Why is it so difficult to hold anyone accountable these days? Oh, if you or I break the law we will find ourselves being held accountable very quickly. Yet those who are really making the decisions in our world today do not seem to be playing by the same rules as the rest of us. If we have no claim on authority that is either divine, hereditary, or somehow comes with the position one holds we most assuredly will be held accountable. But for the real power brokers all around us, not only are they not being held to account, the notion that they should be held to account is simply not acceptable. Consider some of the examples mentioned below.
Let's start with the Roman Catholic Bishops who have been circling the wagons around Pope Benedict as continuing sex abuse accusations are revealed. Not only is there a lack of accountability, but there appears to be no sense that any accountability is required or even appropriate. Donald Cozzens in a recent National Catholic Reporter article says not to expect accountability from the last feudal system in the West. Accountablility offends the dignity of divinely appointed teachers of the Church. Calls for accountability are seen as attacks on the Church. Also, as princes in a feudal caste system they are answerable only to their sovereign, in this case the Pope. Cozzens further mentions that a well known Protestant theologian, Paul Tillich, pointed out many years ago that those who see fit to judge the world and its standards need to be subject to judgement in the same manner. Yet, because of its adherence to an antiquated feudal structure, it will be very difficult for the Church to allow itself to be held accountable.
Corporate bigwigs on Wall Street have never gotten the message. They are worth billions and don't need to answer to anyone. If you saw them as they sat in front of Congressional oversight Committees, their faces were just dripping with arrogance and disdain as they made no attempt to answer any questions or even suggest that they understood why people were angry. These corporations represent the source of tea party anger as well as anger throughout the electorate. They continue their lack of sensitivity by strongly opposing the financial regulation bill. They seem to firmly believe that the government should give them everything they want even though they have failed to be good stewards of the largesse they have received from all of us in the past.
Oil company executives in the Gulf are another group that don't get it. BP CEO Tony Hayward said the size of the oil spill is irrelevent. His style is arrogant and confrontational. He noted that the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean and the spill is tiny in comparison. Apparently BP doesn't need to follow safety regulations. The reports coming out of the Gulf are increasingly disturbing, but it seems to be business as usual for the company. Can people still believe with Calvin Coolidge that what is good for business is good for the country?
The only place I don't see this sense of entitlement is in government. Yet, everyone is angry at government. Is it possible that some of this anger may be misdirected? Of course it is easy to criticize government. They make many mistakes and do many things wrong. Excessive partisanship has made getting things done nearly impossible. There are often unintended consequences even when they try to do something good. But I don't think government comes close to being the problem that the other culprits I've mentioned are.
Let's take a quick look at 'big government' that is so often cited as the problem. I recommend that you read Tom Schaller's article in the Baltimore Sun, dated May 18th and entitled "A Far Cry Indeed from Socialism". Data he points to indicates that of the 31 first world countries, taxes in the United States make up the lowest percentage of GDP. Of these same countries U.S. policies have the least distributive effect on income. Interestingly, those real socialist countries like Denmark, Norway and Finland seem to best espouse American values of hard work, effort and personal ingenuity. It is in the U.S. where who your Dad is counts more than what you personally bring to the table. Of 25 industrialized countries we are actually the least socialist. We have the lowest level of taxation, the lowest degree of distribution of wealth, and the highest level of poverty.
So, I would contend that our government is accountable to us, whereas Wall Street and major corporations are not. In fact our governemnt has the greatest accountability of all - democratic elections. It likely represents our best hope of bringing some accountability to the corporations and Wall Street tycoons who see themselves as above the normal rules of living in an interdependent world. I don't know what hope there is for bringing accountability to the Church, although that is also going to have to come from people in the pews demanding it and even withholding their contributions. As for government it might be helpful to tone down the continuing tirades against it. Destroying government is not the answer. The small government of the Libertarians will not get us where we need to be in the 21st century. The result will only be to give more power to Wall Street, the oil companies, the coal companies, chemical companies and others. That is why these companies spend so much money to prevent serious financial and other kinds of regulations from being enacted. We need to work to make government better so that it can effectively advocate for the little guy instead of the giants of corporate America.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Immigration Reform, Now
The new Arizona law on immigration can be seen as a reaction to legitimate concerns arising out of violence and potential violence at the border. At the same time it can also provide the impetus needed for the country to move to meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform. Hopefully, it will indeed serve as an opportunity to address an issue that we have failed to address for far too long. We know that the drug cartels have created a dangerous situation in the area, including the shooting of Americans for no apparent reason. Fear and violence is the order of the day. The border needs to be protected.
