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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)