Election postmortem

As anyone with a television, newspaper or Internet connection knows, Republicans have captured governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, for the first time since the civil war, a progressive candidate has beaten the conservative in the 23rd congressional district of New York, and gay marriage was stopped by referendum in Maine (barely), while medical marijuana was enacted there.

In Virginia, the election was not even close as newly registered young and African American voters stayed home. Even though, at the last minute, the Catholic Church engaged in a full-court press on values issues, primarily abortion, this was not an issue that was highlighted by the winning candidate. Indeed, the Governor of any state has little to say about abortion, since Roe v. Wade quite correctly bars state action on this issue beyond regulating late term abortions (because who is and who is covered under law is quite properly a federal civil rights question under the 14th Amendment and because until someone is given legal recognition, their interests cannot constitutionally be considered by the state - which is why women have a right to privacy in obtaining abortion services in the first trimester until and unless Congress moves the date). Sadly, the voters that stayed home and the Catholics who voted for the Governor-elect will find that his economic policies will not benefit either them or the unborn.

In New Jersey, the result was surprisingly close, given the outgoing Governor's unpopularity. In both cases, the race was not decided on hot button social issues, but rather on the competence of the opponent. There was not victory for values based conservatism in either race. Indeed, in the only race where ideology and values were the focus of the race, the conservative candidate was beaten in a race which should have been an easy Republican victory. While that says as much about the nomination process as the race, it still provides a lesson on what the Republican Party needs to do to stay alive. From what I have heard about conservative preparations for 2010, however, this lesson seems lost on them. In the short run, what NY-23 means is another Democratic vote for health care. It almost makes me hope that this one vote is the margin of victory in the House of Representatives.

The fact that the election was close is actually quite telling. Five years ago, when citizen votes against gay marriage were more common and were largely a reaction to actions by the Mayor of San Francisco when he took constitutional interpretation into his own hands by performing gay weddings, the margins were much bigger. They are steadily growing smaller and as older, more conservative voters "age out," will likely go the other way.

More importantly, they show why it is not good for governments to put individual rights up to a vote. Luckily, the federal constitution can be used - and has been used - to overturn such folly - as it did when Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay rights legislation. This amendment was overturned by the federal courts because it was precipitated by malice towards gays and lesbians (such malice is hardly a Catholic virtue - indeed there is nothing in canon law which mandates or even allows legal discrimination against gays and lesbians). These precedents are being used in an effort to overturn California's Proposition 8 and I have every confidence that this challenge will succeed and be applied to all 31 instances where state constitutions were used to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. As I have said elsewhere, this misquote of scripture originates in the Genesis myth (and Catholics do now believe the story is mythical, not factual) and was used by Jesus not to condemn gay marriage but to affirm the equality of women within marriage.

When I was in marriage preparation with my soon to be wife, we were taught that neither the Priest nor the state make the marriage, rather the sacrament is performed by the two people getting married. It is only recognized by the state and witnessed by the Priest (and congregation). I was taught the same thing in Catholic High School. Aside from bigotry and a quaint (and unscientific) view of sexuality by a celibate clergy, I see no reason why this teaching does not apply equally to homosexuals. Indeed, if we wish homosexuals to listen to the Church regarding spiritual matters, we must listen to them when they inform us of how their sexuality occurs to them - especially if we are counseling monogamy. Telling young people that they are disordered leads many of them to suicide and equating promiscuous and monogamous sex leads some to situations where they acquire HIV. To a very real extent, our blood is as much on our hands as when society allows abortion (if not more so).

When (not if) the federal courts mandate gay marriage, I would hope that the Church celebrates them as a comfort to the families, since weddings (unlike marriages) are about the families letting go of their child (or parent) in favor of the new spouse. It is better that this letting go happen in the protective embrace of the Church, which can then use the occasion to counsel monogamy and fidelity in these relationships (which would be countercultural). Opting for gay marriage as a lesser thing actually damages marriage as a concept more than celebrating marriages would. Indeed, domestic partnership is not a good substitute for the Sacrament of Matrimony.

The Maine election also shows that, even if the public does not agree, the elected legislators in "blue states" are coming around to marriage equality. This has implications for when marriage restrictions are overturned by the federal courts. With Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco as Speaker of the House, I cannot foresee any amount of backlash that will lead to a congressionally initiated constitutional amendment overturning such a ruling. Such an amendment could only come by constitutional conventions called by the states. If blue state assemblies cannot be counted on to ratify such an amendment (or even call the convention), there is no stopping marriage equality.

This issue was also important in the Attorney General's race in Virginia. I still find it troubling that the Attorney General-elect has vowed to fight for the obviously federally unconstitutional amendment to the Virginia Constitution which prohibits legal arrangements which simulate marriage, since he must vow to uphold the federal constitution. Of course, I think the closest he will be able to get to such a defense is joining in an Amicus Curie brief when this issue finally gets to the Supreme Court. I doubt he will even be able to write it (although from what I have heard of his legal skills, I hope he is the one to write it since I do not wish him success in such an endeavor).

Lastly, the easy passage of medical marijuana in Maine is also telling on the general prospects for conservatism. With the sexual revolution, marijuana use was a harbinger of the 60s (which actually began in 1959 in terms of cultural transformation according to a new book on the subject). If conservatism were really on the march, this effort would have failed. As opponents of such measures rightly point out, this is a toehold on general legalization and the end of their war on drug users generally. Just thought I would point that out to take some of the wind out of their sails after last night.

