather than religious figure. They also did not like the political priests emerging. I know a few of those, who were actually giving voice to the thought that we were better taken over by the Russians than destroying them at the cost of our souls. This is in the ear where limited nuclear war was being stated as a possibility. They surmised that the strength of Christianity would emerge from the occupation. Of coures, recent events in Iraq and the extinction of the Japanese Church during its closed period who that sometimes martyrs are just murder victims (so I guess a fully loaded nuclear arsenal may not be a bad thing after all). That are heroes were also critical of partisanship by the bishops is not just ironic, its a sick joke, which can be diagramed with the red and gold pens of your choice.
Is the Church a political lobbyist? It has such people at Catholic Health and Catholic Charities because poverty is a political thing. It has Chaplains too, although I doubt they speak of defense spending - although I am sure they have something to say (probably wrong) about military gay Catholic weddings. They speak the truth as they know it from natural law, but sometimes they get a bit caught in the belief in its infallibility to realize that natural law does change as society does - and as our knowledge base advances. Where the neocons become neotrads is where they resist the possibility that what they have been taught is wrong. Some of those Republican bishops go the same place - and are abetted by their own partisan leanings in defending past error. That we know they have done so is the theme of the book and of MSW's review. I tend to agree.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Links for 07/01/15 | National Catholic Reporter
Links for 07/01/15 | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The debate on that horrid artifact has led to the burning of AME churches. While out of control authority must be met with peace, thuggery must be met with force. We need to find as many of these filthy flags and burn them publicly to see if the thugs come out. I am sure with the entire force of the Department of Homeland Security working this, we can find a few dozen Kluckers and lock them up for arson and hate crimes.
The Greek debt should be removed from Greece to Brussels, who should take a more muscular stance with its investors. A continent wide Income tax to pay debts taken over from member states would be the appropriate way to pay this, including a tax on corporations parking assets in Luxembourg.
The petition to excommunicate Sotomayor and Roberts over the ACA (no mention of gay marriage) is idiotic and it would force the other Catholic justices to sit out any other actions on either issue, which effectively ends the ability to grant Certiori. Of course, both Vigano and Wuerl are smarter than that. While I favor more democracy in the Church, it should have nothing to do with cases on subsidies granted to those in need. This Doller character and those who signed the petition should discuss whether they are excommunicate for both using their voices as Catholics to the Republican cause and in an effort to actually make things worse for the working poor. If that does not merit excommunication, it should.
Review: A Partisan Church, Part II | National Catholic Reporter
Review: A Partisan Church, Part II | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: MacIntyre is mistaken. Emotivism is not the basis for modern moral thought. Humanism is. This can be a secular humanism, a traditionalist Christian humanism or a more Modernist Christian Humanism. The result of a Modernist Christian Humanism and Secular Humanism should be close, because the goal of each is to make life better during this life - rather than as a way to subjugate oneself to a God who wants us to be angels on earth, especially in regard to impossible sexual situations, like being gay. I would aver that the Modernist Christian Humanism would be a bit more charitable to the vulnerable, but that may not exactly be the case, except perhaps with the unborn (and again, maybe not, especially as modernists and seculars alike don't see the utility or the charity in punitive criminal abortion law. Of course, this is my narrative on morals, not Scribner's.
Scribner's narrative is based on narrative. Neuhaus depends on Federal era protestant culture for American morality - which I guess is fine if you believe in slavery, discount the Masonic influence and forget that the age of Logical Positivism comes quickly on the stage in the nineteenth and twentieth century (see secular humanism). As for consumerism (MSW's eternal peeve), it did not come from this ideal, but was the natural result of industrialization and capitalism, where you either make goods available or prepare for workers to riot. Industrialization, not a moral myth, is what breaks up extended families as opportunities arise and people move to fill them. Still, slavery was a big deal in that Federal period, especially in the South. One wonders how that fits the neocon ideal, especially while pastors are gunned down and churches burn, all for southern pride.
I am glad for Scribner's take down of Weigel, who does really qualify as neo-con, much more so than the two popes, indeed, more so than St. John Paul who had no good things to say about Bush's Iraq policy. Baptizing the the Revolution in Catholic European soil would not only astound the Whigs - it would astound them in their night time activities as members of a Masonic Lodge (neither Catholics nor Papism allowed - and the feeling was mutual). As for Thomistic Natural Law, I expect that if St. Thomas were alive today, he would join me in condemning how the Curia has handled it - turning it into a Formalist Magisgterium rather than a way to actually discern the truth - and be fluid as what we know of circumstances change. He might not be as liberal as I am, but he certainly would not be as conservative as George Weigel in his traditionalist natural law.
Novak sounds like someone it might be fun to have dinner with. I would not turn Paul VI into Jimmy Carter - indeed, I suspect that His Holiness was not happy with the Viet Nam adventure, although as a member of the Vatican diplomatic corps, Montini most likely knew the ins and outs of the foreign policy issues of his day, as did all of his successors. I wonder if some disaffected liberal writer turns neo-con and makes comments on Francis' barely hidden liberation theology. That won't be me, of course, I think a bit of liberation theology is exactly what we need. I suspect that no one thought we would be bringing back Vatican II and maybe setting up for Vatican III or a new council in the East. I suspect our Neo-cons (or Neo-Trads) would blanche at the idea. It certainly would be a far cry from the supposedly halcyon days of Ronald Reagan.
Scribner's narrative is based on narrative. Neuhaus depends on Federal era protestant culture for American morality - which I guess is fine if you believe in slavery, discount the Masonic influence and forget that the age of Logical Positivism comes quickly on the stage in the nineteenth and twentieth century (see secular humanism). As for consumerism (MSW's eternal peeve), it did not come from this ideal, but was the natural result of industrialization and capitalism, where you either make goods available or prepare for workers to riot. Industrialization, not a moral myth, is what breaks up extended families as opportunities arise and people move to fill them. Still, slavery was a big deal in that Federal period, especially in the South. One wonders how that fits the neocon ideal, especially while pastors are gunned down and churches burn, all for southern pride.
I am glad for Scribner's take down of Weigel, who does really qualify as neo-con, much more so than the two popes, indeed, more so than St. John Paul who had no good things to say about Bush's Iraq policy. Baptizing the the Revolution in Catholic European soil would not only astound the Whigs - it would astound them in their night time activities as members of a Masonic Lodge (neither Catholics nor Papism allowed - and the feeling was mutual). As for Thomistic Natural Law, I expect that if St. Thomas were alive today, he would join me in condemning how the Curia has handled it - turning it into a Formalist Magisgterium rather than a way to actually discern the truth - and be fluid as what we know of circumstances change. He might not be as liberal as I am, but he certainly would not be as conservative as George Weigel in his traditionalist natural law.
Novak sounds like someone it might be fun to have dinner with. I would not turn Paul VI into Jimmy Carter - indeed, I suspect that His Holiness was not happy with the Viet Nam adventure, although as a member of the Vatican diplomatic corps, Montini most likely knew the ins and outs of the foreign policy issues of his day, as did all of his successors. I wonder if some disaffected liberal writer turns neo-con and makes comments on Francis' barely hidden liberation theology. That won't be me, of course, I think a bit of liberation theology is exactly what we need. I suspect that no one thought we would be bringing back Vatican II and maybe setting up for Vatican III or a new council in the East. I suspect our Neo-cons (or Neo-Trads) would blanche at the idea. It certainly would be a far cry from the supposedly halcyon days of Ronald Reagan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)