Yet, to most students or even casual observers of the constitution this new law seems draconian, an over reaction, and quite frankly unamerican. The situation has served to energize people to move at times in opposite directions. On the one hand, It seems that we are ready to have the authorities stop us with the notorious demand, 'papers, please'. In fact, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor the Arizona law which at the same time has sparked outrage, demonstrations, talks of boycotts, and even a response from the Phoenix Suns and the National Basketball Association. Once again it seems that the country is split down the middle in what ought to be the appropriate response to this new immigration crisis.
Many are already making vociferous protest. San Francisco has officially decided that no city officials will do business in Arizona. Many others have adjusted travel plans to avoid the state. Is econmoic boycott the answer? It seemed to work when the state refused to adopt Martin Luther King day as a holiday in the state. Even cities in Arizona are boycotting the law, so there is clearly no unanimity even within the state of Arizona. We have seen thousands upon thousands of Latinos and others take to the streets in protest. The Catholic Church has been unyielding in its opposition.
Legal avenues for attacking the constitutionality of this law are also being explored. Some lawsuits have already been filed and the justice department is looking into appropriate federal action. For one thing immigration appears to clearly be a federal issue and not one to be delegated to the states. One possible avenue would be for the government to file a friend of the court brief together with an already proceeding lawsuit. These avenues will play out over time, but the continued and ever growing polarization on this issue demands action now.
It's not as if this is a new issue. The problem has been festering for decades. The last real attempt under President Bush and with the strong backing of Senator John McCain, failed because of overheated rhetoric and commentators like Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is gone but the rhetoric is heating up again. How do we have a reasonable conversation about immigration? Do people want to solve the problem or do they want to use the issue to play partisan politics? How do we get away from the rhetoric and get something done? If the bill is brought up will we be faced with the outcries we had when Geoge Bush and John McCain tried to pass a bill? Or is it possible that we actually have a window of opportunity where something positive could happen?
Is it possible that despite the cacaphony of voices, we may not be as far apart on the goal as it may seem. We actually have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The bill that Senators Leiberman, Kerry, and Graham have been working on pretty much contains all the elements needed to resolve this issue once and for all. These elements include securing the borders, some kind of card that could be used to gain employment, a guest worker program, and a reasonable path to citizenship. The problem is we can't get the job done. Too many other issues need attention, such as financial reform and the energy bill. Besides, the fall elections are coming up and no one wants to address the issue now. It is politically a bad idea for both democrats and republicans. Should that really matter? The Arizona law and its fallout reflect the need. Something must be done. Isn't that why we send our representatives to congress? Courage and leadership are the only ingredients that are lacking at this time. Where will they come from?
I believe in compromise, but I also believe in results. If you are doing your job and lose it as a result of your efforts, so be it. The problem has existed long enough and it has now come to a head. I expect my representatives to go to work and resolve the problem before we have more laws like the one in Arizona, more demonstrations, riots, increased polarization, and violence. Now is the time. We have waited too long. America is waiting. The time to act is now. The American people hired this congress to solve problems. This one needs solving, and it needs solving now.
Yet, to most students or even casual observers of the constitution this new law seems draconian, an over reaction, and quite frankly unamerican. The situation has served to energize people to move at times in opposite directions. On the one hand, It seems that we are ready to have the authorities stop us with the notorious demand, 'papers, please'. In fact, polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor the Arizona law which at the same time has sparked outrage, demonstrations, talks of boycotts, and even a response from the Phoenix Suns and the National Basketball Association. Once again it seems that the country is split down the middle in what ought to be the appropriate response to this new immigration crisis.
Many are already making vociferous protest. San Francisco has officially decided that no city officials will do business in Arizona. Many others have adjusted travel plans to avoid the state. Is econmoic boycott the answer? It seemed to work when the state refused to adopt Martin Luther King day as a holiday in the state. Even cities in Arizona are boycotting the law, so there is clearly no unanimity even within the state of Arizona. We have seen thousands upon thousands of Latinos and others take to the streets in protest. The Catholic Church has been unyielding in its opposition.
Legal avenues for attacking the constitutionality of this law are also being explored. Some lawsuits have already been filed and the justice department is looking into appropriate federal action. For one thing immigration appears to clearly be a federal issue and not one to be delegated to the states. One possible avenue would be for the government to file a friend of the court brief together with an already proceeding lawsuit. These avenues will play out over time, but the continued and ever growing polarization on this issue demands action now.