Gay marriage and the Bishop of Portland, the Virginia AG race and the DC ballot initiative

National Catholic Reporter has an editorial about the stance the Bishop of Portland, Maine's support for an initiative to overturn gay marriage tomorrow and the activities of concerned Maine Catholics to oppose the initiative.

In a democratic society, we should elect the Bishops so that they don't take hair-brained positions such as this. God gives each of us free will and an informed conscience and the Bishop should first ask the faithful before he takes such positions. We are as much the Church as he is.

Of course, I can see what he is afraid of. If Catholic families with gay members get used to marriage equality they will begin to demand that these unions be blessed in the Church. Indeed, in much of the rest of Christendom, the legal and religious ceremonies are separated and over the history of marriage, the Church usually follows the lead of civil society. This would present a problem for the Church, as it would require a rethinking of its teachings on homosexuality (which has little scriptural support). Indeed, the whole one man, one woman theme in the Gospel, which echos Genesis, is not about homosexuality, but about the equal dignity of women in marriage.

Of course, conservatives don't believe in that much either, since to do so would be to concede to women the right to reject sex - which the Church did not believe they had until very recently (and still may officially reject on doctrinal and scriptural grounds - something about being submissive to one's husband). If conservatives really put the relevant scripture into practice, it would support women's equality in both civil and canon law and would ordain them to the priesthood and ministry. (Fat chance).

This is a local issue because the Republican candidate for Attorney General has vowed to fully defend the Virginia Constitutional Amendment which not only prohibits gay marriage, it also prohibits marriage-like contracts. Of course, such a stance is totally against the federal constitution, which limits state intervention in contracts. This has only escaped challenge due to the decency of most families of gays and lesbians in Virginia and because it was thought that the US Circuit Court of Appeals that would hear the case would not vote to overturn the amendment, so that it was better to wait for other Federal Courts to act and for a better Supreme Court.

I see this as another reason to vote for Steve Shannon, since the Virginia Amendment is beyond the pale. It is blatantly discrimatory against gays and lesbians, even prohibiting them to make arrangements on their own to protect their rights. Indeed, it could prohibit the ability to will another person property just because of their sexual orientation, even though unrelated friends who are not homosexual can leave property to whomever they chose. It is blatantly unconstitutional under federal judicial precident and won't stand scrutiny when it is finally challenged. We do not need an Attorney General who would ignore the federal constitution for ideological reasons.

On the DC front, the issue of the gay marriage initiative is still active. The Board of Electtions will not likely let this see the light of day and the Council is almost sure to pass gay marriage in the District. This issue will be overcome by events shortly, simply because it is an equal protection issue and not apt for referendum or initiative. It is directly related to Proposition 8 in California, which already had Domestic Partnership arrangments (like the District, although Cali's arrangements were better - BTW, many of the same people protested those for years and kept a rider in the DC budget prohibiting the District from enforcing the law - which in my view was tyrannical since we don't have a vote there). Former Bush Solictor General Ted Olson is bringing suit to overturn Prop 8 because it demonstrates malice against homosexuals as a class, since there is no other justification for not calling their identical situation marriage. There is precident for his argument - the Supreme Court overturned a Colorado constitutional amendment which attempted to overturn their gay rights laws. Whether you like it or not, this will be an easy win for Ted and will have nation-wide ramifications, including for the District (which is equal to other states in such matters due to Bolling v. Sharpe). The proponents are free to waste their money and their time, but make no mistake, marriage equality will be the law of the land sooner than later. It would take a federal constitutional amendment to stop it - and with a Speaker of the House from San Francisco, that just won't happen without a constitutional convention. Given the number of blue states which would never ratify such an amendment, going down that road would also be a collossal waste of time and treasure. My advice to the local Archbishop and the proponents of the ballot initiative is to quit while you are behind.

Abortion and the Race for Virginia Governor

As in most elections, there were homilies, announcements, prayers and articles in the Virginia diocesean papers over abortion in the last few weeks regarding the Commonwealth's gubanatorial election to be held tomorrow. There are those in the hierarchy who see abortion as the most important issue in any election. I must demure from their view.

With a few notable exceptions (New York and California), abortion rights were not conferred by legislation in the United States. Rather, they were conferred because state regulation of abortion in the first trimester was ruled unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, which does allow regulation by states of late term abortion. This was modified by the Federal Partial Birth Abortion, which ended one particular abortion method, but not others. Note that this law passed where state laws failed because defining who is, and who is not, a citizen or a person is a federal responsibility, not a state one. Unless and until the federal Congress grants personhood to the unborn at some earlier stage of pregnancy than birth, the states are powerless to say anything else (except within the confines of Roe v. Wade).

While many see Roe as tragic, it is totally in keeping with constitutional reasoning and should not be overturned by judicial action. The rule of law demands it be respected and, although the bishops and the Right to Life movement would like to pretend differently, it is not going anywhere. The only way to grant the ubon greater rights is by an Act of Congress under the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Right to Life Movement and the Bishops fixate on Roe, they can do nothing to actually move the issue forward in Congress, which is a pity.

