Must we witness to life?

As we prepare to execute the DC Sniper (which is a misnomer, since only one of the murders actually happened within the District), a debate about capital punishment and the Culture of Life. I addressed the issue of the sniper in my essay published yesterday in the Examiner, so I will now address the larger question.

The question is this, must one always avoid taking the life of another if that other poses a mortal threat. This question touches on many moral questions, from whether an ectopic pregnancy may be actively aborted, to whether preventative sterilization may be used (either by surgery or chemical birth control) when the pregnancy will lead to either danger to the woman or economic danger for the family, to whether one may execute a criminal who presents a mortal danger to other inmates or to himself, to whether war is ever just, to whether one may shoot an armed assailant who is posing an immediate danger to a schoolyard full of children. Add to this the question of whether one may use deadly force to repel an assassination or attempted coup (especially if doing so could lead to a murderous tyranny) and the similar question of whether people can arm themselves to defend their own lives (or their property) or have armed agents to do so. Even the arming of the Swiss Guard which protects the Pope raises the identical question.

It seems that in most, if not all of these cases, the Pro-Life office in the United States and in the Vatican is consistently coming up with no as an answer, although it has not yet taken the step of disarming the Swiss Guard, which is telling.

How this question is answered depends upon both the ground rules one sets. If you use the witness of scripture and the early Church, clearly it is better not to resist. This does not end the argument, however. Under pure (meaning non-theistic) natural law reasoning, one need not insist on resistance, indeed, in some occasions one must use deadly force to protect innocent life.

One may martyr one’s self as a free and faith filled choice. One does not have the right to make this choice for others, whether one is in a pluralistic society or even an entirely Catholic one. Martyrdom is an individual decision. It cannot morally be imposed upon another. Catholic hospitals treat non-Catholics. The logic of my argument is that, if an abortion or sterilization is necessary to prevent physical harm to the mother, this cannot be imposed. While we can encourage the mother to witness to life, we cannot demand that she do so or rig the game so such witness is her only choice (regardless of whether she is Catholic or not).

We certainly cannot require such witness to be mandated by law. This is the worst type of coercion, yet tragically it seems that some in the Church are seeking just that. Those voices do not speak for me or the vast majority of Catholics. While they may validly encourage individual witness and seek a society where such witness is no longer necessary, they cannot make the enactment of what would be a moral tyranny part of the Church’s political agenda. This is not because of relativism or to become popular in society, but because mandating the witness of another is an inherently evil act. This is why many are comparing some in the Church (and the Evangelical right), quite justly, to the Taliban.

Executing the beltway sniper

This week, John Alan Muhammed, who brainwashed John Malvo, a teen, and manipulated him into a murder spree that terrorized the Washington area, will be executed.

Personally, as one who lives there and lived in fear of death, I am not entirely displeased with this. Of course, this means that my opinion of the rightness of the execution is a bit clouded - much in the same way I would not seeing Osama bin Laden's head on a platter (although I believe he is already dead from kidney disease). Again, because I was within shrapnel range of the Capitol on September 11, having been evacuated from the Department of Labor two blocks away, my judgment on the issue of his fate is also clouded.

On Friday, a gunman went on a rampage and killed almost a dozen people at his former office, blaming the firm which fired him years before for his actions. He, the beltway shooter and bin Laden seem to have gone down a path of deliberate evil. The question is, does this evil merit execution?

While capital punishment is allowed under canon law, there is a condition. This can only occur if a suitable confinement is not possible - suitability including the risk posed to other inmates. This responsibity to make these decisions formerly rested with the sovereign. In a democracy, however, we are all sovereign so it is our call collectively - as well as our responsibility to protect innocent life (including the lives of other inmates).

In my opinion, murders are not altogether sane. If there is a reason for this insanity and it can be reversed with either medication or sobriety, it is not just to kill them. Indeed, after some period they should be released. Indeed, if there is no doubt about their guilt or their mental state, they should be allowed to plead guilty by reason of insanity and serve the penalty for voluntary manslaughter in a hospital setting.

Those who cannot be cured are another matter. I once read that those who are sentenced to life without parole consider themselves sentenced to death. Indeed, this is likely true, since their incarceration will indeed be the cause of their deaths eventually. If they are locked up alone in a "super-max" facility they will likely become insane before too long (if they were not already) and they are being killed by slow torture. It would be better to kill them quickly if they cannot be cured, not for the sake of justice, but as a form of permissible euthenasia. We should not be in a hurry to do so, so that they may have the chance to repent in time, although if they chose to be executed, we should not stop them. Indeed, many executions occur because the condemned decides to quit fighting. Perhaps this is a model of how this should be done.

What of Mr. Muhammed? I doubt that he has been given a real evaluation as to his sanity or his reformability and that is likely an injustice. If I were Governor of Virginia, I would at least try to find out and then bless my stars that the office is term limited.