It's not as if this is a new issue. The problem has been festering for decades. The last real attempt under President Bush and with the strong backing of Senator John McCain, failed because of overheated rhetoric and commentators like Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs is gone but the rhetoric is heating up again. How do we have a reasonable conversation about immigration? Do people want to solve the problem or do they want to use the issue to play partisan politics? How do we get away from the rhetoric and get something done? If the bill is brought up will we be faced with the outcries we had when Geoge Bush and John McCain tried to pass a bill? Or is it possible that we actually have a window of opportunity where something positive could happen?
Is it possible that despite the cacaphony of voices, we may not be as far apart on the goal as it may seem. We actually have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The bill that Senators Leiberman, Kerry, and Graham have been working on pretty much contains all the elements needed to resolve this issue once and for all. These elements include securing the borders, some kind of card that could be used to gain employment, a guest worker program, and a reasonable path to citizenship. The problem is we can't get the job done. Too many other issues need attention, such as financial reform and the energy bill. Besides, the fall elections are coming up and no one wants to address the issue now. It is politically a bad idea for both democrats and republicans. Should that really matter? The Arizona law and its fallout reflect the need. Something must be done. Isn't that why we send our representatives to congress? Courage and leadership are the only ingredients that are lacking at this time. Where will they come from?
I believe in compromise, but I also believe in results. If you are doing your job and lose it as a result of your efforts, so be it. The problem has existed long enough and it has now come to a head. I expect my representatives to go to work and resolve the problem before we have more laws like the one in Arizona, more demonstrations, riots, increased polarization, and violence. Now is the time. We have waited too long. America is waiting. The time to act is now. The American people hired this congress to solve problems. This one needs solving, and it needs solving now.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
'Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice'
During the time when I was a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater, his remarks at the Republican National Convention in 1964 made sense to me. I actually still find them somewhat appealing, but it is all in the interpretation. If it means that liberty is so precious that one should be passionate in its defense and strive to protect it in every way appropriate, it makes sense. I'm pretty sure however, that what we are seeing from the far right as well as the far left is not what the good senator had in mind.
There is also the issue of how the current political climate compares to periods in our past. When this question comes up we often hear from historians about attacks on George Washington or Abraham Lincoln and are told that the level of hostility may be considerably less than in earlier days. While this conversation may be historically interesting, it is of little value in the present context. I think it more important that we look at what is happening today and address the issues that we are facing right now.
First. Why are people so angry? We know that political polarization is not new, but it is festering at the moment, and often in an alarming manner. The recession and unemployment are legitimately driving discontent with conditions in the country. Fear of too much spending is also a big part of the equation, although it didn't seem to be as big a concern during the previous administration. Actually, by any reasonable analysis, the recession would be far worse if we had not spent large sums of money to ameliorate it. It has always been a principle of business that you have to spend money to make money. I'm not an economist, but the notion of tightening one's belt in the face of financial collapse seems to have been a major failure of the great depression. The point, however, is that this is a legitimate issue, but is it worthy of the intense anger and potential violence it has at times created?
Democracy thrives on lively debate, and differences of opinion. What we are seeing, however, goes far beyond healthy discourse. Threats against members of congress, and even acts of violence are not part of the democracy we pride ourselves on in this country. Talk of secession, taking up arms, and building militias to attack the federal government can only be characterized as extreme. Many of these people consider themselves patriots, yet what is patriotic about trashing your government? What ever happened to working within the system for meaningful change?
No doubt the group I am talking about represents a small fraction of Americans. It is also true that there has always been a fringe group of folks who represent and advocate extreme positions. What I find troubling now, is that these extreme positions are finding their way into the main stream of political discourse and action. This is not by accident, either.
It is a truism that bad things happen when good men (women) do nothing. What we are seeing today includes silence against these festering dangers, and even intentional or unintentional encouragement of some of the worst traits within us. There is a media bias, and well known commentators are encouraging and supporting some of the more extreme positions that are out there. Even worse is responsible officials and politicians are not making clear their opposition to such violence and extreme views. How many politicians challenged their constituents during town meetings and other venues telling them that some of their positions were not accurate? I can only think of two examples. One was in the campaign when John McCain told one of his supporters that Barack Obama was indeed an American, and recently when Senator Tom Coburn told a supporter that her information about health care reform was incorrect and even that Fox news was not always a reliable presenter of facts. So much more of this kind of statesmanship is needed. There are levels of discourse that should be challenged, and we need more responsible officials to make that clear.
