The Christian Left

Gratitude this Christmas

2009-12-23T13:39:00.003-05:00

The great thing about having an explicitly Christian blog is being able to write about Christmas rather than the Holidays (even if Jesus was born in April according to Ptolmeic astrology). Please link here to see my DC Examiner Post about my experience with our current national healthcare system, which I am definitely grateful for.

The last attack on healthcare reform

2009-12-23T13:22:00.002-05:00

The GOP is pulling out all the stops to try to prevent healthcare reform, hauling out protection of small business and the Constitution. Pretty pathetic.

On the Constitutional issue, the government power to tax incomes is enough authority for individual health care mandates.

On the small business front, most people are employed in an environment of monopsonistic competition, which means there is bargaining, but ultimately the employer sets the wage. Under such environments, such mandates as the increased minimum wage, mandatory leave and the imposition of health care payroll taxes do not result in a loss of jobs.

I hope the Democratic Senators hang together today and vote for cloture on final passage tomorrow. If there are flaws, the Conferenc Committee is the place to raise them. It might have been better to start with a Joint Committee to write and mark up the bill, but what is done is done.

Let's move this forward today.

Happy Pagan Christmas!

2009-12-17T16:47:00.000-05:00

No, this is not a shout to the motorcycle gang. I am publishing it now for two reasons. I will tell you why at the end. This essay is somewhat of a Christmas tradition for me. It is based on a response on the Washington Post's On Faith blog I made to the question of keeping Christ in Christmas in 2007, which I crossposted on another of my blogs that year and updated on my Daily Kos blog last year.

The original author commented on Christ's birthday being December 25. This is not really true. Jesus was actually born April 17, 6 BCE according to researchers who are knowledgeable about the astrology of that era (essential knowledge if you wish to duplicate the work of the Magi who found Jesus based on his astrology).

Christ is only about Christmas because early Christianity hijacked the winter solstice, which at the time was dated December 25 (due to the progression of the equinoxes). I stridently reject calls to keep Christ in Christmas or to ignore the traditions which have their roots in paganism. Pagan celebrations were not about the Roman, Celtic or Norse gods. Rather, the pagan gods are explanatory tools to better explain man and how he deals with the world around him.In the northern latitudes, people get depressed as the shadows grow longer. Pagan rituals, as well as the placement of Christmas in December , where it no longer conflicts with Eastertide, have the purpose of raising our spirits - often with spirits and revelry, as well as the lighting of fires and candles (note Chanukah). It fulfills a deep need within us, regardless of the deity we accept or reject. This is also why many groups of Alcoholics Anonymous have "Alcathons" this time of year.

Those of us who are Christians proclaim Jesus as the light of the world, so the placement of Christmas here is appropriate for Christians. One of the most beautiful aspects of the Christmas cycle is the lighting of candles in a dark church at midnight Mass - which also occurs at the Easter vigil. The roots of this are all pagan. However, we must mind our manners when dealing with unbelievers. Jesus did not condemn the unbelievers. He saved and saves his wrath for those who profess to follow him but practice intolerance toward others.

Now, why am I doing this column today? The first reason is that the solstice is almost upon us, so it is topical now. Indeed, Chanukah is in full swing, making publication now even more timely, The second reason is that I am having surgery next week, so I won't be writing a column any time after Monday. Indeed, this may just be the last one for a while unless the bishops give me some reason to do so in the next few days.

So let me say it now. Happy Pagan Christmas!

Mary and Advent (Jesus is Coming)

2009-12-17T16:46:00.000-05:00

Last week was the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, where Catholics celebrate the fact that Mary was conceived without original sin. This is different than the Feast of the Annunciation, which was nine months ago and celebrates the fact that Jesus was conceived without Mary having "known man." This Sunday, the Gospel of the Annunciation is used for a third time this year to signify that Jesus is coming.

Mary is central to the message of the incarnation, as is her conception without sin. By Jesus birth to Mary, He is one of us - fully human. By his birth to someone conceived without sin, he himself is spared the inheritance of original sin. Indeed, her sinlessness combined with her fertility may have been all that was necessary for the incarnation - although she was given a choice to say yes, just as God freely created her without sin. This is in contrast to the choice of Adam and Eve to sin (although this choice is mythical) and is a foreshowing of the choice of Jesus to follow the Father's will and be crucified for our salvation.

