Why We March | National Catholic Reporter

Why We March National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters

My reaction:

In most jurisdictions, abortion was not considered manslaughter. It was considered the equivalent of killing a puppy.

Overturning Roe judicially would actually make things worse, at least in the way that Scalia would do it, by denying federal supremacy on the question. Now, the way Justice Clarence Thomas would do it, by not allowing the states latitude but instead declaring the humanity of the unborn, might not.

The experience of slavery showed how a multi-state solution to this problem will not work. Indeed, overturning Roe would simply have more people travel to other states for abortion than they do currently (or to other countries), while those who cannot afford to travel would seek back alley abortions again (as some do now). Also, overturning Roe in this way would also gut other federal precident on equal protection.

That would be worse.

The March for Life is destructive because it focuses on Roe, which though unjust to the unborn, was constitutional (because the Constitution is unjust to the unborn until the Congress uses its power to make it not so). As long as Roe is the focus, the movement remains locked in the pipe dream of its removal and will find itself in the swarmy embrace of the Federalist Society and its fringe theories about the rights of states.

Guns and the right to life

Erica Terrini of the Catholic News Service reports in last weeks Arlington Catholic Herald about a pro-gun rally held in Richmond on January 17th. This rally was held as a counter-point to an anti-gun rally held as part of a commemoration of the holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King. It would have been in good taste to have taken a pass on this, but if gun advocates want to look tacky, it is their right to do so. You can view the coverage at http://www.catholicherald.com/local_news/detail.html?sub_id=14786

In the same issue, the Carol Glatz of the Catholic News Service examines oft ignored Catholic teaching on the right to bear arms. Apparently, the bishops and the Vatican do not recognize a need for individual gun ownership, although they do concede military and law enforcement use. You can see the article at http://www.catholicherald.com/local_news/detail.html?sub_id=14796

I suspect there are some who would even object to law enforcement and military use of armaments, which is not inconsistent with the Gospel. The bishops' and the Vatican's position on capital punishment, where it is to be used only if no other punishment will make society safe, is consistent with this belief, as is the Church's teaching that direct abortion can never occur.

I don't think most of the people in the pews agree, including and especially some of the Bishops' partners in the National Right to Life Committee. This does not justify changing the doctrine, but it does explain why we don't hear more about it. I believe the lesson to be reached here is that the Church should be more careful in who it associates with on these issues. Many liberal Catholics would welcome a bold denunciation of gun rights, as well as an examination of whether the National Right to Life Committee's agenda is really about protecting life and not about electing Republicans and fundraising for Republican operatives.

That said, I am not sure that the radical pacifism in the Gospel can become part of public law, at least at this stage. While I agree that much more robust gun control would be advisable, I am not sure that martyrdom can be imposed on either people in their homes or women facing a possible fatal pregnancy. Nor am I at all sanguine that there is any difference between imposing capital punishment or confining someone to life in prison with no possibility of parole in Supermax facility - which seems to me and reportedly to most Lifers like a more slowly carried out death sentence.

Many conservatives differentiate between capital punishment and abortion, saying that the condemned deserve to die, as do solidiers, but the unborn do not. I believe they are missing the point. As human beings, we are not entitled to an opinion as to whether someone deserves to die or not. I agree with the bishops on this one. Guilt or innocence at the moral level is God's call, not ours.

The reason for personal weapondry, capital punishment, war and even for abortion is not that the person being killed is guilty, but because they pose a danger to ones self and others. It is dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term if doing so offers no benefit to a child with a fatal genetic flaw, like trisomy 17, or if the pregnancy would kill a small child carrying twins or a woman in Arizona with pulmonary hypertension.

It is not a moral stand to be squeemish and allow another person to die. Personal martyrdom is celebrated precisely because it is optional, not imposed. While it is meritorious to give one's life for another, it cannot be required as a matter of law or medical practice (especially when the child in question has absolutely no chance of independent survival). There must be a difference between giving up your life and throwing it away when doing so offers no benefit to another.