The misinformation that is out there obfuscates legitimate concerns. There is also a legitimate concern that racist remarks, spitting, threats and acts of violence could escalate even more, since they are not being stongly repudiated. There is real danger, that a terrible tragedy might ensue, sooner rather that later. The Oklahoma bombing grew out of such misplaced anger. We don't want to see that happen again.
What can be done? As I mentioned, we have seen hints of what can happen, but these efforts need to be coordinated. The messages of people like Tom Coburn and John McCain need to be coordinated and sustained. Finally, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American issue. How powerful it would be if Democratic and Republican leaders came before the media together and stated unequivocally, that such behavior cannot be tolerated. That there is no acceptance on either side, of the extreme positions that use falsehoods and calls to unacceptable behavior to pursue their causes. There are enough legitimate different positions on policy matters to argue about without resorting to falsehoods, threats and violence. Can we make common cause on this matter? Although,it seems unlikely given the current political climate, I believe we can. We are all Americans. We believe, not just in Virginia or Texas, but in the United States of America. We believe in our way of government. Let's send the 'crazies' back to the fringes where they belong.
There is also the issue of how the current political climate compares to periods in our past. When this question comes up we often hear from historians about attacks on George Washington or Abraham Lincoln and are told that the level of hostility may be considerably less than in earlier days. While this conversation may be historically interesting, it is of little value in the present context. I think it more important that we look at what is happening today and address the issues that we are facing right now.
First. Why are people so angry? We know that political polarization is not new, but it is festering at the moment, and often in an alarming manner. The recession and unemployment are legitimately driving discontent with conditions in the country. Fear of too much spending is also a big part of the equation, although it didn't seem to be as big a concern during the previous administration. Actually, by any reasonable analysis, the recession would be far worse if we had not spent large sums of money to ameliorate it. It has always been a principle of business that you have to spend money to make money. I'm not an economist, but the notion of tightening one's belt in the face of financial collapse seems to have been a major failure of the great depression. The point, however, is that this is a legitimate issue, but is it worthy of the intense anger and potential violence it has at times created?
Democracy thrives on lively debate, and differences of opinion. What we are seeing, however, goes far beyond healthy discourse. Threats against members of congress, and even acts of violence are not part of the democracy we pride ourselves on in this country. Talk of secession, taking up arms, and building militias to attack the federal government can only be characterized as extreme. Many of these people consider themselves patriots, yet what is patriotic about trashing your government? What ever happened to working within the system for meaningful change?
No doubt the group I am talking about represents a small fraction of Americans. It is also true that there has always been a fringe group of folks who represent and advocate extreme positions. What I find troubling now, is that these extreme positions are finding their way into the main stream of political discourse and action. This is not by accident, either.
It is a truism that bad things happen when good men (women) do nothing. What we are seeing today includes silence against these festering dangers, and even intentional or unintentional encouragement of some of the worst traits within us. There is a media bias, and well known commentators are encouraging and supporting some of the more extreme positions that are out there. Even worse is responsible officials and politicians are not making clear their opposition to such violence and extreme views. How many politicians challenged their constituents during town meetings and other venues telling them that some of their positions were not accurate? I can only think of two examples. One was in the campaign when John McCain told one of his supporters that Barack Obama was indeed an American, and recently when Senator Tom Coburn told a supporter that her information about health care reform was incorrect and even that Fox news was not always a reliable presenter of facts. So much more of this kind of statesmanship is needed. There are levels of discourse that should be challenged, and we need more responsible officials to make that clear.
The misinformation that is out there obfuscates legitimate concerns. There is also a legitimate concern that racist remarks, spitting, threats and acts of violence could escalate even more, since they are not being stongly repudiated. There is real danger, that a terrible tragedy might ensue, sooner rather that later. The Oklahoma bombing grew out of such misplaced anger. We don't want to see that happen again.
What can be done? As I mentioned, we have seen hints of what can happen, but these efforts need to be coordinated. The messages of people like Tom Coburn and John McCain need to be coordinated and sustained. Finally, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American issue. How powerful it would be if Democratic and Republican leaders came before the media together and stated unequivocally, that such behavior cannot be tolerated. That there is no acceptance on either side, of the extreme positions that use falsehoods and calls to unacceptable behavior to pursue their causes. There are enough legitimate different positions on policy matters to argue about without resorting to falsehoods, threats and violence. Can we make common cause on this matter? Although,it seems unlikely given the current political climate, I believe we can. We are all Americans. We believe, not just in Virginia or Texas, but in the United States of America. We believe in our way of government. Let's send the 'crazies' back to the fringes where they belong.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Vatican Stonewalling
Recently, the news has been full of two embarrassing situations for the Vatican. First was the Irish sex abuse scandal and the failure of the Bishops to protect children. Then there was the news of a sex abuse crisis in Germany, and specifically in the diocese formerly headed by the current Pope, Benedict XVI.