Given that, the opinion of any politician or voter on the overturn of Roe v. Wade is absolutely irrelevant, whether they are Catholic or not (except as it involves their legal reasoning ability and their respect for the rule of law). Until there is a bill to grant status to the unborn in Congress (and none has been profferred of late by the National Right to Life Committee) the subject is totally irrelevant. You cannot excommunicate me for voting for a politician based on their opinion on settled law (given that four of six Catholic Justice agree Roe is settled - five of whom are GOP appointees) or on a bill that has not even been suggested - let alone introduced.

What is more important is how each candidate would deal with the factors that cause women to get abortions - which in 73% (according to Guttmacher Institute research) is an important factor in the decision to get an abortion.

One candidate is against greater social services, increasing taxes or accepting federal bailout money (even at an eventual annual cost of $4.60 per worker in increased unemployment insurance taxes - a pittance).

The other candidate will work with the Administration in expanding social services, including health care, which will make prospective parents feel more secure about bringing another child into the family.

What matters most is not the lip-service one pays to life issues, but how each candidate's views play out in the decision to keep a child or abort it. Since banning abortion is off the table, economics is the key, so there can really be no question.

As a Catholic voter, I know who I am supporting - and it's not Bob McDonnell.

Please join me tomorrow in voting for Creigh Deeds for Governor, Jody Wagner for Lt. Governor and Steve Shannon for Attorney General.

Afghanistan Peace Conference

There needs to be a peace conference to redraw borders. The Uzbek and Tajik areas of Afghanistan should go to Uzbekistgan and Tajikistan. The Pashtun area should go to Pakistan, since they have been making progress on this front. Baluchistan should become a country and get parts of Pakistan and Iran. Iran should get Shia Iraq. Kurdistan should become a country with territory from Iraq, Iran and Turkey. Gaza should go Egypt and parts of the West Bank and Arab northern Israel should either be a Palestinian state or be ceded to a newly unified Syrian kingdom under the Hashemite Dynasty (which will also include Lebanon, Jordan and Syria and western Iraq.

The final piece of the puzzle is to get the Heck out of Saudi. We should still have the Navy patrol the area, but a ground pressence is no longer necessary.

Marxists in the Vatican

American Magazine's blog repeats a report from the Times of London that Marxian economic theory is surfacing in the Vatican. Approving remarks of Marx's theory of alienation have appeared in l'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper. Here is part of the quote from the Times article, as stated on America's blog.

Georg Sans, a German-born professor of the history of contemporary philosophy at the pontifical Gregorian University, wrote in an article that Marx's work remained especially relevant today as mankind was seeking "a new harmony" between its needs and the natural environment. He also said that Marx's theories may help to explain the enduring issue of income inequality within capitalist societies.

"We have to ask ourselves, with Marx, whether the forms of alienation of which he spoke have their origin in the capitalist system," Professor Sans wrote. "If money as such does not multiply on its own, how are we to explain the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few?"

Given how the Holy Father despairs of the loss of Social Security systems in his new encyclical Caritas in Veritate, we should not be surprised by the shift. Indeed, there is a marked difference between Marxian economic theory and the Marxist-Leninist tenants on revolution. All the Catholic social encyclicals are a reaction to Marx, not only to condemn, but also to compete. They are hardly a glowing endorsement of Capitalism.

Will this automatically lead to statist systems? No, indeed it should not. Distributists have based their ideology on opposing capitalism and socialism - both of which are statist, although the latest encyclical does not endorse a "third way" or any particular solution. The new encyclical argues for "the gift" which brings to mind the Focolare movement. It is up to us to design systems which meet the requirements set out in Church teaching - however it does not seem that resisting health care reform for its own sake is one of them (resisting funding of abortion is a separate issue).

My own take on this problem is expanding employee-ownership of the workplace, which can be brought about by the Employee Stock Ownership Plan movement, the possible conversion of union pension funds into more direct ownership (which would require a change in law allowing them to do so) and the establishment of personal accounts as part of Social Security containing shares in the company one works for, rather than shares in an index fund. The latter should be backed by a mutual insurance fund of all such companies and should include mechanisms of not just ownership, but also control. Such firms could also provide medical services, housing services, mortgage services and line of credit services rather than having their owner-members seek these services in the private market. They could also extend their ownership structure to their overseas workers and suppliers - which would both stop the movement of jobs offshore and raise the standard of living in those countries, leading to greater democratization as well. Such a scheme would be disastrous to the military-industrial complex and the financial sector, but would be good for everyone else.

Of course, getting there requires the courage to embrace new ideas. Anyone for a hug?