Indeed, with few grisly exceptions like the uncertified abortionist in Philadelphia, most abortion providers do so not because they are craven or blood thirsty, but because they believe that the women they serve would attempt the procedure without medical assistance. This is why simply jailing doctors should not be considered the faithful response to this issue. Rather, making women not desparate by making sure they can afford not only the pregnancy, but also both child rearing, their own educations and the education of their children is what is called for. That is much more in keeping with the Gospel than using armed officers to arrest abortionists.

Russell Shaws comments in the Arlington Catholic Herald

In last week's Arlington Catholic Herald, Russell Shaw commented on why there is not more enthusiasm for the repeal of abortion. He blames "the right to choose" for it. I suspect he misses the point. You can read his essay at http://www.catholicherald.com/opinions/detail.html?sub_id=14782

I don't suspect that libertarian thinking has infected the populace on this issue to as great an extent as Shaw maintains. If it did, the War on Drugs would have long been ended.

The real reason for the lack of action on this issue is how the movement has fetishized repealing Roe. This won't happen, as Justices Roberts and Alito refused to do so when given a chance under the Partial Birth Abortion case. If Roe were as badly reasoned law as the pro-life movement suggests, they would have done so. Their mistake is that they bring natural law reasoning rather than legal reasoning to the task, which is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Roe is reasonable because the plain language of the 14th Amendment says legal personhood begins at birth, unless Congress uses its enforcement power under the amendment, and it sovereign power as the national legislature, to pick a different point.

Relying on the Federalist Society's view that this should be a state decision is plainly wrong - again, due to the plain language of the 14th Amendment, which federalized the question of who is and who is not a legal person. Without personhood, the only real possible decision was that abortion was a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Considering that the penalty for abortion was a fine on doctors, not the criminal penalties for all concerned like murder, current law did nothing to give the impression to the Court that the goal of abortion law was to control women's health and not to protect an unprotected class of people.

Focusing on Roe relieves the pro-life movement and its leaders in the hierarchy from dealing with the quandry of HOW to extend rights to the unborn. It is not up to Obama,or even to Catholic voters and legislators to come up with this solution - it is up to the partisans to do so.

The onus of change is clearly on the movement. Until it has a proposal, neither Obama nor Biden need do the movement's work for them. We can, however, point out the obstacles the movement must overcome to put forward legislation:

- dealing with making sure that natural miscarriages don't produce malpractice suits because a legal person dies without at the same time violating the equal protection rights of these legal persons

- deciding how criminal responsibility is meted out in killing a legal person without violating the equal protection rights of doctors by exempting mothers

- deciding how much power to give the state in investigating the deaths of legal persons - or how to avoid investigators borrowing families who have had miscarriages without leaving a hole in the law so big that the law is unenforceable.

It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to resolve these quandries for you and until you propose a bill that deals with them (essentially by ignoring first trimester pregnancies), it is irresponsible to say that Abortion is the number one issue on which politicians are to be judged. In fact, without some draft legislation that addresses the issues I raise responsibly, ABORTION IS NOT A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE AT ALL and pro-choice Catholics should be forgiven for not basing their vote upon it.

The better way to reduce the vast majority of abortions is to use the power of the law to make child rearing economically viable. This would involve an expanded refundable Child Tax Credit of $500 per month per jurisdiction per child and an end to parental responsibilities to pay for college. Do that and none will abort for economic reasons. The Church should also offer an example of how this works by actually tying pay to family size, making sure it is adequate and making sure that all employees (and Catholic youth in a family way - both parents) have their higher education needs met at Catholic high schools and universities. If the Church acts seriously on protecting life, voters might believe the rhetoric.

Abortion policy's legal and moral realities | National Catholic Reporter

Abortion policy's legal and moral realities | National Catholic Reporter An NCR Interview with George Dennis O'Brien

My response:

I disagree with the authorn and Aquinas on ensoulment. The question of ensoulment centers on what a soul is. Materialistically, which is the only thing we can test out, it is the life force that begins deliberative development and holds off entropy, which occurs rather markedly at death and does not occur before gasrulation.