Of course, this brings up the topic of what sin is anyway. Many Church doctors, starting with St. Augustine, believe that original sin arises from the experience of sexual pleasure in conception. This is, of course, poppycock. The Bible is quite clear what the original sin is - blame. This is evident by what happened in the Genesis story when God came back to the Garden. Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the Serpent (who had blamed God for depriving Eve of the knowledge of Good and Evil). Jesus breaks that cycle by forgiving and by mandating forgiveness as a necessary condition for being forgiven. Mary was blameless in God's sight, not because of any lack of sexual pleasure on the part of her parents (which would be quite mutually ungenerous of them in a loving relationship), but because she did not blame. She was meek and humble, although the Magnificant showed she thirsted for righteousness - which is about justice, not purity.

In this Advent season, she must be our example. She thirsted for the Kingdom of God. Indeed, according to scripture, she named her sons for the Maccabees (Jesus, Judas - aka Thomas the twin because he looked like his elder brother, and Simon - the zealot).

If we follow her example, we will not only do small acts of charity, but will take on the big ones as well - like calling our Senators and demanding that health care be passed.

The Sagittarius Project: Jeanne Dixon, Russia v. Georgia, China, the CIA and Global Warming

2009-12-16T16:45:00.000-05:00

Here is a link to a blog I did last summer on how global warming and prophesy might intersect in a conflict between China and Russia: The Sagittarius Project: Jeanne Dixon, Russia v. Georgia, China, the CIA and Global Warming The CIA used to have a paranormal unit, however I think this was outside its scope. Perhaps it should not be.

The Sagittarius Project: NCAA Playoffs

2009-12-16T15:31:00.000-05:00

For fun, see a post on my other blog: The Sagittarius Project: NCAA Playoffs where I speculate on getting rid of big-time college football entirely, on why playoffs are unlikely in the first place (follow the money the bowls generate) and failing all of this, how a playoff system might work (assuming it is between division and conference winners only, with no wild cards). Playoff seasons cannot be too long, since we don't pay the players for their risk of injury. As much as I hate to say, even in a playoff, Bama likely wins anyway (and I'm a native Texan saying that).

Iran and Israel

2009-12-16T15:14:00.001-05:00

Danielle Pletak writes in yesterday's WashPo on how Iran can't be contained. She argues that we should not assume Israel will take care of the situation if military action is required.

There is a fallacy in this argument. If our "national interest" in keeping Iran nuke free is the protection of Israel, then it is not at all unreasonable to expect Israeli action. Indeed, the rhetoric on mutually assured destruction does apply here - although not to the US. If Iran nukes Israel, there is no doubt that Israel would return the favor (or vice-versa). Of course, Iran doing so is unlikely, since both Iraq and Iran are downwind of Israel. Even if Israel could not get off a missile, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran would all get fall-out from a strike on Israeli soil. It would also kill many Arabs (both Israeli and Palestinian). Only the most doctrinaire neo-con would ever think that Israel is at risk from an Iranian nuke (including one provided to terrorists - since that nuke would still kill Arabs).

John the Radical

2009-12-13T09:12:00.002-05:00

Today is Gaudate Sunday in the Church - a time to rejoice over the coming of the Messiah. Some should look at the reading, however, and have great fear.

When one thinks of repentance in the Church, one expects to hear about repentance from personal sins, however in Luke's Gospel today, John does not talk about that kind of sin. He talks about sins against justice. He tells those with two cloaks to give one away and to those with food to feed those who are hungry. He tells tax collectors and soldiers not to take more than their due. In all of these things, he challenges the hierarchical society of the time. He also threatens those who do not heed his words, that the coming Messiah will cast them into the unquenchable fires. If one is in a position of comfort, these words cannot be comforting.

They are about more than personal charity this season (although the Church is wise in taking up a collection today for Catholic Charities). These are words of justice. Today the tax collector and the extorting soldier have been replaced with the capitalist and the CEO who demand princely salaries in return for keeping the salaries of their workers as low as possible. While this makes sense from a total cost standpoint, it is not just. A just distribution of wages would have the children of the janitor able to afford the same schools as the children of the CEO. It would have the least worker make enough so that she would not have to take a second job to feed her children. Money is not the only factor in quality of life - she would also be able to take off with pay when her child is ill or needs an annual checkup and have the same quality health care as the people whose offices she cleans (and the same influence in the political process through a path to citizenship if she is an immigrant).

Of course many will cry out that the current climate of injustice is not their doing - its the System! To some extent, that is true. It was true in the time of John and Jesus as well, however. Both of them preached not only personal transformation (although that is important), but also societal transformation in a coming Kingdom of God. It is up to all of us to help bring about the Kingdom, indeed, we pray to do so in the Our Father.