What has been the Vatican reaction to these news stories? Have they come forward and admitted mistakes? Well, maybe. A few Bishops have even resigned. Several bishops have expressed regret. So the Church is moving in the right direction? Well, not exactly. Basically, we are continuing to see business as usual and even worse. The regrets we are hearing from bishops turn out to be merely a vehicle for expressing solidarity with the Pope and attacking those who would voice even indirect criticism of the Pope's actions prior to his becoming Pope.
I guess it is a nice sentiment to rally behind your leader, yet there are some real concerns. First, where is the concern for the victims - the young people whose trust has been betrayed, and the families who have suffered. There can be no doubt that protecting the church and its secrets has been far more important than protecting young people who have been entrusted to the care of the clergy.
The strategy is to blame the messenger. It is the fault of the New York Times, the media, and even petty gossip. Can the Vatican really be resorting to this type of defense? And of course, there is also the fact that The Pope is being persecuted just like the Jews have been persecuted in the past. Any criticism of the Vatican is not only unfair, but a shameful attack that must be condemned. This is a conspiracy by anti-Catholics to discredit the Pope.
Can the Vatican be so naive as to think nobody will notice their refusal to face facts, or do they just not care? Do they really believe they can ignore the facts and carry on with business as usual? And, could they in fact be right? Let's examine the situation. Nobody can doubt that the Church as an institution did everything they could to keep the sex abuse crisis quiet. They paid the victims. They threatened the victims with ecclesiatical punsishments if they spoke up. Bottom line - they acted like any large corporation. Though indefensible, it is at least at some level understandable. Tobacco companies were not going to admit they knew their product was dangerous. Restaurants are not going to tell people not to eat menu items that might be bad for their health.
So, the Church operated like any other large institution. One would have hoped for something better from the Church, but the fact is they chose and have chosen for generations to protect themselves. As Bishop and Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger was part of that church and part of that deception. No one can doubt that is true. Let's give Pope Benedict the benefit of the doubt and assume that as Pope he has not been part of the business as usual operation on this issue. All the more reason not to strain credulity by denying any knowledge or complicitness in earlier years of striving to keep this scandal out of the press, and even reassigning abusive priests to pastoral work.
Is there a way to restore credibility? I believe there is. What should the Vatican do at this point? How about a little candor? I would recommend that the Pope make a statement that includes something like what follows:
"We grieve individually and collectively as Church for the pain and suffering that has been caused to so many of our young people and their families. Clearly, very bad judgements were made by many in authority that has added to the harm that has been done to members of the body of Christ. I myself have been guilty of poor judgement at times in the past, and regret these lapses with all my being.
What must be done now is to ensure that such harm shall never again come to any of our members. Justice must be meted out to those guilty of doing harm to others. Structures must be put in place to deal with any future cases of abuse. Even more importantly, we must undertake an exhaustive examination of the operation of the church and the priesthood to determine if there are any changes that need to be made to ensure the safety of our young people and to preserve the integrity of the priesthood. Experts in every relevant field will be brought in to explore the structure and culture of the heirarchy. The church at every level and in every country will openly and forthrightly cooperate with all interested parties to address these issues in the most comprehensive manner possible. No facet of the operation of the church will be untouched including celibacy. We owe it to the faithful to study this issue in a transparent and open fashion and make what changes are necessary to hand over the legacy of the church in a healthy and holy fashion to its future members.
We will protect the church and lead it into the future, but not by hiding its secrets and its failings, but by putting the scrutiny of the light of day onto the activities of the church, and assuring future generations of a holier, healthier, and better servant church than we have had in this generation."
I believe such an announcement and appropriate follow through by this Pope would be well received by the faithful and the community at large. I believe it would almost instantly strengthen the credibility of the church and promote a vibrant future, and healthier church for all of us.
What has been the Vatican reaction to these news stories? Have they come forward and admitted mistakes? Well, maybe. A few Bishops have even resigned. Several bishops have expressed regret. So the Church is moving in the right direction? Well, not exactly. Basically, we are continuing to see business as usual and even worse. The regrets we are hearing from bishops turn out to be merely a vehicle for expressing solidarity with the Pope and attacking those who would voice even indirect criticism of the Pope's actions prior to his becoming Pope.