Musings from the Christian Left

Geocities has gone away. The essays from the Musings have been transferred to various blogs. Here are the links to the Christian essays:

What is the Christian Left

A Catalogue of Musings

Proof of God

The Nature of Soul and Spirit

How Christians Understand God

The Death of Jesus and its Meaning to Us

Liberation Morality

Rebuilding the Body of Christ

The Limits of State Power

Education, Welfare and Religion

Drugs, Mental Health and Crime

Racial Justice

Gay Rights

Birth Control and Stem Cell Research

Roe v. Wade and Reproductive Freedom

Abortion and the Christian Left

The True Nature of the Social Security Crisis

Comprehensive Tax Reform

Social Security and Ownership

Corporate Governance

Pay Equity

21st Century Homes: Interindependence

The 21st Century Career

Professional Sports Teams and the Entertainment Industry

Employee and Union-owned Multinationals and Trade

Converting Socialist Enterprise to Employee Ownership

Fighting for Justice

An International Bill of Rights

Bringing Peace to Israel

Lessons from the War in Iraq

Toward Allied Government

A Private Space Transportation System

Ending Government as We Know It

Taking Action

Bill Donahue's latest screed

I have been remiss about posting here. This is the latest piece from my Examiner blog:

Those of us in the liberal Catholic press owe a great debt to Bill Donahue and those who publish him for providing us with something to write about. The Washington Post published his latest screed about how secularists are attempting to destroy Catholic culture and society as a whole - but that because of abortion and gay rights, all those God fearing right wingers will win out in the end.

Some issues are entirely secular or have secular aspects which must be addressed (like abortion). As far as culture, I have always found it abundantly amusing that Fox News is subsized by the Fox entertainment establishment, which has some of the raunchiest entertainment in the marketplace.

As far as sexual morality, it exists not for God but for people, because God loves people and because He is intrensically happy regardless of our moral behavior. When the Catholic hierarchy creates dogma that ignores this fact, the people in the pews are right to ignore it. Secularism is good here, since it prevents violence on the part of religious authorities to enforce their idealistic and wrongheaded views.

Bill Donohue seems to discount that the President of the United States started his career as a Catholic Charities employee and the Vice President and the Speaker of the House are Catholics and Democrats. Six Justices on the Supreme Court are Catholic - the last of which was appointed by the current Democratic President. Of course he has his own version of who is or is not Catholic. He is not entitled to an opinion on this, however.

Finally, it is the liberals in the Church and public life (and the voting booth for Obama) who see economics as the solution to abortion. We are begining to win the day - starting with health care reform and the raising of wages for the least among us. Don't count out our ability to increase the number of liberals once our economic agenda gets done. By the way, it is false to alledge that abortion and ideology are linked - many conservatives resort to abortion when their children end up pregnant, or when they cannot afford yet another child. Indeed, given the economic status of many conservatives, the Democratic economic proposals may not actually help our cause - however we are not so callous as to have political motivations for doing good.

Archbishop Burke added to Congregation of Bishops, converting Anglicans welcome in Ordinates

Just when I had writers block, the Vatican comes through with a few topics to write about.

First comes the announcement that Apostolic Signatura and former Kansas City Archbishop Raymond Burke has been named to the Congregation of Bishops. The congregation is the curial body which advises the Pope on the consecration of new bishops and their assignments. Many have been reading the tea leaves for the significance of this, especially regarding A/B Burke's practice of denying Eucharist to pro-choice Catholic politicians. At the time of his Excellency's new assignment, many regarded it as a repudiation of his views, so it is natural that some of his supporters would regard this new development as vindication. Not so fast! Membership in the Congregation is ex officio for the Signatura. Indeed, the fact that this has been delayed for a year does not speak well for the Archbishop, as his inclusion in the Congregation should have followed more quickly from his new assignment. We will see how well he can play well with others. Let's hope he can, since the last thing the Church needs is more turmoil.

Much of the turmoil on this issue comes from a misunderstanding of the difference between any politician's opinion on Roe v. Wade and the possible impact that opinion may have on securing rights for the unborn. This misunderstanding largely comes from a misunderstanding of what Roe does and does not do and the difference between legislatively enacted abortion liberalization and the Court's ruling that abortion restriction by the states is unconstitutional as long as the fetus enjoys no legal status (which can only be granted by the Congress, not the states). By focusing on overturning Roe (which is impossible given that four Catholic justices of the six on the Court view it as settled law), the Pro-Life movement continues to miss opportunities to deal with the status of the unborn in Congress. The President stated rather strongly that he would deal with this issue in the third debate, however many in the movement would rather demonize him for electoral advantage than put down the boxing gloves and work with him in this. A/B Burke is widely seen as one of the politicizers.

The second development this week is the announcement by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that Anglicans who have left their Communion can form "Ordinates" preserving their rites while joining with Rome. This is widely seen as a way to attract conservatives who have left the Communion over the ordination and consecration of women and gays. The Archbishops of Westminster and Canterbury have said that this is not an impediment to further ecumenical talks. One wonders, however, if this is not a form of Cafeteria Catholicism in the other direction. One would hope that if they are accommodating conservatives in this way, they might begin to also accommodate progressives in both the Catholic and Anglican communities who might find more in common with each other than with Rome.

Personally, I wonder whether both of these steps are part of either the Pope's or God's plan to eventually unify the Church, both in bringing home the Protestants and unifying the Eastern and Western Churches. This timing is apt, given the rapprochement between the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch and the prophesies of St. Malachy, which name Benedict XVI as the Glory of the Olive (which may refer to his name - the Benedictines are called the Olivetians - or what he will accomplish). After Benedict comes Peter the Roman, who if Benedict is successful in uniting with the East, may be an anti-pope who refuses to go along with these changes. Could that be A/B Burke?

Let no one tell you we don't live in interesting times.

Whose heart needs to change to make progress in defending life?