If John's words were heeded, both personally and systemically, there would be no opposition to health care reform by any Catholic. The tax code would not subsidize million dollar homes while poor families struggle to make rent or live in shelters. Instead it would give each family a tax credit for each child that is large enough for all to have housing. The Church would not be concerned with the abortion rate, because with justice flowing like a river, women and girls would not resort to abortion out of fear that they could not sufficiently care for the child.

John's words are a cause of rejoicing for the poor, however, as he demands justice on their behalf and promises a Redeemer who will bring this justice to them.

Are we willing to heed John's words, which sadly in a society which calls itself Christian, are as true now as they were 2000 years ago?

Spend it forward this Christmas

2009-12-09T15:32:00.002-05:00

If you have not guessed by now, this site has a definite Catholic bent. If you hadn't, this post will definitely prove that I do not buy into Calvinist ideas of thrift.

Even after a fall quarter with an increased growth rate, the economy at large is still sluggish as people prefer saving to spending.

As a personal strategy, some restraint is possibly a good thing - especially if one is burdened by high interest credit card debt. If one has saved enough or paid down enough to have some breathing room, however, spending NOW is more prudent.

The economy relies on spending to pay people's salaries. When these people get paid, they pay other people. Eventually, this money comes back to you in your salary. So, if you are feeling a little insecure about your job security, the best thing to do this holiday season is to spend some money. This is good for both the people you spend money on and the people you buy from.

The other reason to spend money this Christmas is because the people you buy from need the money more than you do. They are often in lower wage jobs and your decision to slightly improve your financial situation may deprive them of the ability to eat during this holiday season, or soon after.

Spending it forward has its virtues. Do it this weekend, if not sooner.

The Nelson amendment and health care reform

2009-12-09T15:07:00.002-05:00

The Nelson amendment to add the Stupak language to health care reform has failed 55-45. The question is now, will a bill clear the Senate at all? Nelson is negotiating to get language he can agree with, which is a good thing since Stupak admittedly went a bit farther than simple abortion neutrality, especially given the fact that 87% of abortions are paid for with cash anyway and that those that are paid for by insurance are already subsidized by tax expenditures to employers who provide insurance to their employees.

Note that we all subsidize abortion in some way with most economic transactions. If we buy anything that is taxable, that tax money is part of the pool that leads to tax expenditures which pay for abortions, as well as providing health coverage for the employees of the entire supply chain for the item purchased, much of which either provides coverage for abortion or pays employees who have abortions and pay with cash. This is especially the case if you buy things where some or much of the staff is either young or among the working poor. If you buy at the GAP, some of your money may pay for an abortion. If you go to McDonalds or a major sporting event, it is likely that someone who provided the product or service will use the money to procure an abortion in their next paycheck.

The answer, of course, is not to stop buying at such places, but to create a health care and economic system so that poor people and youth don't need abortions. Providing health care is part of that, as is providing education where parental support is not required and affordable housing. One way to do the latter is to shift tax subsidies for mortgage interest and property taxes to an expanded refundable child tax credit (since people will use such money to better their housing).

As to the bill, my gut instinct is that some compromise will be worked out, although it will take some doing. That compromise must placate five Senate Democrats or the underlying bill must placate five Senate Republicans for the magic number of 60 votes to stop debate (or some combination along those lines). At this point, all that is needed is to get enough votes to pass the bill and move it to conference committee (unless the House accepts it, although this is likely if a compromise is not found to Stupak). The conference committee will likely find some compromise which is really abortion neutral while dealing with the public option (or lack thereof) in such a way as to pass both chambers.

The important thing at this point is to move the bill along. Not expanding health care is not an option. Too much posturing over abortion will lead most to conclude that this issue is more about tribalism than the unborn, which will further erode the credibility of the Catholic bishops.

15 seconds of fame on global warming

2009-12-08T13:28:00.000-05:00

Jack Cafferty asked last night on the Situation Room whether anything would really come out of the climate summit in Copenhagen.

As usual I commented. When I looked on this blog today, I found that he actually used my comments. Here is what he asked:

Here’s my question to you: What do you expect to come out of the global warming summit in Copenhagen?

Michael from Alexandria, Virginia writes:
Like you said, Jack, a binding treaty is never gonna happen. I doubt that we will get honest science on this (which would discount warming). I would much rather we give up on warming and instead target actual pollution of air and water in the developing world. Of course, the Chinese would block this too -as would the U.S., who benefits from both Chinese and Mexican pollution run amok.

The Spirit of Prophesy in the Church

2009-12-07T14:30:00.003-05:00

This is the second week of Advent, where we are introduced to St. John the Baptist, whose task it is to prepare the way of the Lord.