I guess it is a nice sentiment to rally behind your leader, yet there are some real concerns. First, where is the concern for the victims - the young people whose trust has been betrayed, and the families who have suffered. There can be no doubt that protecting the church and its secrets has been far more important than protecting young people who have been entrusted to the care of the clergy.
The strategy is to blame the messenger. It is the fault of the New York Times, the media, and even petty gossip. Can the Vatican really be resorting to this type of defense? And of course, there is also the fact that The Pope is being persecuted just like the Jews have been persecuted in the past. Any criticism of the Vatican is not only unfair, but a shameful attack that must be condemned. This is a conspiracy by anti-Catholics to discredit the Pope.
Can the Vatican be so naive as to think nobody will notice their refusal to face facts, or do they just not care? Do they really believe they can ignore the facts and carry on with business as usual? And, could they in fact be right? Let's examine the situation. Nobody can doubt that the Church as an institution did everything they could to keep the sex abuse crisis quiet. They paid the victims. They threatened the victims with ecclesiatical punsishments if they spoke up. Bottom line - they acted like any large corporation. Though indefensible, it is at least at some level understandable. Tobacco companies were not going to admit they knew their product was dangerous. Restaurants are not going to tell people not to eat menu items that might be bad for their health.
So, the Church operated like any other large institution. One would have hoped for something better from the Church, but the fact is they chose and have chosen for generations to protect themselves. As Bishop and Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger was part of that church and part of that deception. No one can doubt that is true. Let's give Pope Benedict the benefit of the doubt and assume that as Pope he has not been part of the business as usual operation on this issue. All the more reason not to strain credulity by denying any knowledge or complicitness in earlier years of striving to keep this scandal out of the press, and even reassigning abusive priests to pastoral work.
Is there a way to restore credibility? I believe there is. What should the Vatican do at this point? How about a little candor? I would recommend that the Pope make a statement that includes something like what follows:
"We grieve individually and collectively as Church for the pain and suffering that has been caused to so many of our young people and their families. Clearly, very bad judgements were made by many in authority that has added to the harm that has been done to members of the body of Christ. I myself have been guilty of poor judgement at times in the past, and regret these lapses with all my being.
What must be done now is to ensure that such harm shall never again come to any of our members. Justice must be meted out to those guilty of doing harm to others. Structures must be put in place to deal with any future cases of abuse. Even more importantly, we must undertake an exhaustive examination of the operation of the church and the priesthood to determine if there are any changes that need to be made to ensure the safety of our young people and to preserve the integrity of the priesthood. Experts in every relevant field will be brought in to explore the structure and culture of the heirarchy. The church at every level and in every country will openly and forthrightly cooperate with all interested parties to address these issues in the most comprehensive manner possible. No facet of the operation of the church will be untouched including celibacy. We owe it to the faithful to study this issue in a transparent and open fashion and make what changes are necessary to hand over the legacy of the church in a healthy and holy fashion to its future members.
We will protect the church and lead it into the future, but not by hiding its secrets and its failings, but by putting the scrutiny of the light of day onto the activities of the church, and assuring future generations of a holier, healthier, and better servant church than we have had in this generation."
I believe such an announcement and appropriate follow through by this Pope would be well received by the faithful and the community at large. I believe it would almost instantly strengthen the credibility of the church and promote a vibrant future, and healthier church for all of us.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Catholic Bishops and Health Care
Except for the colossal failure in the sex abuse crisis, the Catholic Bishops of the United States have provided many years of reasonable, moderate, and pastoral leadership. However, conservative bishops now appear to be in the ascendancy. It turns out that being a conservative bishop appears to mean a number of things that run counter to core gospel values. Abortion is the only issue that matters. Orthodoxy is a close second, and imperial and even repressive authoritarian rule is the leadership style. All of this points to the Bishops refusal to support health care reform in Congress.
Well, after all, the issue of abortion is paramount, and of course the bishops would support the legislation if only the Congress would adhere to its principled stand in every detail. First of all, legislation doesn't work that way. Legislation moves forward through compromise. But of course monarchical bishops have no concept of what that word means. The notion that a group of Roman Catholic Bishops can and should be determinative on a bill affecting all Americans, a majority of whom are not Catholic is rather ludicrous. Unless of course you are a Catholic Bishop who believes no one other than yourself has any ideas worthy of consideration or respect.