On the American Magazine blog today, Michael Sean Winters has strong words for Deal Hudson and and Jack Smith (of the Catholic Key, the paper of the Archidocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph). You can read the entry at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=12256868-3048-741E-4518223630185722 He claims that they are being deliberately deceitful on health care reform and the Hyde Amendment. I disagree.

I actually think they believe what they are saying, as it confirms their biases, and that they are sadly misinformed about the facts of these issues. They believe they are being obedient to the Church by not educating themselves and by not speaking reasonably. I would like to think that those in the pro-life camp are not deliberately selling snake oil by insisting on the overturn of Roe when they know it is not possible. That would make them evil, rather than misinformed, since the only reason to do so is to take the money of people who don't know better and to rally votes for the Republican cause in the name of an issue that will never be resolved. I don't believe they are evil. Roe will never be overturned judicially - not because of the hearts of the people but because it should not be. It can be overturned legislatively, since Congress has the inherent and explicit powers to say who and who does not have legal protection as a person (under the enforcement powers of the 14th Amendment). Because this power is reserved to Congress and not the states, overturning Roe judicially and going back to 1972 is a pipe dream, although this dream plays into the Republican states rights meme very well so it is hard to eradicate. Until it is eradicated, the pro-life movement will remain in fantasy land and innocent life will continue to be taken. The other thing keeping abortion mills going is the link between the pro-life movement and economic conservativism. As long as this continues, poor women and the families of teenage daughters will resort to abortion - regardless of its legality. Like the problem of illegal immigration, this problem persists largely due to conflicting desires in authoritarian conservatism itself, which is stubborn and unwillilng to face new facts. It is not the hearts of the American people at large which must change, but those who insist on solutions that will not work.

Let me add one more thing on this issue of abortion, judges and the Administration. Much energy went into campaigning against Obama because of the Justices he would appoint. Yet, when given the chance, he appointed a Catholic who was not "pro-abortion no matter what" when she ruled on the Court of Appeals to allow the Mexico City policy to go forward. A pro-abortion idealogue would not have ruled that way. I suspect she falls in the Roberts, Alito, Kennedy zone on this issue, meaning that if Congress acted to restrict abortion in the second and third trimesters under their power under the 14th Amendment (which would partially overturn Roe), these four would likely affirm such an act. Such an act, by the way, was hinted at by Obama in the third debate (at least for the third trimester). Both of these facts point to the biased and muddled thinking of those who reflexively oppose this President. They should try working with him a bit more closely instead of villifying him.

The Catholic bishop's draft pastoral on marriage

America Magazine reports that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have published a draft pastoral on marriage, including opposition the gay marriage. You can read the pastoral at http://ncrnews.org/documents/marriage_divine_plan.pdf. You can comment on America Magazine's blog at http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=22215679-3048-741E-8316742757114969. National Catholic Review has an editorial on the letter at http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/marriage-bishops-should-start-over

Here are my comments on this, which reflect what I have said here previously:

Even with six Catholics on the Court, the Bishops's letter won't have an effect on the legality of gay marriage, which is based on equal protection doctrines and a growing body of law that expands individual rights. They are badly advised, as is the Vatican, on the biological and legal facts of this issue. Their scriptural knowledge on this is not so good either. The final nail in the coffin of the current view on homosexuality is the pastoral need to celebrate gay marriages for individuals (and more importantly, their families) who are married in civil ceremonies.

When I was in High School marriage class and in marriage preparation, we were told that the Church does not perform the marriage, the couple does with the Priest providing witness. While the Church can certainly have an opinion stating that gay and lesbian marriages do not have the same Charism, such a belief defies both logic and experience. In reality, the coming pastoral is nothing more than an episcopal temper tantrum. They can kick and scream all they want, but it won't change reality.

Living wage as economic stimulus

Debate is beginning to intensify in our nation's capitol about the need for a second economic stimulus package to begin moving the economy. I suggest that Obama take a page from Catholic Social Theory in doing so, much the way FDR did when he asked Msgr. Ryan help him design Social Security.

A central tenant of Catholic Social Teaching is a fair and living wage, which can be defined as a wage large enough to provide for one's family. We have exemptions, the earned income credit and a child tax credit to move us in that direction - however these have not quite kept up with inflation. While the exemption is currently indexed, that indexing started after it had lost much of its purchasing power. Additionally, exemptions are not refundable - so they don't help you if you do not have tax liability. Finally, having three different sources of child income lends unneeded complexity to the system, forcing those who need it most (who often are the least educated) to turn to tax preparers - some of whom are very poorly trained.

I suggest combining several credits, deductions and exemptions - as well as most entitlement programs - into a single refundable child tax credit of between $500 and $1000 per month. The current monthly value of the child tax credit is a mere $83.33 That might by food. Shifting the exemption to a refundable credit would double that to $167. Ending the mortgage interest and property tax deductions and shifting those to the credit would bring the monthly value to $500. Now we are getting someplace. If you moved Food Stamps and some of the other entitlements to a refundable credit to children and the elderly you could raise it even higher. If state governments got into the act, especially those with a high cost of living, you could actually provide a living wage.

Many object to mandated living wage legislation because it would hit small business hard. Using the tax system to assure a living wage does not hurt employers at all.