Prior to gastrulation, removing stem cells from the blastocyst won't result in any lasting damage to the child - indeed twinning could occur - either by nature or manufacture. Of late, Catholic theologians have been making the unfounded claim that at this time God adds a soul. Poppycock! During this time period before gastrulation, hybids with a non-human parent develop in exactly the same way as fully human blastocysts. Unless you infer that the non-human hybrid has a soul, you cannot infer that the human blastocyst does as well. Science has also shown that the maternal DNA controls developoment at this stage - that development based on both parents does not occur until gastrulation.

At gastrulation, something is different. Development comes from the genes of both parents and seems to have a different motivating force, which could be called a soul.

As to the question of the Bishops and abortion - if they have a position on outlawing abortion, it is incumbent upon them to produce legislation that deals with the issues of criminality, malpractice if the fetus dies and enforcement, including the onerous power to investigate miscarriages (without which your abortion law contains an exception planned parenthood could drive a truck through). Until the bishops man up and produce a bill, they cannot deny anyone Communion for opposing something that does not exist.

Bp Tobin "Unimpressed" With Obama's Tucson Speech | National Catholic Reporter

Bp Tobin "Unimpressed" With Obama's Tucson Speech | National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters

As long as repealing Roe is the sin qua non of the pro-life movement, Bishop Tobin, A/B Dolan and Michael Sean Winters will be stuck in a rut. While Roe was tragic, it was not wrong.

Jurisdictionally, the ruling is correct - whether a fetus is a person or not cannot be an issue decided by the States (and should not be - doing so would tear the nation apart much as the question of slavery did). The 14th Amendment makes this a federal question. The unambiguous language of the amendment also makes birth the absolute marker for recognition - however Congress can adjust it under its enforcement powers under the amendment and its rights as THE sovereign legislature.

Focusing on Roe is also irresponsible, meaning it relieves the pro-life movement and its leaders in the hierarchy from dealing with the quandry of HOW to extend rights to the unborn. It is not up to Obama,or even to Catholic legislators to come up with this solution - it is up to the partisans to do so.

The onus of change is clearly on the movement. Until it has a proposal, neither Obama nor Biden need do the movement's work for them. We can, however, point out the obstacles the movement must overcome to put forward legislation:

- dealing with making sure that natural miscarriages don't produce malpractice suits because a legal person dies without at the same time violating the equal protection rights of these legal persons

- deciding how criminal responsibility is meted out in killing a legal person without violating the equal protection rights of doctors by exempting mothers

- deciding how much power to give the state in investigating the deaths of legal persons - or how to avoid investigators borrowing families who have had miscarriages without leaving a hole in the law so big that the law is unenforceable.

It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to resolve these quandries for you and until you propose a bill that deals with them (essentially by ignoring first trimester pregnancies), it is irresponsible to say that Abortion is the number one issue on which politicians are to be judged. In fact, without some draft legislation that addresses the issues I raise responsibly, ABORTION IS NOT A PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE AT ALL.

Much-praised pastor becomes a bishop | National Catholic Reporter

Much-praised pastor becomes a bishop | National Catholic Reporter

On the Communion issue, the bishops have not coherently said HOW abortion should be banned. Until that happens, there is no policy for Catholic politicians to adhere to.

I like what he is doing with Administrators - however this role should be given the office of Deacon or Deaconness, without any kind of promise of celibacy or duty of continence. I suspect he knows this but is taking small steps.

Phoenix bishop's response to hospital ignites questions of authority, identity | National Catholic Reporter

Phoenix bishop's response to hospital ignites questions of authority, identity | National Catholic Reporter

The bottom line really is that its not his hospital. Perhaps the bishops should get out of the business of judging the bioethics of hospitals that they do not own, since the seem to own most everything else in the diocese under the conventions of Canon Law. Their moral voice would be stronger without the perception that they are attempting to exercise ownership where they have none. Indeed, it would really be strengthened if they turned over all administration and property rights to more modern non-profit corporate structures and became official paupers - like the sisters who do actually own the hospitals.

On the bioethics question, perhaps the locus of study should be with Catholic Health Association and its owning Orders rather than the Bishops. While the Bishops should surely discuss and advise CHA, they should not try to micromanage within someone else's structure, either individually or as a group. CHA does its own work on Catholic identity. They don't need the USCCB for that function.