How far have we come from the spirit of Vatican II? Collegiality seems to be a forgotten or at least ignored concept. There seems to be little or no respect for other Christian Churches, religions, or other points of view. Another ignored tenet of Vatican II is the recognition of the primacy of conscience as taught in the Declaration on Religious Liberty. Is not the Church also to be understood as the people of God? We all have the spirit moving in us. Paul tell us that we all have our individual charisms. It wouldn't hurt the bishops to listen to the Holy Spirit moving through the people of God once in a while.
More basic than Vatican II however, is the message of Jesus in the gospel. We are told that we are here to serve, not to trample down the weak. What about the social justice cry of helping the poor? Do we no longer subscribe to the worth value and dignity of every individual? The bishops proclaimed health care a right and not a privlege. Have they forgotten? The opportunity to achieve success in obtaining this right for the people now exists after decades of failure, and the bishops are suddenly willing to stand as a road block and contribute to its ultimate failure. Is this the way our bishops reach out to aid the poor the hungry and those jobless and without health care benefits?
The Bishops have now gone even further. In the nations's capital they have decided to stop providing charitable services through Catholic Charities because of the new same sex marriage law. They have even withdrawn health insurance to all new employees rather than risk being tainted with providing health care insurance to a gay couple. Does a gay couple not need health insurance? Is their right to health care abrogated because of their sexual orientation? Is it permissible to deny them needed services because you disagree with some action they have taken? What game do you play when even those couples who are not gay will be denied help lest some crumbs of service fall into the hands of a gay couple? Bishops may want to reread the story of Lazarus and the rich man in the New Testament.
The Bishops have managed to turn the good news of Jesus upside down. They sit smugly in their palatial domiciles and basque in their certitude, even though we know that our ways are not God's ways. We can never truly be certain of what God expects of us. Yet, if we know anything for certain it is that we are called to serve the least among us. The Bishops have put the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed, side by side with abortion and homosexuality, and they have concluded that people don't matter. Yet when Jesus speaks of what he expects of us at the last judgement we are judged by whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, and ministered to the sick. In fact by ministering to those in need, Jesus tells us we are ministering to Jesus himself. Maybe the Bishops may want to reread a little of Matthew.
What immutable truth are these Church leaders upholding with their bizarre behavior? They are proving that they are in charge. Yet Jesus took a towel and washed the feet of his apostles. This was not meant as a quaint little ceremony to be repeated ritually on Holy Thursday evening. It exemplified a way of life that our leaders were meant to emulate. We are constantly humbled by the example Jesus gave us in the New Testament. How unfortunate it is that I see little to emulate in those who currently seek to be revered as leaders of the Catholic community.
Well, after all, the issue of abortion is paramount, and of course the bishops would support the legislation if only the Congress would adhere to its principled stand in every detail. First of all, legislation doesn't work that way. Legislation moves forward through compromise. But of course monarchical bishops have no concept of what that word means. The notion that a group of Roman Catholic Bishops can and should be determinative on a bill affecting all Americans, a majority of whom are not Catholic is rather ludicrous. Unless of course you are a Catholic Bishop who believes no one other than yourself has any ideas worthy of consideration or respect.
How far have we come from the spirit of Vatican II? Collegiality seems to be a forgotten or at least ignored concept. There seems to be little or no respect for other Christian Churches, religions, or other points of view. Another ignored tenet of Vatican II is the recognition of the primacy of conscience as taught in the Declaration on Religious Liberty. Is not the Church also to be understood as the people of God? We all have the spirit moving in us. Paul tell us that we all have our individual charisms. It wouldn't hurt the bishops to listen to the Holy Spirit moving through the people of God once in a while.
More basic than Vatican II however, is the message of Jesus in the gospel. We are told that we are here to serve, not to trample down the weak. What about the social justice cry of helping the poor? Do we no longer subscribe to the worth value and dignity of every individual? The bishops proclaimed health care a right and not a privlege. Have they forgotten? The opportunity to achieve success in obtaining this right for the people now exists after decades of failure, and the bishops are suddenly willing to stand as a road block and contribute to its ultimate failure. Is this the way our bishops reach out to aid the poor the hungry and those jobless and without health care benefits?
The Bishops have now gone even further. In the nations's capital they have decided to stop providing charitable services through Catholic Charities because of the new same sex marriage law. They have even withdrawn health insurance to all new employees rather than risk being tainted with providing health care insurance to a gay couple. Does a gay couple not need health insurance? Is their right to health care abrogated because of their sexual orientation? Is it permissible to deny them needed services because you disagree with some action they have taken? What game do you play when even those couples who are not gay will be denied help lest some crumbs of service fall into the hands of a gay couple? Bishops may want to reread the story of Lazarus and the rich man in the New Testament.