Housing would not necessarily lose by this shift, since the biggest additional expense in adding a child to the family is additional housing. This might change the mix of housing demanded and it might even expand housing, as studies show that most wealthy people buy bigger homes regardless of whether they can deduct the mortgage interest. Most wealthy folks realize that even if you get thirty cents back on the dollar for mortgage interest, you are still paying seventy cents. Wealthy people most likely pay cash rather than incur interest to save on their taxes.

This proposal is economic stimulus for two reasons. In the short run, it will get more money into the hands of those who need it the most and who are most likely to spend it (and in a manner that won't increase the deficit). In the long run, when the economy is slow, increasing the credit could be a powerful tool to perk the economy up when it needs it the most .

If this idea appeals to you, spread it around, especially if you call yourself pro-life. The living wage is probably the most profound life issue there is. As his holiness, Benedict XVI said in Caritas in Veritate, the two are not separate.

Ending poverty with Catholic Charities USA

Catholic Charities, USA has been undertaking a campaign to end poverty in the United States. I know this because I am on their e-mail list. The campaign is outlined at last month's annual gathering in Portland, Oregon by CCUSA President Father Larry Snyder. On Friday, I got an e-mail about their new effort to solicit ideas on how this should be done. I created an account and looked over their three questions:

What can Catholic Charities agencies and staff do to spread the word among your peers, business leaders, and elected officials that we must end poverty in America?

What innovative programs have you seen or developed that tackle entrenched poverty issues like homelessness, joblessness, and hunger that could serve as models for national solutions?

What should we do as a nation to reduce poverty?

I responded, as you would expect, that the key to ending poverty is to expand the Child Tax Credit to $500 a month and to make it refundable - and that Charities, its agencies and each dioceses should not only talk about a living wage, but pay one (a living wage being defined as the practice of paying workers more for each child, regardless of position). In the market place, the only way to get away with doing this is some kind of tax benefit, as firms who pay a living wage without such a benefit would become less competitive in the short run. I also suggested that the Church excommunicate Catholic business owners and stock holders who don't pay a living wage to their employees (which is consistent with the Epistle from James read at Mass last week), since failing to do so can lead employees to seek abortion.

I would submit that the tragedy of abortion in America is not the fact that it is legal, but that some people have them because they find it necessary. Our job as Catholics is to make it unneccessary for anyone to want an abortion. The living wage issue is as essential to building the kingdom of God as any question of personal morality. If scripture is to believed, it is indeed more essential. Recall that in the parable of the sheep and the goats, the assembled mass of humanity was not judged on their personal morality, but on how they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the captive and educated the illiterate. This is where we need to place our attention and this is what will unify the Church in the end.

Reaction to the Pope's comments to Michael Diaz: non-procreative sex, gay marriage and euthenasia

Thank you to Dr. Denise Hunnell, the DC Catholic Examiner for sharing the Pope's comments to the new United States Emmissary to the Vatican.

We on the left actually agree with linking life issues with economic issues. Indeed, while love and fidelity are essential to a family, a decent level of economic support are as important to affirming the Gospel of Life. Among other things, that mean decent hours and pay for medical students and interns and especially nurses. A just and living wage is an essential part of Catholic doctine. State sponsored contraception should not be used in development to relieve societies of the responsibility for providing for a just economy for the poorest of its members.Where some of us quarrel with Humanae Vitae and Evangelicum Vitae are the intrusion into married sexuality by celibates (saying that merely unitive sex is a lesser form of love is a slap in the face to those of us past our child bearing ages) and the inaccuracy of stating that life begins at conception rather than gastrulation.

I must add that I do remember that the sex was best when we were actively trying to make a baby - although that was likely as much about the fact that we were younger with better hormones. Raging ovulation hormones likely give a better experience than the regulated hormones that come with chemical birth control.Regardless of the interaction between the spiritual and physical, other, most Catholics nowadays do not see non-procreative sexual practices as inherently bad since their unitive purpose is inherently good. Once you let the unitive purpose of sexuality in as a good at all, you can't make that good conditional. Once that unitive good is seen as a good in its own existence, you can't call homosexuality disordered without being accused of prejudice and adherence to tradition over truth. Once you see that, the objections to celebrating gay weddings must evaporate. As I have written before, such celebrations are as much about the families of origin as they are about the couple - who I believe are sacramentally united before God (like all married couples) regardless of whether a public ceremony is performed or not.

The Pope also talked to the Dutch ambassador about end of life issues. I must agree with him that the Dutch are way too casual about killing the sick (although in his Utopia, St. Thomas More makes a good natural law case for the Dutch position). The hard right tack the Church has taken on end of life issues is a bit troubling as well. Some more work is needed in developing this teaching.

There is a significant difference between how you treat someone who is declining and how you treat someone, like Terri Schaivo, who has coded, was brought back harshly and has never woken up. While some trauma specialists have found that cooling the body while reviving these patients has stopped many of the harsh side effects in current resucitation techniques - if the current regimes are used after someone has been down too long the damage is likely irreversible and the patient should be considered dead. To some of us, it is goulish to bring someone back after natural death has occurred and keep them alive through medical means.