John is not just about historical significance, or even repentance, although his message was and is significance in both of these areas. He also challenged both the political and religious establishments of the time. He was not fan of either the civil government nor the religious authorities. In this, he is part of a long line of prophets who protested how Israel treated its poor under its ancient kings. He is also an archetype for those in the early Church who were gifted with the Spirit of Prophesy.

The Spirit of Prophesy was rather specific. It did not include seers, but rather a kind of self-criticism, pointing out where the Church and its early leaders were coming up short of the Gospel ideal (including and especially the oral Gospel which existed before it was written down).

The Holy Spirit is still expressed in this way in the modern Church. She does this on both sides of the aisle. (She is correct biblically, since Spirit is expressed in the feminine gender in biblical Greek). When the Church demands that abortion be minimized, She is speaking. When the Church demands that health care be considered as a right and not a privilege, She is speaking.

She is also speaking when there are objections within the Church to how women and gays are treated. She speaks when the faithful protest when the hierarchy hitches its wagons to one party or another, particularly when untruths are involved (like the FOCA campaign the assignment of more relevance to a politicians view's on Roe v. Wade (which are irrelevant) than how the poor are treated.

Voice of the Faithful is another example of the Spirit of Prophesy alive in the Church.

Sometimes, the Spirit of Prophesy is not welcome in the Church. Indeed, rather shamefully, some bishops do not brook dissent well, when such dissent can be an avenue of learning for them. Woe to these bishops who do not welcome this Spirit. One can only imagine what St. John the Baptist would say about them.

Gay Marriage and Catholic Charities in DC

2009-12-03T11:22:00.002-05:00

The Council of the District of Columbia is in the process of enacting legislation establishing same-sex marriage within its borders. No church is required to celebrate these unions (although undoubtedly, some will), however if they are employers, they must cover gay spouses as if they were straight spouses. The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has threatened to close up shop on Catholic Charities in D.C. if it must cover these spouses.

There has been quite a bit of blowback on this, with many posting rather nasty things about the Church on the Washington Post blogs on the story. Is it deserved?

Some of it is bigotry, however I think some of it is deserved, since it is a response to bigotry by the Church's leadership.

The Church itself is not just the hierarchy. It includes the priests (some of whom are gay - possibly up to half according to survey research) and the people (many of whom have a gay child, sibling, parent or cousin). I think the underlying reason for the hierarchy's opposition is not because they would have to compromise their beliefs, but because by the District opening up the door on marriage, they will face internal pressure to re-examine the issue - something they are loathe to do.

The question of whether the Church is being bigoted should be examined in how it treats heterosexual spouses of those married in non-religious ceremonies. In terms of Church doctrine, these marriages are as illicit as a gay marriage (although, in truth, sacramental marriage results when the people concerned promise fidelity to eachother, not when the priest says the magic words). If the Church really has a problem providing benefits to people in illicit unions, it should object to providing benefits to spouses not married in a Christian ceremony.

Since it does not make such distinctions, and indeed should not be able to do so under law, it stands to reason it should also respect the civil law regarding gay marriage as an employer, and that failure to do so is bigotry.

In prior days, Catholics rallied around the Church leaders, even when they were wrong. We don't do that any more, since most of us are a bit more free thinking than we used to be, having utilized Catholic education, including a fine collegiate system.

Sorry, Archbishop Wuerl, but I won't back your play this time. I also will withhold future contributions to Catholic Charities if you do anything to diminish services. I suspect there are other Catholics who will do likewise.

As gay marriage becomes recognized more and more, probably due to an eventual Supreme Court decision affirming the overturning of Proposition 8 in California (since the 9th Circuit will undoubtedly rule against it), many of us will demand that the Church actually celebrate gay unions (which, I suspect, is what the Archbishop is really afraid of).

Day Labor

2009-12-01T15:38:00.001-05:00

Jack McCafferty asks what it means when more peope are doing day labor on his CNN blog. Here is how I responded:

It means the economy is bad, undocumented workers are going home and the Republicans have broken the back of the Union movement. Day labor should be through a Union hall rather than a street corner.

Advent 2009: Waiting for the Lord

2009-11-29T08:06:00.003-05:00

Today, (actually last night at the Saturday vigil Mass), we begin the season of Advent. The Christmas shopping season began before Halloween, which shows that merchants are desperate. Even my daughter thought that this was too early, and she is six.

In the season of Advent, we are waiting for the Lord. This, of course, has many meanings.