Catholic Higher Education institutes should also be the locus of the Church's response to bioethics in research, both in their institutions and in society at large. The bishops have enough to deal with on the ethical side without messing up someone else's sandbox.

Obama's Problem | National Catholic Reporter

Obama's Problem | National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters

My comments:

Many who oppose Obama on health care want a more generous benefit. About a third of the opposition to his approach is liberal. If you simply poll pro-reform of some kind vs. the prior status quo, the numbers are much higher than 43%.

Many don't approve of his handling of the economy because they see too many people in trouble - and they are right to feel that way. Some of his economic advisors, luckily of the former variety, discouraged more radical action and the result is obvious. If a bigger stimulus and more direct aid for underwater home borrowers had been insisted upon and obtained, the economy likely would be in better shape now.

As to the speech, oddly enough every wonk in town, as well as every cause, wants their issue included. Statehood advocates want their mention. Aging issue wonks want demographic issues to be highlighted for both health and Social Security.

He can't listen to everyone. Hopefuly his new chief of staff will get him to listen to the right people. I am sure it will be a good speech - as it is the last hurrah of Robert Gibbs and the opening salvo in the 2012 election. This will set the tone. If he muffs it, he may get primaried. I don't think he'll muff it.

Canonist Says Deacons Must Refrain From Sex | National Catholic Reporter

Canonist Says Deacons Must Refrain From Sex | National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters

Frankly, I hope this sparks a debate about the Canons on continence and how these just might be based in misogyny from the classical era. Indeed, re-examining the Canons should cause a rethinking of priestly celibacy, female ordination and the entire body of teaching on sexuality, since one obviously affects the other.

Catholic and Orthodox Unity: Close Enough to Imagine | National Catholic Reporter

Catholic and Orthodox Unity: Close Enough to Imagine | National Catholic Reporter by Fr. Thomas Ryan

My comments:

The claim of Rome to be first among bishops may be scuttled if the current Pope is identified as urging the Church in Irelad to cover up sexual abuse. If this crisis goes on much longer, Rome will be too damaged to lead anything - and rightly so.

At some point, recognizing the equality of the Church of England is essential as well to this - indeed, it may be more productive for the Orthodox to have separate talks with Canterbury rather than including Rome in the loop - while letting the African Anglicans (and African anglophone Catholics) pusue unity with Alexandria.

If a more orthodox approach is indicated as far as government, than this new set of agreements is but a short step away from a single North American, or even northern anglophone Patriarch for the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Churchs, with England, Scotland and Ireland joining with Canada and the United States to form a single Church - allowing the Orthodox of South America and the Catholics of spanish South American to form a single Church, with or without Spain, and leaving Brazil and Portugal to their own Patriarch. Quebec, Haiti and France could also unite under one Patriarch. This bridges the gap between having national churches and a universal church. Linguistic divisions seem to be the best organizational modality, at least to me.

What Tucson Doesn't Mean | National Catholic Reporter

What Tucson Doesn't Mean National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winters.

There is definitely reason to politicize this tragedy, but not regarding the political discourse. Instead, this should open the conversation about how poorly we fund services to the mentally ill (giving them Medicaid does not help if doctors won't take it) and how hard it is to confine them when they refuse treatment or relapse within it.

This guy should not only not have had a gun, he should not have been walking around at-large. His college should have not only been able to insist he go, but alert the authorities so that he was both evaluated and treated.

How the mentally ill are treated in the criminal justice system should be changed. Obviously deranged killers (through either addiction, alcoholism or mental illness) should be able to plead Guilty By Reason of Insanity and be confined to at least the minimum treatment for the crime committed or until safe, whichever comes last. In the present example, the period would be for six counts of voluntary manslaughter with some leeway as to whether they should be consecutive or concurrent.

Dolan, Abortion & NOW | National Catholic Reporter

Dolan, Abortion & NOW National Catholic Reporter by Michael Sean Winter

It is good A/B Dolan is taking this step - but he needs to take one step farther and give free tuition to any teenage couple in a family way at both the high school and college level and make sure their living and day care expenses are met as well.