The new Anglican ordinates and the question of divorce

Divorce is a sticky subject in the Catholic Church. The recent moves to allow certain Anglicans into communion with Roman in their own "Ordinates" will certainly make the issue more complicated.

In prior years, divorce in the Church was considered forbidden - however nowadays, it is not divorce which is sinful, it is remarriage until after the original marriage is annulled. The cynical would say that annullments are big business in the Church and they certainly complicate things when the Catholic party gets an annulment while a Protestant spouse who is divorced does not (and occassionaly the parish priest blessing the union after the fact looks the other way).

When one partner is abusive or alcoholic, it is obvious that this partner was incapable of forming or maintaining a marriage bond - even if this was not apparent when the marriage was made (often because alcoholism and abuse are related and middle or late stage alcoholism is not always apparent on the wedding day). An annulment in such cases is usually not complicated.

In the ancient Church, if someone was married to a pagan and converted, they could get married again in the Church for the very sound reason that staying married to a pagan would involve apostacy when the family made offerings to the pagan spouses deity or celebrated pagan feasts (in the days before the Church began coopting such events).

When the Reformation happenned, many Protestant sects read the scripture on divorce where it referred to immorality as adultery - although the Catholic Church has never endorsed this view. I can see the logic behind this, since this would seem to allow someone to cheat and then put away his or her spouse scott-free. This is hardly just to the wronged spouse.

Adultery, as the word is defined, is not about adulthood but the adulteration of the marriage. It was originally considered a property crime to be punished by death (as all such crimes were, but are no longer). Jesus teaching on divorce was actually meant to level the playing field between the sexes, since males could put away their wives but wives could not put away their husbands. Jesus solution was to restrict husbands from easy divorce. This lesson has not been learned in other monotheistic sects, where the man is still priviledged in divorce in Islam and some Orthodox Jewish sects (where the husband can object to the Gett disolving the marriage).

Once a marriage is adulterated, is this not the same thing as saying that it has been ended? Perhaps the answer to the question of adultery in divorce is to recognize the absolute right of the wronged party to decide if the marriage is to endure, while the adulterous party has no such right to resist their decision (and indeed would always have an impediment to marriage with the party with whom the adultery was committed). This seems entirely reasonable, especially given the meaning of the word adultery and the intention of Christ's teaching to level the marital playing field - raising women to equality from their status of property. While it is certainly virtuous to forgive a cheating spouse, it should not be required - especially if the cheating spouse is unrepentent.

What exactly is heresy?

In the last few weeks, the Bishop of Portland campaigned heavily, and even funded (probably at risk of the Church's non-profit status) the campaign to overturn the gay marriage law. This invited organized opposition from a group of organized Catholics, who campaigned against the referendum.

In prior years, this would have been considered unthinkable. Most believers were not well educated and took the bishop's word to be law. Nowadays, many Catholics have college educations and even training in the same philosophy programs most seminarians take. Quite a few others also have taken public policy courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels and find it laughable that theology majors are telling us how to vote.

We are required to act from well formed consciouses. However, in some areas, such as public policy, it could be argued that our conciouses have undergone better formation, especially in democratic societies. Some of us also know a bit more about human sexuality, (both the psychological aspects and the biological processes) through training and experience. Again, such knowledge is as much part of the formation of the conscious as the teachings of the Church, especially when in matters sexual teaching is developed by a celibate clergy whose celibacy evolved from the rather obnoxious belief that one could not engage in sexual intercourse and then celibrate the Eucharist too soon (a belief that the Eastern Church finds anethema).
The question arises, is disagreement with the Church in these areas really considered heresy when our information was better? Galileo was better informed. Did he have a right to be defiant when it was obvious that the Church was wrong?

Is it servant leadership to insist that you are always right? Jesus washed the feet of his disciples and commented how worldly leaders lord their position over their subjects, which echoes what he told James and John when Salome (Jesus big sister from Joseph's first marriage) goaded them into asking for seats on his right and left. Are the bishops acting in this spirit when or as secular rulers when they insist they must always be right - even when those that disagree with them have better information?

Perhaps we need to define heresy only in terms of theological belief - and even then we need to be careful that the belief in question is really essential. Esoteric beliefs about the Trinity (such as the Filioque, or even the difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation) should probably be open for debate. Certain beliefs, such as the divinity of Jesus and the fact of the resurrection, are essential since without them there is no reason for faith. Let's keep charges of heresy to what is essential and keep an open mind about the rest.

I am not arguing here for relativism. Relativism says that you can make up your own mind about everything. Instead, I am arguing that there is such a thing as truth, but on occassion it must be sought outside the hallowed halls of the Vatican. As time goes on, I believe such perspective will be more widely expected. Indeed, the survival of the Church depends on it. Since the Church is promised to survive (although not necessarily the way it is governed from Rome), I think it eventually will come out alright, even if it is hard for some.

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.