President Obama by all accounts was aggressive and focused at Hofstra University in the latest presidential debate. He was the consensus winner of this second debate, though not by the margin by which Romney won the first debate. So he did what he had to do. Did he therefore stop the bleeding? Do things now revert to where they were before the Denver debate with Obama holding a pretty comfortable lead? We really don't know. However, new NBC polls from Iowa and Wisconsin show Obama with leads similar to those he held before the first debate.
Governor Romney's best argument was that things have not gone so well during the past four years. Unemployment is still high, and the economy is not where it needs to be. This is pretty much an indisputable argument, though it is one that every American is already well aware of. At the same time an increasingly credible case can be made that we are now seeing a definite turnaround in the economy. Unemployment is down below 8%, housing seems to be coming back, profits are high, and the market is doing very well. Even consumer confidence is improving.
Clearly then, things could be better, but maybe they are actually beginning to get better. While Romney makes a good case for how bad things are, does he really have the answers to more jobs and an improved economy? Is it reasonable to stick with the current occupant of the White House now that things may be getting better. Should we stick with the policies that have begun to make that difference, or take a chance on the supposed business acumen of Mitt Romney?
Once again we are faced with the choice between a government that wants to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, and roll back regulations as a way of moving the economy forward. The problem with Mitt Romney's plan is that this is the policy the George W. Bush administration used to help create the great recession we have experienced.
The alternate choice is a government that believes in protecting the most vulnerable among us and making sure that we all have an equal chance to get ahead. This prescription from President Obama has actually worked better that many people realize. We are now beginning to see the fruits of these efforts. The stimulus was instrumental in saving thousands of jobs at the state level for teachers, policemen, and firefighters. The proof of this reality is that when the stimulus ran out we saw state governments slash jobs resulting in the public employment sector becoming a major contributor to the unemployment rate. The auto bailout also saved thousands of jobs both in the auto industry and in related industries. Additionally, the contrast with what has happened in Europe is instructive. Europe's insistence on severe austerity measures has made a bad situation worse. Targeted government investment seems preferable. If there is a criticism it may be that we failed to create enough stimulus.
What happens on the campaign trail now? There is one more debate, but I believe there will be less interest in it and it will likely have limited impact. The remainder of time before the election will be taken up with negative adds, appeals to the base, and the ground game of getting voters to the polls. Who has the advantage here? Many say the Republicans are more energized to vote against President Obama. Maybe so, but the stakes couldn't be higher for those who believe in a government that seeks to help the disadvantaged and promote fairness for all Americans. The Republican party and too many of their candidates are working hard at the state and national level to implement extreme policies on social issues and in governing. There are more than enough reasons to get to the polls and make sure every voice is heard. We cannot allow the super pacs to determine the outcome of this election with an overload of deceptive advertising. The Obama campaign is credited with an outstanding ground game for getting out the vote. This may be the most crucial factor of all.
Unfortunately our country remains heavily polarized and there appears to be no immediate way to resolve this conflict. We must continue to fight for policies that support all of our citizens. We must say no to those who see the 47% as standing in the way of implementing a narrow and rigid vision of what they believe the world should look like.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
The Case Against Mitt Romney
Last week Mitt Romney won the first Presidential Debate. There was a clear consensus among Democrats and Republicans alike. To my recollection going back to the first Kennedy Nixon debate, I don't believe there has been a debate where there was a winner so clearly defined. Romney was aggressive, confident, and gave fairly clear and concise answers. Almost every one would agree that President Obama was not on his game. The latest polls showing Romney now even with Obama reflect that fact.
What happened? Romney was well prepared over a long period of time. He knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it well. No one challenged what he had to say. Whatever strategy Obama may have been employing was the wrong strategy. There was little or no energy. It sounded like we had heard it all before.
The problem with Mitt Romney's performance was that in fact we hadn't heard any of it before. He did a complete about face on almost every issue. The 20% tax cut was obfuscated by words of it being revenue neutral. Repeal Obama care on day one was confused with talk of how wonderful Romney care was in Massachusetts, not to mention his intention to retain all of the well liked provisions of Obama care. Yet there appeared to be no need to pay for, or institute a mandate that would make these provisions possible. Romney was suddenly a fan of Wall Street regulations, and complained that the Dodd Frank bill was simply not tough enough. So, he once again dramatically changed his positions, and hid the implications of other positions which might not be popular.
So what do we really know about Mitt Romney? Many commentators feel they know who he is, and most who do say that he was just being conservative to get the nomination and will now revert to the moderate he actually is. After all, the notion goes, his record in Massachusetts was that of a moderate governor. Yet we have seen his disdain for ordinary Americans when he was talking freely with wealthy doners. He has continued with his extreme positions in the campaign until now. Perhaps, the fact that he was falling further behind contributed to his change of heart.
One thing we know about him is that he wants to be president. He seems to be willing to go to extremes to achieve that goal. He said in the primary debates that he would refuse to raise revenue even if the ratio of cuts to revenue increases was 10 to 1. When threatened by challengers like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum he unceremoniously crushed them with his seemingly unlimited financial resources and targeted adds. Apparently, he believes he can do the same to President Obama, and there is no doubt that the President will have to significantly elevate his game to prevent that. Rightly, or wrongly, style matters, and debate performances impact voter choices.
The main issue, however, has not changed. This campaign continues to be about two very different visions for our country. Whatever raging moderate may lie within him, the man who selected Paul Ryan as his running mate believes that the federal government is the problem. States need to solve their own problems as they choose with greatly reduced resources from the federal government. Too many of us are dependent on government and need to fend for ourselves, unless of course, we are wealthy and then the govenrmment should support us because we are the job creators.
The Obama and Democratic vision is that we are all in this together. Policies need to be fair and balanced so that everyone has a fair chance to get ahead. Business left on its own will not automatically do the right thing for all Americans. If government, therefore, doesn't step up to ensure a reasonably fair playing field for all Americans, who will?
What happened? Romney was well prepared over a long period of time. He knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it well. No one challenged what he had to say. Whatever strategy Obama may have been employing was the wrong strategy. There was little or no energy. It sounded like we had heard it all before.
The problem with Mitt Romney's performance was that in fact we hadn't heard any of it before. He did a complete about face on almost every issue. The 20% tax cut was obfuscated by words of it being revenue neutral. Repeal Obama care on day one was confused with talk of how wonderful Romney care was in Massachusetts, not to mention his intention to retain all of the well liked provisions of Obama care. Yet there appeared to be no need to pay for, or institute a mandate that would make these provisions possible. Romney was suddenly a fan of Wall Street regulations, and complained that the Dodd Frank bill was simply not tough enough. So, he once again dramatically changed his positions, and hid the implications of other positions which might not be popular.