He should also pay families in his employ a living wage, meaning that if someone has a child, they get a $1000 per month raise to cover expenses (if not more, given housing prices in NYC). He should also lobby for tax policy so that the state and the fed each kick in $500 per month per child.

As for Roe being unjust - yes and no. It was surely unfortunate, but under the constitutional rules for who has protection and how they should get it, the ruling was absolutely just. Who is a person is a matter of federal jurisdiction, not state and until someone is a person, their interests are not to be considered in public policy (that's privacy). A constitutional amendment is not needed to do this, however caution is.

One cannot begin life at conception - or even gastrulation - and not consider what would happen to society if each person were given equal access to justice after that point (meaning that abortion would not be punished as a medical misdomeanor but as a felony with all concerned - including mothers - subject to punishment and that all failed pregnancies would be subject to some type of investigation - including natural miscarriage - as well as tort action - thereby denying care for anyone who has a pregnancy until the danger of miscarriage is passed (at the behest of insurers). An adult policy would take the paranthetical issues into consideration. It is not up to pro-choice Catholic politicians to come up with work-arounds and until the pro-life side does, pro-choice pols get a free ride.

As for NOW, they are pretty much pro-abortion - however, unless they had a draft of his speech, they protested because they expected the worst. It would take both the economic measures I mentioned previously, the ordination of women and a rethinking of how crisis pregnancies are dealt with - like in Phoenix and Brazil where the child has no chance of living and therefore no right to life - for them to stop their opposition to Church policy.

St. Joseph’s Hospital: A phoenix in the desert | National Catholic Reporter

St. Joseph’s Hospital: A phoenix in the desert | National Catholic Reporter

While the Bishop directed that the Eucharist be removed, a little reporting is warranted as to whether this has, in fact, occurred. I would hope that it is being reserved somewhere clandestinely in the same way that the archbishop who confirmed me, Nick Elko, would sneak the Eucharist through Kremlin Square when he was the Catholic Archbishop of Moscow or when he said Mass in the Gulag - and yes, I am equating Olmsted with Stalin.

Time to Reform the Budget Process - TheFiscalTimes.com

Time to Reform the Budget Process - TheFiscalTimes.com by Bruce Bartlett.

I disagree with ending the President's budget and submit my own alternative.

While the President's budget is dead on arrival many years, the estimates from the agencies are absolutely essential. Exploiting this need for information is the key to passing a budget on time.

The budget process, which should be biennial, should begin with the President's transmission of a Joint Budget Resolution, which must be enacted and signed before detailed estimates are transmitted. I seem to recall that Bush actually did this one year. I seem to remember that it worked so well that Congress was not pleased. (CBO should by law be restricted from assisting appropriations committees on a detailed level until the JBR is passed).

The detailed budget submission must then reconcile to the JBR and if Congress does not act on any tax bill or appropriation, current law is automatically extended within the JBR baseline.

That is the less radical provision. The really radical provision is to do regional taxation and spending - although it would take a constitutional amendment for region-specific VAT rates. Each region would pay for discretionary spending within the region with a VAT and non-retirement social service spending with a regional expanded business income tax (including military retirement).

There would be a national VAT as well to fund purely national spending, like NIH and NASA, while an income surtax would fund net interest, debt repayment to the Social Security Trust fund and other trust fund repayments as well as overseas military deployments and other international operations (including third world IMF debt forgiveness).

The process would be similar to the one outlined above, with the president submitting national appropriations targets, revenue targets at the national and regional levels and regional appropriations aggregates. The Congress would enact a JBR along those lines and then the President and the Regional Vice Presidents would submit detailed budget numbers to the national and regional caucuses, which must be passed by the begining of the fiscal biennium.

Regions would have a balanced budget requirmeent, with automatic VAT and business income tax hikes and budget cuts occurring in the event of a projected deficit during the biennium, unless the national caucus acts to subsidize a region that is both out of budget balance and in recession.

The national government could continue to run deficits in time of war or recession, but must be balanced through adjustments to income and VAT rates and automatic budget cuts in times of peace and prosperity - although the goal would actually be debt reduction (and elimination of the Paulistas win the day and gain enough votes to "End the Fed" - although that could never happen unless the debt were entirely repaid).