Archbishop Burke still has it wrong

Archbishop Raymond Burke was recently in Washington speaking at the InsideCatholic.com dinner. Presumably he was speaking as an American bishop rather than as Apostolic Signatura. You can find his remarks here: http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6937&Itemid=48

His main error is equating any politician's stance on Roe v. Wade with advocacy for abortion. The two are not the same thing. Indeed, because Roe was decided on constitutional grounds, politics has been taken out of the equation - at least at the state level. The opinion of most politicians on Roe v. Wade is as important to the disposition of the final issue as their opinion on National Peanut Day. This is not Europe. There is no law which permits abortion, therefore any stand on such a law is irrelevant. If a Catholic politician spoke out in disagreement with the Church on the morality of abortion, stating that it is a viable birth control option, he or she would be breaking Canon Law. Few, if any, do that (Speaker Pelosi being the exception because she misunderstood something she heard in Ethics class 40 years ago).

One can oppose reversing Roe in such a manner as to give states control of this issue without actually advocating abortion. The Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear on the fact that the federal government is the final arbiter of equal protection issues, especially with regard to who is and who is not granted legal status under the law. To say one is in favor of overturning Roe is to say that one is ignorant of both Roe and the 14th Amendment. Worse than that, many who dislike Roe on jurisdictional grounds dislike federal power on this issue generally, including on matters of race. I consider that an unconscionable position and urge anyone who is serious about life issues to consider the caliber of some of the folks they are aligning themselves with.

Using Roe as a litmus test is both polarizing and a distraction from what can be done in the national legislature to limit abortion - and to even have a debate about whether it can be eliminated in the first trimester. Of course, to have this debate, the Right to Life movement would have to deal with serious questions concerning state intrusiveness during the first trimester. Starting life at conception (which is ignorant of embryology) or even gastrulation is much different than simply regulating abortion as a medical issue - which was how it was done before Roe. Doing so would make every pregnancy a public event from when the law recognized it, requiring recordation, possibly investigation and opening up the door for a tort action any time a child is lost - which would seriously harm the practice of obstetrics during that time period. To say that these things would not occur is to live in denial.

It is troubling that Archbishop Burke, given his position as Signatura, does not appreciate the difference between advocating abortion as a birth control option, which is illicit under canon law, and having a position on Roe that the pro-life office does not agree with, mostly because they are badly advised on the constitutional and legal issues involved (in much the same way they were badly advised over how to deal with the sex abuse issue). Until a bill is introduced and advanced in the correct venue (Congress), Catholic politicians are fairly free to say what they want about Roe. Indeed, it is a shame more have not come forward to instruct the Church and the movement on its persistent misunderstanding of the issue - although it is likely because they don't want to be seen as quarreling directly with the bishops in fear of retaliation by Catholic voters.

I would suggest that the Archbishop seek out the counsel of those who disagree with him, rather than condemning them for their disagreement. There will be no progress on the issue until this is done.

Roe v. Wade is mostly about electoral politics - indeed, it is a reliable vehicle to mobilize some voters. Dealing honestly with the issue would take away that electoral power, which is waning among most American Catholic voters and will continue to do so as the generations shift. Continuing to align the movement with those who would use the issue in this way increases polarization, discredits the Church (or at least some bishops - including and especially Archbishop Burke) and postpones a solution that would lessen abortion.

Apostolic visitation to American nuns, women priests, abortion and altar girls

For those of you who don't read the Catholic press, there is currently an apostolic visitation going on among the congregations of American women. No reason has been given for this - however many regard the exercise as a witch hunt for heretics - possibly for those who support ordaining women to the priesthood. It could also have to do with making sure that congregations which cannot afford to care for their elderly members are taken care of. Let us hope it is the latter and not the former. For more information on this whole matter, see the National Catholic Reporter, which gives much ink to this issue. Here is the latest commentary: http://ncronline.org/news/us-sisters-have-served-grace-and-fidelity

The reason many think the former is true is because many congregation members came to the defense of Father Ray Bourgois when the Vatican threatened excommunication for his participation in the ordination of women as priests by a break away sect which does that kind of thing. This probably has some basis in fact, although we many never know. Certainly there is scriptural and traditional basis for women as priests, as some women were mentioned to be Apostles by St. Paul, including the benefactor of the Roman Church, Priscilla. Indeed, she may have been the first "Bishop of Rome" before Peter arrived, since some think that Benefactor was a synonym for Bishop or Pastor. It is also related in some tradition that the Agape Meal, which was the forerunner of the Mass, was often hosted and presided over by women in the early church. Most importantly, the first apostle was Mary Magdalene, since she was the first to witness the resurrection and likely had a leading role in where ever St. John wrote his Gospel, which some say was Alexandria, Egypt. It would seem that John, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus went that way while James the son of Joseph and others stayed in Jerusalem - with that community relocating to Damascus after the fall of Jerusalem.

Many in the pro-choice movement believe that the desire to make abortion illegal has more to do with keeping women in their place, particularly among Catholic prelates. There is an easy way to dispel this perception - ordain women and give the leaders of the congregations of women the same honors as some leaders of congregations of men - consecrate them as Bishops and give them a diocese or two. Indeed, red hats (cardinalates) should not be out of the question. Indeed, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Greece has ordained women as deacons, mainly those who serve in congregations of women.