So what do we really know about Mitt Romney? Many commentators feel they know who he is, and most who do say that he was just being conservative to get the nomination and will now revert to the moderate he actually is. After all, the notion goes, his record in Massachusetts was that of a moderate governor. Yet we have seen his disdain for ordinary Americans when he was talking freely with wealthy doners. He has continued with his extreme positions in the campaign until now. Perhaps, the fact that he was falling further behind contributed to his change of heart.
One thing we know about him is that he wants to be president. He seems to be willing to go to extremes to achieve that goal. He said in the primary debates that he would refuse to raise revenue even if the ratio of cuts to revenue increases was 10 to 1. When threatened by challengers like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum he unceremoniously crushed them with his seemingly unlimited financial resources and targeted adds. Apparently, he believes he can do the same to President Obama, and there is no doubt that the President will have to significantly elevate his game to prevent that. Rightly, or wrongly, style matters, and debate performances impact voter choices.
The main issue, however, has not changed. This campaign continues to be about two very different visions for our country. Whatever raging moderate may lie within him, the man who selected Paul Ryan as his running mate believes that the federal government is the problem. States need to solve their own problems as they choose with greatly reduced resources from the federal government. Too many of us are dependent on government and need to fend for ourselves, unless of course, we are wealthy and then the govenrmment should support us because we are the job creators.
The Obama and Democratic vision is that we are all in this together. Policies need to be fair and balanced so that everyone has a fair chance to get ahead. Business left on its own will not automatically do the right thing for all Americans. If government, therefore, doesn't step up to ensure a reasonably fair playing field for all Americans, who will?
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Archbishop Lori and the 'Fortnight for Freedom'
Archbishop Lori, Baltimore's new Archbishop, has embarked on a new program called 'Fortnight for Freedom' as he espoused in his Baltimore Sun editorial of June 27th. The Archbishop has taken his concerns about contraception in the new health care policy and has construed it as an attack on religious liberty. Yet, the Archbishop himself in his editorial, references real attacks on religious liberty in countries like Iraq and Nigeria, which actually demonstrates that the Archbishop's current program in the Archdiocese of Baltimore is a tempest in a teapot. There is no vendetta, no discrimination, no hostility to the Catholic Church on the part of the US government. The President has made repeated efforts to reach out to the Bishops to resolve their differences. There are legitimate differences here, but they are policy differences, not attempts to deprive Catholic institutions of freedom.
The Archbishop thinks all Catholic institutions should be exempt from having to provide health care plans that cover contraception. The adminsitration believes that this kind of coverage should be available to all Americans. This is a difference of opinion, not a wholesale attack on everything Catholics hold dear. After all we do llive in a multi cultural society and everyone does not share the beliefs of the Archbishop. Our society requires compromise and understanding, but it appears that the Archbishop only wants to be understood, not to understand, which is a distortion of the prayer of St. Francis that many of us know.
The Archbishop seems to be concerned with religious liberty in so far as it impacts the ability of the institutional Church to operate as it pleases without restraint. Is there an equal concern for the freedom of other citizens to access health care plans wihich contain the services they feel they need? It is difficult to find such a concern. More broadly where is the Archbishop's concern that all Americans have health care? Would he have preferred the health care law to be struck down and the uninsured to remain without adequate care?
What happened to the concern of the Catholic Church for the poor? What happened to the moral imperative Catholic Bishops had insisted on in the past - that health care was a right and not a privlege. The Church and the Catholic Bishops had long been one of the most vocal and vigorous advocates for the implementation of a universal health care program. These goals seem to have been left by the wayside in the current climate.
The Catholic Bishops seem determined to fight over this issue. We continue to be fed the notion that we poor Catholics are being picked on even as the administration continues to pursue every effort to find a satisfactory accommodation with the Church..At the same time the Church continues to wage an aggressive campaign to bend the administration to its will. The Archbishop has grossly distorted the issue into one of religious liberty which it is not. There is and will continue to be differences of opinion, but the Church cannot continue to accuse their foes of being anti Catholic whenever they don't get their way.
The Archbishop thinks all Catholic institutions should be exempt from having to provide health care plans that cover contraception. The adminsitration believes that this kind of coverage should be available to all Americans. This is a difference of opinion, not a wholesale attack on everything Catholics hold dear. After all we do llive in a multi cultural society and everyone does not share the beliefs of the Archbishop. Our society requires compromise and understanding, but it appears that the Archbishop only wants to be understood, not to understand, which is a distortion of the prayer of St. Francis that many of us know.
The Archbishop seems to be concerned with religious liberty in so far as it impacts the ability of the institutional Church to operate as it pleases without restraint. Is there an equal concern for the freedom of other citizens to access health care plans wihich contain the services they feel they need? It is difficult to find such a concern. More broadly where is the Archbishop's concern that all Americans have health care? Would he have preferred the health care law to be struck down and the uninsured to remain without adequate care?
What happened to the concern of the Catholic Church for the poor? What happened to the moral imperative Catholic Bishops had insisted on in the past - that health care was a right and not a privlege. The Church and the Catholic Bishops had long been one of the most vocal and vigorous advocates for the implementation of a universal health care program. These goals seem to have been left by the wayside in the current climate.
The Catholic Bishops seem determined to fight over this issue. We continue to be fed the notion that we poor Catholics are being picked on even as the administration continues to pursue every effort to find a satisfactory accommodation with the Church..At the same time the Church continues to wage an aggressive campaign to bend the administration to its will. The Archbishop has grossly distorted the issue into one of religious liberty which it is not. There is and will continue to be differences of opinion, but the Church cannot continue to accuse their foes of being anti Catholic whenever they don't get their way.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
What's Wrong With the President
There is a significant minority that is determined to make Barack Obama a one term president. This group finds our current president so offensive and unacceptable that their rhetoric has often escalated to vitriolic levels. What terrible actions has this President taken that has so riled a portion of the population? What is it about this president that has produced such intense emotional responses?
Let's review some of the statements that are being made about this president. Start with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's now famous statement that the number one priority for the Republican party would be to ensure that President Obama would be a one term president. Apparently this is more important than fixing a problematic economy. This president has been called a socialist and even a Communist. Even his birth in the United States has been questioned. He has been accused of being a Muslim and not a real American. To this group of Americans he is seen as 'other'.