When we are children, Advent is the time when we are waiting for Christmas to come, in anticipation of presents and the coming of Santa Claus. We grow out of that fairly quickly, yet that type of sincere anticipation should not be lost in waiting for the Lord, who said you must become like a child in expectation of the Kingdom of God.

Another aspect of Advent is an expectation of the Parousia, the return of Jesus at the end of time and the Kingdom of God on Earth. For some, this makes Advent is penitential season, where people use the season as a reason to go to Confession and do some spiritual housecleaning. This is always a worthy activity, but escape for ones sins is only the first part of discipleship. If that is all you do in your Christianity, you are thinking too much about yourself.

While it is important to invite God into our hearts in this season (although he is already there as the result of our Baptism), me must also seek God in others, for Jesus said that when we act with charity for the least of His brothers, you give charity to him. We should, at the very least, contribute toward activities that aid the poor directly and if we can, we should volunteer our time and have the opportunity to meet Christ face to face in our brothers and sisters. You may find them a mirror to ourselves.

The Kingdom of God is also built on a societal level. This means letting our legislators know as they are home for the holidays, that part of any economic stimulus must mean giving more money to those who need it most.

Tax reform will be on the agenda next, so this is an excellent time to let them know that more should be done for poor and less for the middle class (who benefit anyway when the poor have money - and will also decrease abortions). It is not sacrifice if we don't feel it a little.

Health reform is coming up, so we must emphasize both our views on Life issues and our preference that some reform that helps the working poor get much needed insurance coverage pass. Adding a sick leave entitlement is also an essential aspect of reform, since without it the working poor must still utilize emergency room care so as not to miss work.

Reauthorization of Temporary Aid to Needy Families should also be on the agenda next year (and if it isn't already, we must insist that they put it there) and it is in much need of reform. At the very minimum, life time limits should be repealed, since these cause women to seek abortions because they have no alternative. Lessening work requirements and replacing them with participation in education programs should also be on the agenda. TANF has been used to create a class of working poor with job training rather than real education. It is time to shift its focus to giving people the tools they need to reach the middle class rather than securing low wage employers a stable and compliant labor pool.

This brings up the topic of immigration. This is also coming up next year and we must remind our legislators that we are bound to welcome the stranger, which includes a path to citizenship -and not the onerous path contemplated the last time this was discussed. Most undocumented workers came here and worked exploitative (and sometimes unsafe) jobs for lower pay than they were entitled to, with their employers keeping as profit funds which should have been paid out as wages. Making these workers pay fines and wait almost a decade for full citizenship is simply adding insult to injury. As Catholics, we must demand something better for these people, especially as some of us were the beneficiaries of these ill-gotten profits. If we do seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation this Advent, we must confess that if we are conscious of it. Seeking reform is part of our resolve to not sin again and make restitution.

If we truly seek the Lord, we will see him in the face of the immigrant (who looks more like Jesus than the images we see on most Christmas cards).

The Feast of Christ the King

2009-11-22T09:02:00.001-05:00

Today we close the liturgical year with the Feast of Christ the King, including the triumphalist reading from Revelation (which was almost left out of the canon).

There are three ways to understand the kingship of Christ in our lives. The one we emphasize is telling.

The first is that our King is not of this world and we must not be of this world either. With this emphasis the moral imperative is to avoid the taint of sin at all costs. We must also not associate with the sinful. Those who feel this way seem to have strong negative feelings about Barack Obama.

The second is that the Kingship of Christ means that we must be Christ to others - that we must fulfill his mission on earth, primarily his mission of charity. In other words, we must bring about the Kingdom of God in both our personal lives and in our politics. Those who feel this way are more likely to support the President, knowing that his economic policies reflect the Christian message.

Of course, the answer is that both views are correct and that we must both avoid sin and do good works - as well as supporting a more just society. I lean more heavily toward the second side, as do progressives. As society evolves, hopefully that which divides us will be minimized and that which unites us will be increased. Indeed, this is the ultimate message of this feast, that we are all one under Christ, Jesus. It is ultimately a feast of communion and unity. Let us celebrate that promise. Happy Feast Day!

Must we witness to life?

2009-11-10T20:23:00.001-05:00

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

2009-11-06T21:25:00.003-05:00

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

2009-11-06T19:50:00.002-05:00

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?

2009-11-06T19:41:00.000-05:00

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

2009-11-04T12:23:00.001-05:00

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

2009-11-02T13:28:00.005-05:00

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

2009-11-02T12:01:00.003-05:00

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

2009-10-28T20:22:00.001-04:00

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

2009-10-28T16:07:00.002-04:00

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?