This whole controversy brings to mind the question of altar girls, which serve in my parish. When this question was being considered, I found myself attending early morning Mass at St. Mary's in Alexandria, Virginia. The pastor gave his reasoning for not having altar girls there. He based his reasoning on the fact that being an altar server was seen as a recruiting device for the priesthood, so letting girls serve in this capacity would send the wrong message. I agree that letting girls serve on the altar does send that message, which is why I, and I believe many progressive Catholics, favor the practice.

CCD, charter schools, reform in the Church, teachers unions and taxes

Today we are taking out daughter to CCD for the first time this year. She is in first grade, so if she wishes to take first Communion next year at grade level, she must go.

That part doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that I would prefer that she be able to go to Catholic school like I did full time. Back in the day, my father made more than I do with inflation, although not necessarily more than my wife and I. What is killing us is housing cost and the cost of tuition. Our local school is more of an elite school than St. Pius X in San Antonio, although not too terribly so, since the tuition is not much more than her daycare was. Still, the extra $700 a month it would take is an amount we do not have (indeed, my college tuition was cheaper in the 1980s).

If we lived in DC in certain neighborhoods, we could send my daughter to a Charter school run by the former parochial school personnel but now funded by the District government. This is a model I suggested to the Archdiocese back when I was working for Mayor Barry. Economic circumstances drove them to it when the only other choice was to close these schools and leave the children to an aging public system. The Catholic schools in Alexandria face no such economic pressure and there is no move to charter schools here, since the schools here we have are quite good. Additionally, you will find that the divide between who is in public school and who is in private school has a bit of a racial component and there seems no move to change that either.
More importantly, the Virginia Constitution has a Blaine Amendment. It is illegal to fund Catholic schools of any stripe. This amendment is an example of anti-Catholic bigotry and will likely be overturned on equal protection grounds. The perception when the amendment was enacted was that the Catholic Church was an agent of a foreign power. Given that the Pope actually controlled most of Italy at the time and that many Catholics were recent immigrants, that fear was understandable, as was the Church's medieval form of governance. Many Protestant denominations had returned by this time to biblical norms of democracy.

While strong control of the appointment of bishops is necessary when national governments would do so instead (like in Russia or China under the Communists), it is no longer necessary when the underlying society has full democratic rights. Indeed, much of the lingering resentment at (and indeed within) the Church has to do with the fact that most Bishops look to Rome rather than to their own flocks for their authority. In ancient times, God was seen to speak through the entire people of God - which means the collected laity rather than the collected bishops. It does not help that the property held by the Church is in the Bishop's name and controlled by him. In an era when it is quite easy to set up a foundation to own and control that property and the underlying institutions, personal episcopal control is no longer required. Indeed, the office of deacon is meant to be a stewardship office, so that the bishops and priests are not distracted by such worldly matters as a new roof or the hiring of teachers. Recognizing and negotiating with a teachers union is a lot easier if you are a deacon in service to the community than it is if you are a bishop jealously guarding your authority, as most due in such negotiations.

Indeed, much of the resistance to funding Catholic schools is no longer from the right wing - it comes from the teachers unions. That is easily resolved by conditioning acceptance of these funds on allowing collective bargaining with an independent board. Most of the faithful would think this reasonable, especially those of us who cannot afford Catholic schools currently. Oddly enough, most of us were also the Obama voters in the Church.

The final issue is funding. The answer is not to simply take money from current public school systems to fund Catholic charter schools. Rather, there must be an increase in funds, since current Catholic school students would also benefit. This means taxes must increase. Because these students often come from a higher economic class, this tax should hit that class more heavily and fully fund the additional cost. This means either shifting away from property taxes to income tax funding of education (leaving property taxes to take care of transportation and public safety) or in setting a surtax on higher value residential property (including rental), if not both. Of course, because the tax increase would be more broad based than simply taxing current Catholic school parents, the added burden on each taxpayer would still be less while the benefits for current parents would be more substantial.

The benefits for current kids in CCD would be inestimable, however, since they would receive an education in an entirely different atmosphere than the public schools - from discipline to Christ centeredness. Such benefits are inestimable and I want that for my daughter five days a week, rather than 90 minutes a week.

Health care update: the Catholic Alliance(s), truth versus slander

Today's update is about two organizations, both called the Catholic Alliance. The first is the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. They are promoting health care reform and are in unity with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, who have come out for health care reform - and who agree with the President about making sure the reform bill is abortion neutral. You can find their web page at http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/. If you want the truth about health care, go to this site.

Then there is the Catholic Alliance, who are associated with Priests for Life. There site is here: http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/cathalliance.htm They are a bit more rabid on the abortion issue, even though, as frequent readers know, the connection between any individual taxpayer and any publicly funded abortion is no greater when it is directly subsidized than when it is indirectly subsidized through the tax treatment of private insurance for employers. Some would call them more partisan than Catholic - indeed, First Things has reported that they are an offshoot of the Christian Coalition.

For more details, see the Leadership University web page here: http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9602/articles/editorial.html. What is more troubling is their behavior this past weekend at the Tea Party March on DC. Rachel Maddow reports that they produced signs that said: "Bury Obama Care with Kennedy." You can view the segment here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ You can see a sample of the sign here, along with other troubling signs, on the Washington Independent page: http://washingtonindependent.com/58779/scenes-from-the-912-dc-tea-party-protest-part-i

I can only react one way to that: SHAME ON THEM! In the Catholic Church, we pray for our dead. We do not mock them.