No amount of factual information appears to be able to change the minds of this element of the electorate. They have accepted conspiracy theories with no basis in fact and have hardened their views of this president. This week's Time magazine indicated that there has been a 13% increase in the purchase of ammunition because word has gotten out that it is going to become more difficult to buy ammunition. The blogosphere is working ovettime to crank out some of the most bizarre notions which are readily digested by this hardcore group.
Also, what about the current investigation of Attorney General Eric Holder? The President has invoked the use of executive privlege regarding some subpoenaed documents. The arguments about executive privlege go back to President George Washington and the founding of the republic. There has never been a president who didn't believe in such a privlege and there has never been a congress that didn't have problems with it. Yet in this case we have heard calls for resignation, impeachment, accusations of lying to congress. This group seems determined to magnify the smallest issue and make it seem far more important than it is.The irony is that the Attorney General could well be protecting the activities of the Bush Administration, as the program in question began under President Bush.
The reality is that the Obama Presidency has been about as main stream and moderate as it could possibly be. The President did pass a stimulus bill which of course is very mainstream policy for Democratic politicians. Libnerals wanted him to nationalize the banks in the wake of the financial crisis but he refused to do so. He did pass a health care reform bill, but that has been a policy goal of every President going back to Richard Nixon. His sin seems to be that he was actually able to get it passed.The law he did pass represents a conservative model pushed by Republicans and signed in to law in Massachusetts by then Governor Mitt Romney. In foreign policy he has pursued many of George Bush's policies and escalated drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He pursued and got Bin Laden. He has incurred the wrath of many liberals who find him far too conservative. At most he could be considered center left, but he is not an extreme president by any stretch of the imagination.
There of course is and should be legitimate opposition to this President's policies. You can listen to CNBC any day and learn that Wall Street has a very different vision of how to turn this economy around. I believe their view is short sighted and lacking in concern for the average American, but it is a legitimate opposing political view. As mentioned, liberals have been very tough on this President, especially in the foreign policy domain and on almost every other issue, wishing he had gone farther than he did. Also there are sincere religious people who have disagreements with this president on issues like gay marriage and abortion.
While opposition to this man's policies are understandable and not innappropriate, the reactions and responses we are seeing from this one segment of the electorate is so far out of proportion to the actual facts. Why has President Obama encountered such violent opposition and even hatred from this significant minority? Of course we know that the opposition could not be an issue of race. It cannot be that the opposition is coming from a group of citizens who believe that the election of an African American to the presidency in this country cannot be allowed to stand. It cannot be that there are citizens who see the 2008 election as illegitimate because a black man was elected. It cannot be that there are those who are even more incensed because President Obama is not only black but of mixed race. It cannot be that the lack of respect and decorum shown this president even by other elected officials has anything to do with this President's race.
I wonder then, what the real reason could be.
Let's review some of the statements that are being made about this president. Start with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's now famous statement that the number one priority for the Republican party would be to ensure that President Obama would be a one term president. Apparently this is more important than fixing a problematic economy. This president has been called a socialist and even a Communist. Even his birth in the United States has been questioned. He has been accused of being a Muslim and not a real American. To this group of Americans he is seen as 'other'.
No amount of factual information appears to be able to change the minds of this element of the electorate. They have accepted conspiracy theories with no basis in fact and have hardened their views of this president. This week's Time magazine indicated that there has been a 13% increase in the purchase of ammunition because word has gotten out that it is going to become more difficult to buy ammunition. The blogosphere is working ovettime to crank out some of the most bizarre notions which are readily digested by this hardcore group.
Also, what about the current investigation of Attorney General Eric Holder? The President has invoked the use of executive privlege regarding some subpoenaed documents. The arguments about executive privlege go back to President George Washington and the founding of the republic. There has never been a president who didn't believe in such a privlege and there has never been a congress that didn't have problems with it. Yet in this case we have heard calls for resignation, impeachment, accusations of lying to congress. This group seems determined to magnify the smallest issue and make it seem far more important than it is.The irony is that the Attorney General could well be protecting the activities of the Bush Administration, as the program in question began under President Bush.
The reality is that the Obama Presidency has been about as main stream and moderate as it could possibly be. The President did pass a stimulus bill which of course is very mainstream policy for Democratic politicians. Libnerals wanted him to nationalize the banks in the wake of the financial crisis but he refused to do so. He did pass a health care reform bill, but that has been a policy goal of every President going back to Richard Nixon. His sin seems to be that he was actually able to get it passed.The law he did pass represents a conservative model pushed by Republicans and signed in to law in Massachusetts by then Governor Mitt Romney. In foreign policy he has pursued many of George Bush's policies and escalated drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He pursued and got Bin Laden. He has incurred the wrath of many liberals who find him far too conservative. At most he could be considered center left, but he is not an extreme president by any stretch of the imagination.
There of course is and should be legitimate opposition to this President's policies. You can listen to CNBC any day and learn that Wall Street has a very different vision of how to turn this economy around. I believe their view is short sighted and lacking in concern for the average American, but it is a legitimate opposing political view. As mentioned, liberals have been very tough on this President, especially in the foreign policy domain and on almost every other issue, wishing he had gone farther than he did. Also there are sincere religious people who have disagreements with this president on issues like gay marriage and abortion.
While opposition to this man's policies are understandable and not innappropriate, the reactions and responses we are seeing from this one segment of the electorate is so far out of proportion to the actual facts. Why has President Obama encountered such violent opposition and even hatred from this significant minority? Of course we know that the opposition could not be an issue of race. It cannot be that the opposition is coming from a group of citizens who believe that the election of an African American to the presidency in this country cannot be allowed to stand. It cannot be that there are citizens who see the 2008 election as illegitimate because a black man was elected. It cannot be that there are those who are even more incensed because President Obama is not only black but of mixed race. It cannot be that the lack of respect and decorum shown this president even by other elected officials has anything to do with this President's race.
I wonder then, what the real reason could be.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Equality for Gays
A recent Church Bulletin included a letter from Cardinal Wuerl, the Archbishop of Washington. The letter was regarding the organization called Catholics for Equality, and the letter was in response to inquiries the Cardinal had received seeking clarification concerning this organizartion. The letter seems to be an appropriate pastoral response to these inquiries, and I really can't argue with what he had to say about the organization.
I would however make three points. First, the Cardinal makes the point that the organization has no official status as being connected to the institutional Church. I'm not really familiar with the group so I can't say whether that is a status that they are seeking. I would say that it has every right to call itself Catholic since it represents Catholics with a particular point of view or mission. Just as groups arise like Democrats for Reagan or Republicans for Obama this group represents Catholics who are pushing for equality for gay and lesbian citizens. There may also likely be a group of Catholics for female priests. Catholics are in fact a wide microcosm of society and have a wide range of views, which are not contained within the dictates of institutional language.
Second, the Cardinal articulates official Catholic doctrine that essentially states that it is OK to be gay. I wonder how many Catholics have really understood that point. As the Cardinal says, whatever your sexual orientation may be, you have to follow the moral law. So the Church comes up with a typically strange position that it is OK to be gay as long as you don't have sex. I guess that ties in with their whole notion of sexuality. That it is basically bad except to make babies, and it is far better to be celibate. Celibacy for priests after all, has worked out so well over the centuries. At any rate, I think it is instructive and should be more widely known that there is no condemnation of homosexuality or individual homosexuals, only homosexual acts. Maybe some evangelical groups could benefit from studying this concept.
The significance of this doctrine is that there really is no place in Catholic practice for the condemnation of homosexuals or discrimination against them. In fact, in his most important point, the Cardinal proclaims the value and dignity of every human person. In this vein he is following Pope John Paul II and his frequent eloquent assertion on the worth, dignity and value of every human person. It is such a beautiful doctrine, if only we would see some sign of that in the Church's response to issues relative to Gays and Lesbians. We know the Church's clear position. Isn't it time we saw some of its compassion, understanding, and support? I'm pretty sure that is precisely what Catholics for Equality is trying to provide.
For example, can we do more than have our Churches set up tables after Mass to get Catholics to sign petitions to support a referendum to overturn Maryland's Same Sex Marriage law? We know of the discrimination against homosexuals. We know of the Matthew Sheppards' of the world. Do we know of the Church speaking out against such discrimination? We know how many young people who are gay commit suicide. Yet when an organization tries to reach out to minister to such people we have clarified for us that this is not a Catholic orgaanization. We know that young gays are bullied terribly in school, but do we hear any outcry from the church concerning this issue? Gays are discriminated against in the work place, in housing, and in the military. Where is the voice of the Church speaking out against such injustices?
Now that we know with great clarity what the Church's position is, can we see some of its efforts to promote fairness, justice, and acceptance of those individuals who are valued and have dignity and are gay.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
A Letter to the Archbishop
Dear Archbishop Lori,
Congratulations on your appearance on Meet the Press and welcome to Baltimore. Clearly you are going to be an active Archbishop and that could be positive for all of us.
It is also good to know that you are deeply committed to the concept of religious liberty. You should know that whether in Bridgeport or Baltimore you will be living in a pluralistic community with people of all faiths and no faiths. One can of course decide that all is evil and darkness, and the only light in our community is that emanating from the Holy Roman Catholic Church. History would suggest otherwise, and I'm sure you would agree that much good has come from the non-Catholic world, and much evil has come from the Catholic world.
I appreciate the fact that you did not buy into the notion that there is a war going on against religion. That is a tired bromide that should be put aside and not be brought up everytime someone challenges or criticizes an action or activity of the Church. Recent history, not to mention Church History over the years clearly demonstrates that the Church is not above criticism nor should it be. Being critical of something going on in the Church does not make one anti-Catholic or at war with the Church. Surely at this point in our history we can have disagreements without resorting to condemnations.
Back to religious liberty. You seem to have an excellent handle on what religious liberty necessitates in order for Catholics to practice their faith as they would choose. It is important to note that in this pluralistic society Catholics are not the only ones involved. As the old joke about heaven goes, 'when St. Peter walks the newcomers by the Catholic area in heaven he has to whisper, because the Catholics don't believe anybody else us up here.' Hopefully we are long past those days.
At any rate, what I'm wondering about is your concern for those other groups who also are guaranteed freedom of and from religion. As you implied in your remarks on Sunday, there is a large group of citizens who expect, need, and demand access to services which you might find objectionable. Does it bother you that if you were to get your way and deny access to contraception etc. to all employees in religious related institutions you would be denying services to many individuals, including non-Catholics, who are entitled to them?
You see, in this country, we can only live together through compromise. Religious liberty does not mean that the Church has a blank check to write the rules of how that liberty operates, because your freedom cannot interfere with that of another person's freedom. Twisting the concept of religious liberty to suit one's own purposes is not the way we do things in this country. It is not only the rights of the Church that need to be respected, but in this country the Church also needs to respect the rights of Protestants, non-believers, people of other faiths, and even those who may be hostile to our faith. Pope John Paul II was eloquent in always insisting on the worth, value, and dignity of every human being.
Can I recommend to you a closer reading of Vatican II's document on the Declaration on Religious Liberty, and maybe some further reading of the work of that great Catholic Theologian John Courtney Murray? No one understood the concept of religious liberty in the United States better. It is easy to criticize and attack, but I surely hope that you have come to Baltimore to solve problems and not to create additional divisions. If so, it means collaboration with all elements of the community and a willingness to forge consensus and compromises that all of our citizens can live together with in harmony. I would certainly support you in such an effort and wish for you much success in that regard.
Congratulations on your appearance on Meet the Press and welcome to Baltimore. Clearly you are going to be an active Archbishop and that could be positive for all of us.
It is also good to know that you are deeply committed to the concept of religious liberty. You should know that whether in Bridgeport or Baltimore you will be living in a pluralistic community with people of all faiths and no faiths. One can of course decide that all is evil and darkness, and the only light in our community is that emanating from the Holy Roman Catholic Church. History would suggest otherwise, and I'm sure you would agree that much good has come from the non-Catholic world, and much evil has come from the Catholic world.
I appreciate the fact that you did not buy into the notion that there is a war going on against religion. That is a tired bromide that should be put aside and not be brought up everytime someone challenges or criticizes an action or activity of the Church. Recent history, not to mention Church History over the years clearly demonstrates that the Church is not above criticism nor should it be. Being critical of something going on in the Church does not make one anti-Catholic or at war with the Church. Surely at this point in our history we can have disagreements without resorting to condemnations.
Back to religious liberty. You seem to have an excellent handle on what religious liberty necessitates in order for Catholics to practice their faith as they would choose. It is important to note that in this pluralistic society Catholics are not the only ones involved. As the old joke about heaven goes, 'when St. Peter walks the newcomers by the Catholic area in heaven he has to whisper, because the Catholics don't believe anybody else us up here.' Hopefully we are long past those days.
At any rate, what I'm wondering about is your concern for those other groups who also are guaranteed freedom of and from religion. As you implied in your remarks on Sunday, there is a large group of citizens who expect, need, and demand access to services which you might find objectionable. Does it bother you that if you were to get your way and deny access to contraception etc. to all employees in religious related institutions you would be denying services to many individuals, including non-Catholics, who are entitled to them?
You see, in this country, we can only live together through compromise. Religious liberty does not mean that the Church has a blank check to write the rules of how that liberty operates, because your freedom cannot interfere with that of another person's freedom. Twisting the concept of religious liberty to suit one's own purposes is not the way we do things in this country. It is not only the rights of the Church that need to be respected, but in this country the Church also needs to respect the rights of Protestants, non-believers, people of other faiths, and even those who may be hostile to our faith. Pope John Paul II was eloquent in always insisting on the worth, value, and dignity of every human being.
Can I recommend to you a closer reading of Vatican II's document on the Declaration on Religious Liberty, and maybe some further reading of the work of that great Catholic Theologian John Courtney Murray? No one understood the concept of religious liberty in the United States better. It is easy to criticize and attack, but I surely hope that you have come to Baltimore to solve problems and not to create additional divisions. If so, it means collaboration with all elements of the community and a willingness to forge consensus and compromises that all of our citizens can live together with in harmony. I would certainly support you in such an effort and wish for you much success in that regard.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Health Care Blitz: A Call to Action
The Supreme Court Justices have spoken and the prevailing wisdom is that they will overturn the Affordable Health Care Act. That might be presumptuous as I do believe the Supreme Court can be unpredictable at times. The reality is, however, that they have heard the arguments, will render a decision in June, and little or nothing can be done to alter their decision at this point.
Their decision, if it is to declare the law unconstitutional will be most unfortunate. It will be a product of an extremely conservative reading of the constitution, and it will fly in the face of many decisions; including those which upheld the new deal programs of the 1930's. It will do significant harm to many individuals, prevent about 30 million Americans from obtaining insurance, and throw the health care system into greater chaos than its in already. We could discuss all the arguments indicating that the individual mandate is constitutional and provide examples to buttress that argument, but as I said, from a legal perspective there is pretty much nothing further that can be done.
Yet, those supporting the health care law cannot sit idly by over these next three or four months until the court releases its decision. The Republicans have seemingly won the public argument against the health care bill, but they have won it by twisting the facts and distorting the reality. If they can win over public opinion through deception, surely public opinion can be turned around with the truth. Even the game of statistics is being used against the law. We continue to hear that two-thirds of all Americans opppse the law. Yet in a poll on the individual mandate, 47% were in fasor and 51% were opposed to the mandate. That means the American people are essentially split on the most controversial part of the law. That is a far different fact than the two-thirds majority point of view. Why is that particular statistic not being highlighted in the mainstream media?
The truth is, most Americans support the content of the health care law, such as allowing no preexisitng conditions, permitting young people to remain on their parents' health care policies until age 26, and other popular provisions. Either they don't actually know what is in this bill or they have somehow been convinced that terrible consequences will ensue from this act over time.
Between now and the Court's decision in June we need to saturate the airwaves so that people understand the truth about the health care law. A good place to start is with the article by Fareed Zakaria in the March 26th issue of Time Magazine. It is actually the best article I have seen on the subject. Also, the editorial in the March 29th issue of The Baltimore Sun on the law's constitutionality is excellent. We need to get President Obama out in the country with 3 or 4 big speeches on the topic - not campaign speeches but legitimate serious explanations of what the importance of the bill is and how it would actually operate for the benefit of the peoople. Senators, congressmen, Doctors, nurses, and individuals needing care need to serve as surrogates in every 'village and hamlet' across this county.
What is the point of such an effort if the law is to be struck down? First of all, too many Democrats and liberals failed to support this law in the beginning and allowed the argument to go to the Republicans who talked about everything from death panels to socialized medicine. Democrats have fought for health care coverage for all our citizens for decades, and to allow this bill to die without a fight after all that has gone into making it possible is not acceptable. Also, it is important that people understand what we are losing if the health bill goes down and what the impact will be on our future health care services. Finally, if the court injudiciously strikes down this law it will be far reaching in its effects on what the congress will be able to do in the future. We will be taking a giant step back to the days of the Articles of Confederation, when we were a collection of states with an ineffective federal government. The Federalists, like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison knew at the dawn of this nation that a strong federal government was needed, and clearly in today's society that is more true than ever.
I would strongly encourage anyonwe who has the contacts or the capacity to mobilize groups or government in support of this bill to do so now. We owe it to the president, our party and its history of supporting rights for all people, our country, and ourselves.
Their decision, if it is to declare the law unconstitutional will be most unfortunate. It will be a product of an extremely conservative reading of the constitution, and it will fly in the face of many decisions; including those which upheld the new deal programs of the 1930's. It will do significant harm to many individuals, prevent about 30 million Americans from obtaining insurance, and throw the health care system into greater chaos than its in already. We could discuss all the arguments indicating that the individual mandate is constitutional and provide examples to buttress that argument, but as I said, from a legal perspective there is pretty much nothing further that can be done.
Yet, those supporting the health care law cannot sit idly by over these next three or four months until the court releases its decision. The Republicans have seemingly won the public argument against the health care bill, but they have won it by twisting the facts and distorting the reality. If they can win over public opinion through deception, surely public opinion can be turned around with the truth. Even the game of statistics is being used against the law. We continue to hear that two-thirds of all Americans opppse the law. Yet in a poll on the individual mandate, 47% were in fasor and 51% were opposed to the mandate. That means the American people are essentially split on the most controversial part of the law. That is a far different fact than the two-thirds majority point of view. Why is that particular statistic not being highlighted in the mainstream media?
The truth is, most Americans support the content of the health care law, such as allowing no preexisitng conditions, permitting young people to remain on their parents' health care policies until age 26, and other popular provisions. Either they don't actually know what is in this bill or they have somehow been convinced that terrible consequences will ensue from this act over time.
Between now and the Court's decision in June we need to saturate the airwaves so that people understand the truth about the health care law. A good place to start is with the article by Fareed Zakaria in the March 26th issue of Time Magazine. It is actually the best article I have seen on the subject. Also, the editorial in the March 29th issue of The Baltimore Sun on the law's constitutionality is excellent. We need to get President Obama out in the country with 3 or 4 big speeches on the topic - not campaign speeches but legitimate serious explanations of what the importance of the bill is and how it would actually operate for the benefit of the peoople. Senators, congressmen, Doctors, nurses, and individuals needing care need to serve as surrogates in every 'village and hamlet' across this county.
What is the point of such an effort if the law is to be struck down? First of all, too many Democrats and liberals failed to support this law in the beginning and allowed the argument to go to the Republicans who talked about everything from death panels to socialized medicine. Democrats have fought for health care coverage for all our citizens for decades, and to allow this bill to die without a fight after all that has gone into making it possible is not acceptable. Also, it is important that people understand what we are losing if the health bill goes down and what the impact will be on our future health care services. Finally, if the court injudiciously strikes down this law it will be far reaching in its effects on what the congress will be able to do in the future. We will be taking a giant step back to the days of the Articles of Confederation, when we were a collection of states with an ineffective federal government. The Federalists, like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison knew at the dawn of this nation that a strong federal government was needed, and clearly in today's society that is more true than ever.
I would strongly encourage anyonwe who has the contacts or the capacity to mobilize groups or government in support of this bill to do so now. We owe it to the president, our party and its history of supporting rights for all people, our country, and ourselves.
Friday, February 24, 2012
The Catholic Bishops are Wrong
The Catholic Bishops of the United States are wrong in their latest foray into health care. At the most basic level they are wrong in adopting a very narrow and anachronistic view of Church. They somehow believe that in the exercise of their office they constitute Church. They don't. The Church is the People of God and all of us are part of that Church. If groups of Nuns, other Catholic institutions or concerned Catholics voice objections to the position of the heirarchy they form a valid and appropriate counter weight to the Bishop's point of view. The notion of the "sensus fidelium" or sense of the faithful is a strong part of what Catholic teaching is, not just what the Bishops say. The notion that the rest of us are around to pray, pay, and obey has been a thing of the past for a long time. Today's Catholic population is not ignorant, not docile, and not sheep to be led whereever the Bishops want to go.
The birth control issue raised by the Bishops is not one of religious liberty. It represents an attempt by the Bishops to impose their will on others. It is an attempt to discriminate against Catholics and others to prevent them from having access to health care services. The compromise developed by the Obama administration eliminates any possible issue they may have had, but now the Bishops appear to have decided to go beyound their original complaint and attempt to take health care services away from women. The Catholic Bishops who have always been a stalwart supporter of universal health care for all now seem determined to destroy that possibility.
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, for example, says he doesn't want anyone forced to have pre-natal tests or be required to use other services such as contraception. Yet no one is forcing anyone to make use of any service. I believe the Bishops feel they have cleverly twisted and distorted the entire concept of health services and religious liberty. We are actually discussing health plans and what they cover. A plan may cover services for the delivery of a child. That doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it. Health plans cover hospitalization. Does that mean you are forced to get sick and go to the hospital? Most plans like Medicare, now cover flu shots. No one is requiring anybody to get a flu shot. Whenever the Churches or politicians decide to eliminate services from coverage they are reducing benefits available to consumers. It seems like a crazy way to run a health care system.
The concept of people being forced to do anything under the health care plan is bizarre. What is really going on is the Catholic bishops, certain politicians and certain right wing Christians want to scuttle people's health care, especially health care services for women. They want to deny aaccess to women for certain services that they don't want available. This is a totally inappropriate stance in a pluralistic society
The Bishops are also wrong because they fail to understand how weak is their level of credibility. They demonstrated their inability to address the sex abuse scandal appropriately, thus demonstrating their woeful lack of leadership skills. They also have no credibility as an all male heirarchy talking about sexual issues, yet not including women at any level of discussion in the Church. Their track record on sexual issues does not suggest any of their positions deserve to be given much weight. Until they begin to listen to other voices than their own, what they have to say on sexual issues will be of little value to the rest of us.
Perhaps most importantly, they have lost their credibility because their lifestyle is so far removed from the Jesus of the Gospels that we are called to follow. The pomp and circumstance of the recent elevation of Cardinals, and the distance they place between themselves and their people, make it difficult to see in them true representatives of Christ. They seem so far from the "alter christus", another Christ, that they should represent. They are living lives of comfort, and seem to be trying to return to the medieval church structures, including reintroducing such archaic titles as monsignor, all of which take them so far from any understanding of who Jesus is and what his followers and leaders should be like. Might I suggest that the Bishops would do well to consider a prayerful rereading of the New Testament, especially with its clear preference for the poor.
They are wrong to think they can throw their weight around to make the coming elections turn out the way they want. They seem to want to pick a fight even after they were granted a compromise that eliminates even the possibility of seeing this as a religious liberty issue. They appear to want to keep fighting. They seem to think they have power that they don't. The longer they insist on forcing their point of view on American Catholics and other Americans the less credibility they will have. They should accept the generous compromise and show that they are still committed to Unversal health care for all Americans, which has been the traditional Catholic position.
Finally, they are wrong in thinking they can put the birth control genie back in the bottle among Catholics after decades of acceptance by pretty much all Cathoics, including priests and bishops. It was pretty much understood that birth control was a matter of consience for Catholics and by and large most priests in the confessional would guide Catholics who had questions to follow their own conscience on such matters. Once again the "sensus fidelium" developed that birth control was a personal and family decision. The Bishops can huff and puff but today's American Catholics are not likely to change their behavior. So let me say it again. The Catholic Bishops are wrong, they are not infallible, and they do not constitute Church.
The birth control issue raised by the Bishops is not one of religious liberty. It represents an attempt by the Bishops to impose their will on others. It is an attempt to discriminate against Catholics and others to prevent them from having access to health care services. The compromise developed by the Obama administration eliminates any possible issue they may have had, but now the Bishops appear to have decided to go beyound their original complaint and attempt to take health care services away from women. The Catholic Bishops who have always been a stalwart supporter of universal health care for all now seem determined to destroy that possibility.
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum, for example, says he doesn't want anyone forced to have pre-natal tests or be required to use other services such as contraception. Yet no one is forcing anyone to make use of any service. I believe the Bishops feel they have cleverly twisted and distorted the entire concept of health services and religious liberty. We are actually discussing health plans and what they cover. A plan may cover services for the delivery of a child. That doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it. Health plans cover hospitalization. Does that mean you are forced to get sick and go to the hospital? Most plans like Medicare, now cover flu shots. No one is requiring anybody to get a flu shot. Whenever the Churches or politicians decide to eliminate services from coverage they are reducing benefits available to consumers. It seems like a crazy way to run a health care system.
The concept of people being forced to do anything under the health care plan is bizarre. What is really going on is the Catholic bishops, certain politicians and certain right wing Christians want to scuttle people's health care, especially health care services for women. They want to deny aaccess to women for certain services that they don't want available. This is a totally inappropriate stance in a pluralistic society
The Bishops are also wrong because they fail to understand how weak is their level of credibility. They demonstrated their inability to address the sex abuse scandal appropriately, thus demonstrating their woeful lack of leadership skills. They also have no credibility as an all male heirarchy talking about sexual issues, yet not including women at any level of discussion in the Church. Their track record on sexual issues does not suggest any of their positions deserve to be given much weight. Until they begin to listen to other voices than their own, what they have to say on sexual issues will be of little value to the rest of us.
Perhaps most importantly, they have lost their credibility because their lifestyle is so far removed from the Jesus of the Gospels that we are called to follow. The pomp and circumstance of the recent elevation of Cardinals, and the distance they place between themselves and their people, make it difficult to see in them true representatives of Christ. They seem so far from the "alter christus", another Christ, that they should represent. They are living lives of comfort, and seem to be trying to return to the medieval church structures, including reintroducing such archaic titles as monsignor, all of which take them so far from any understanding of who Jesus is and what his followers and leaders should be like. Might I suggest that the Bishops would do well to consider a prayerful rereading of the New Testament, especially with its clear preference for the poor.
They are wrong to think they can throw their weight around to make the coming elections turn out the way they want. They seem to want to pick a fight even after they were granted a compromise that eliminates even the possibility of seeing this as a religious liberty issue. They appear to want to keep fighting. They seem to think they have power that they don't. The longer they insist on forcing their point of view on American Catholics and other Americans the less credibility they will have. They should accept the generous compromise and show that they are still committed to Unversal health care for all Americans, which has been the traditional Catholic position.
Finally, they are wrong in thinking they can put the birth control genie back in the bottle among Catholics after decades of acceptance by pretty much all Cathoics, including priests and bishops. It was pretty much understood that birth control was a matter of consience for Catholics and by and large most priests in the confessional would guide Catholics who had questions to follow their own conscience on such matters. Once again the "sensus fidelium" developed that birth control was a personal and family decision. The Bishops can huff and puff but today's American Catholics are not likely to change their behavior. So let me say it again. The Catholic Bishops are wrong, they are not infallible, and they do not constitute Church.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Religious Liberty and the Bishops
I have just reviewed a document by the Catholic Bishops of Maryland on the importance of religious freedom. It is commendable that the Bishops have expressed their belief in the value of this cornerstone of American democracy. They carefully enunciate the history of this freedom, particularly its roots in Maryland as it relates to the first Catholics who settled here under Lord Baltimore.
Of course there is also something of a failure to recall other elements of the history of Roman Catholicism and religious liberty. The Middle Ages for example included a lot of coercion in terms of insisting that everyone follow the religion of the current ruler. Whoever had the power determined what religion all their subjects would espouse. More than a few recalcitrants found themselves run through by the sword.
Much of this kind of thinking continued well into the modern era. As the ideal of religious liberty developed in our own country, Rome continued to look askance at the too modern notions of freedom of thought and religion. As an example the famous document of Thomas Paine Common Sense was placed on the index of forbidden books. It is only the determined efforts of American Catholics to promote the value of this American ideal of Religious Freedom that finally began to alter the thinking in Rome. Eventually Rome somewhat reluctantly agreed to accept the document on the Declaration of Religious Liberty produced during the Second Vatican Council. The famous American Theologian John Courtney Murray was the force behind this document. Unfortunately there may be some in Rome today who wish this document had not been accepted.
It is nevertheless positive to see the Church however belatedly come to understand the importance of this freedom. Yet, as with too many issues, the Bishops wind up with a somewhat distorted view of the freedom they promote. They demonstrate their blind side over the course of their document. When speaking about Catholics and their exercise of religious freedom they understand quite well what this concept is all about. They have much greater difficulty recognizing that this freedom applies to non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-believers as well. Their focus is so totally on the insistence that Catholics be given complete freedom to operate as they see fit within our country they fail to see how the exercise of their beliefs in the way they would like might infringe on the right of others to exercise their beliefs or their lack of beliefs. Or maybe they just don't care. Yet this is the essence of the meaning of religious freedom.
The Bishops first mention the case in Baltimore City where their pregnancy centers were asked to make clear that they did not provide abortion services. The centers fought this requirement and prevailed in the courts. I think this is an example of religious freedom and the courts working. That's why we have courts that provide legal recourse. If you feel agrieved you have options. Of course sometimes you will win in court and sometimes you will lose. Again this is the essence of the exercise of freedom in a democracy.
My question is, what would have happened if the Bishops lost? Would they suddenly have acknowledged that they had misunderstood the issue of religious liberty in this case? Would they accept the judgement of the courts, or would they refuse to be bound by what the courts say? After all, we are told that the Church is not a democracy and is the only arbiter of right and wrong. Ultimately the question becomes does the Church really believe in religious liberty or are they simply using it when it is helpful in promoting their own causes?
The Bishops refer to Martin Luther King's suggestion that the Church form the conscience of the State. They expect the right to be heard in the public square and complained that in the health care debate they were accused of high jacking the debate. Yet when nuns from their own Church put forth a different point of view they were outraged. I still see little evidence that the Bishops have a fundamental understanding of what the give and take of debate in the public square is all about. Yes, the Catholic Bishops have every right to put forth their ideas, but they must remember that others have this same right. In a Democracy, just because you are certain that your ideas are right does not mean they will always prevail. If you are losing the debate you cannot suddenly insist that your position is the only correct one and refuse to accept the decision of the marketplace. If you are determined to play in the market place of ideas then you must play on an equal footing with everyone else.
The natural law argument regarding abortion and other issues is a case in point. The Church puts forth this argument confident in its unassailable truth. After all, The natural law is common to all people, and anyone with good faith can understand these points with the eyes of reason. They are simply unable to see that the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't buy into the natural law argument as the Bishops do. Their argument may indeed be correct, but in a democracy the majority position is to prevail. I find no evidence that the bishops are prepared to accept that. Certainly there was an absolute refusal on their part to consider any kind of compromise in the health care debate.
Conscience rights of health care workers, pharmacists, and the like are legitimate issues. They are appropriately settled in the court, but somehow I doubt that the Church is going to fight equally hard for the rights of those who seek to exercise legal rights in the area of reproductive rights, or same sex couples who want the legal protections of civil marriage. For all the lofty rhetoric couched in this document, I have to say I will be more impressed with Church leaders when they evidence a true understanding of the meaning of a pluralistic society. I would like to see them not only insist on making their views known, but also advocate for the rights of others to make their views known as well. The obligation of the Bishops in this case may still be to continue their opposition, but to also accept the reality of what has been decided. To be true citizens in this society they will have to give up declaring the absolute wrongness of any position they opppose. You can't both proclaim the noble value of religious liberty for all and then refuse to play by the rules when you don't like the results of the process.
The Bishops might want to consider that the gay marriage law passed in New York and the sun still came up the next day. People are still getting married and divorced. Catholics are still going to Church, or maybe not. Everyone has survived. If it passes in Maryland, the same thing will be true. The next Sunday we will all get up and go to Church as before.
It may be time for the Bishops to recognize gay marriage as a strictly civil issue and not a religious one. No one is asking any Bishop or priest to conduct a gay marriage or even to approve one. If any attempt was made to make such a demand the Bishops could appropriately challenge in court. No one is demanding that Catholic authorities change any of their views on this issue, although tolerance, respect for differences, and caring for all God's children may not be such a bad idea.
If religious liberty means anything however, it means respecting the beliefs of others. It means fighting for the rights and freedoms of others as much as you fight for your own freedom. As a child I remember many veterans from World War II saying 'I disagree 100% with everything you are saying, but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. When I see an attitude of that nature from the Catholic Bishops of Maryland, then maybe I will believe their treatise on religious liberty means something.
Of course there is also something of a failure to recall other elements of the history of Roman Catholicism and religious liberty. The Middle Ages for example included a lot of coercion in terms of insisting that everyone follow the religion of the current ruler. Whoever had the power determined what religion all their subjects would espouse. More than a few recalcitrants found themselves run through by the sword.
Much of this kind of thinking continued well into the modern era. As the ideal of religious liberty developed in our own country, Rome continued to look askance at the too modern notions of freedom of thought and religion. As an example the famous document of Thomas Paine Common Sense was placed on the index of forbidden books. It is only the determined efforts of American Catholics to promote the value of this American ideal of Religious Freedom that finally began to alter the thinking in Rome. Eventually Rome somewhat reluctantly agreed to accept the document on the Declaration of Religious Liberty produced during the Second Vatican Council. The famous American Theologian John Courtney Murray was the force behind this document. Unfortunately there may be some in Rome today who wish this document had not been accepted.
It is nevertheless positive to see the Church however belatedly come to understand the importance of this freedom. Yet, as with too many issues, the Bishops wind up with a somewhat distorted view of the freedom they promote. They demonstrate their blind side over the course of their document. When speaking about Catholics and their exercise of religious freedom they understand quite well what this concept is all about. They have much greater difficulty recognizing that this freedom applies to non-Catholics, non-Christians, and non-believers as well. Their focus is so totally on the insistence that Catholics be given complete freedom to operate as they see fit within our country they fail to see how the exercise of their beliefs in the way they would like might infringe on the right of others to exercise their beliefs or their lack of beliefs. Or maybe they just don't care. Yet this is the essence of the meaning of religious freedom.
The Bishops first mention the case in Baltimore City where their pregnancy centers were asked to make clear that they did not provide abortion services. The centers fought this requirement and prevailed in the courts. I think this is an example of religious freedom and the courts working. That's why we have courts that provide legal recourse. If you feel agrieved you have options. Of course sometimes you will win in court and sometimes you will lose. Again this is the essence of the exercise of freedom in a democracy.
My question is, what would have happened if the Bishops lost? Would they suddenly have acknowledged that they had misunderstood the issue of religious liberty in this case? Would they accept the judgement of the courts, or would they refuse to be bound by what the courts say? After all, we are told that the Church is not a democracy and is the only arbiter of right and wrong. Ultimately the question becomes does the Church really believe in religious liberty or are they simply using it when it is helpful in promoting their own causes?
The Bishops refer to Martin Luther King's suggestion that the Church form the conscience of the State. They expect the right to be heard in the public square and complained that in the health care debate they were accused of high jacking the debate. Yet when nuns from their own Church put forth a different point of view they were outraged. I still see little evidence that the Bishops have a fundamental understanding of what the give and take of debate in the public square is all about. Yes, the Catholic Bishops have every right to put forth their ideas, but they must remember that others have this same right. In a Democracy, just because you are certain that your ideas are right does not mean they will always prevail. If you are losing the debate you cannot suddenly insist that your position is the only correct one and refuse to accept the decision of the marketplace. If you are determined to play in the market place of ideas then you must play on an equal footing with everyone else.
The natural law argument regarding abortion and other issues is a case in point. The Church puts forth this argument confident in its unassailable truth. After all, The natural law is common to all people, and anyone with good faith can understand these points with the eyes of reason. They are simply unable to see that the vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't buy into the natural law argument as the Bishops do. Their argument may indeed be correct, but in a democracy the majority position is to prevail. I find no evidence that the bishops are prepared to accept that. Certainly there was an absolute refusal on their part to consider any kind of compromise in the health care debate.
Conscience rights of health care workers, pharmacists, and the like are legitimate issues. They are appropriately settled in the court, but somehow I doubt that the Church is going to fight equally hard for the rights of those who seek to exercise legal rights in the area of reproductive rights, or same sex couples who want the legal protections of civil marriage. For all the lofty rhetoric couched in this document, I have to say I will be more impressed with Church leaders when they evidence a true understanding of the meaning of a pluralistic society. I would like to see them not only insist on making their views known, but also advocate for the rights of others to make their views known as well. The obligation of the Bishops in this case may still be to continue their opposition, but to also accept the reality of what has been decided. To be true citizens in this society they will have to give up declaring the absolute wrongness of any position they opppose. You can't both proclaim the noble value of religious liberty for all and then refuse to play by the rules when you don't like the results of the process.
The Bishops might want to consider that the gay marriage law passed in New York and the sun still came up the next day. People are still getting married and divorced. Catholics are still going to Church, or maybe not. Everyone has survived. If it passes in Maryland, the same thing will be true. The next Sunday we will all get up and go to Church as before.
It may be time for the Bishops to recognize gay marriage as a strictly civil issue and not a religious one. No one is asking any Bishop or priest to conduct a gay marriage or even to approve one. If any attempt was made to make such a demand the Bishops could appropriately challenge in court. No one is demanding that Catholic authorities change any of their views on this issue, although tolerance, respect for differences, and caring for all God's children may not be such a bad idea.
If religious liberty means anything however, it means respecting the beliefs of others. It means fighting for the rights and freedoms of others as much as you fight for your own freedom. As a child I remember many veterans from World War II saying 'I disagree 100% with everything you are saying, but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. When I see an attitude of that nature from the Catholic Bishops of Maryland, then maybe I will believe their treatise on religious liberty means something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