The Bishops have managed to turn the good news of Jesus upside down. They sit smugly in their palatial domiciles and basque in their certitude, even though we know that our ways are not God's ways. We can never truly be certain of what God expects of us. Yet, if we know anything for certain it is that we are called to serve the least among us. The Bishops have put the poor, the hungry, and the oppressed, side by side with abortion and homosexuality, and they have concluded that people don't matter. Yet when Jesus speaks of what he expects of us at the last judgement we are judged by whether we fed the hungry, gave drink to the thirsty, and ministered to the sick. In fact by ministering to those in need, Jesus tells us we are ministering to Jesus himself. Maybe the Bishops may want to reread a little of Matthew.
What immutable truth are these Church leaders upholding with their bizarre behavior? They are proving that they are in charge. Yet Jesus took a towel and washed the feet of his apostles. This was not meant as a quaint little ceremony to be repeated ritually on Holy Thursday evening. It exemplified a way of life that our leaders were meant to emulate. We are constantly humbled by the example Jesus gave us in the New Testament. How unfortunate it is that I see little to emulate in those who currently seek to be revered as leaders of the Catholic community.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Health Care Summit: A Win for the Country
Just about every politician who was asked who won the recent health care summit, said that it was a win for the American people. As trite and self serving as that may sound I believe that in this case it may be true. Many pundits are saying that it was a failure or useless because no deal was reached. Yet, this was never a gathering that was expected to reach an agreement. We all knew that Republicans would not join with Democrats regardless of what concessions Democrats might make. Republicans believe their political fortunes are tied to saying no. Democrats, on the other hand, can not give up on health care if anything of their campaign agenda is to be salvaged.
I believe the summit did accomplish a number of things that are indeed good for the country. First of all it was a civil debate and a substantive debate. Keep in mind that this summit has followed months of non civil and non substantive debate. The meeting demonstrated that it is still possible for politicians in this country to speak to each other and act like grownups. Certainly there were a few Democrats and Republicans present who chose to continue the same old tired debate and recriminations, but on this day they were actually in the minority. Voters were able to hear cogent discussions of each side's arguments about health care. For many of us, I believe, it was the first time such meaningful arguments were heard.
What this civil debate demonstrated for those listening is that the extreme positions we have been hearing from both sides of the aisle do not represent with any degree of accuracy what the health care debate is really all about. The tea party and the Republican talking points that speak of death panels and government take overs are empty though perhaps dangerous rhetoric. Moderate and conservative Democrats who allow themselves to be talked in to voting no out of fear of losing their jobs are likely underestimating the American people. The summit will hopefully force responsible politicians to move away from rhetoric about socialism and focus on the legitimate differences that are worthy of their consideration.
The real substantive issues boil down to a surprisingly few but important points. There is of course the question of cost and whether in light of current economic circumstances and budget deficits, the country can afford such an expense. In regard to cost I would make a couple of points. First, there is never a good time to undertake such an expansion of health care. Clearly we have waited for decades and forces continue to be arrayed against its enactment. If health care reform is a good thing, then now is the appropriate time to act. Second, it strikes me that when it comes to money there is never enough money to help poor and middle class Americans. If there is a war to be fought there appear to be unlimited funds. If banks or corporations need to be bailed out the government has ample funds. If ordinary Americans are suffering or in need of help, however, we just can't afford to help them. Finally, the fact is that the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) says that this bill will actually reduce the deficit. It is of course possible that eventually the numbers won't add up, but CBO figures have been the neutral standard for both parties, so you can't accept the figures when they support your position, and ridicule them when they are not to your liking.
The second issue concerns the role of government and its appropriate degree of involvement. If, of course, you believe that government should have no role in health care or any other program to help Americans you will not like this or any health care bill. Yet we ought to at least be clear about what is actually involved here. If you want to talk about a government run health care program you might want to talk about Medicare. It is a government run program, yet, it is difficult to find many Americans who oppose it. Seniors in particular are adamant that their benefits in this program be protected. So apparently some government involvement is a good thing. In the case of so called Obama Care, there is no government run program. In fact the limited public option has been excluded from the bill. Government involvement here refers only to the regulation of private insurance policies. I repeat, we are talking about private insurance companies, not government programs. What is at issue is whether government should demand that insurance companies provide at least a minimum level of benefits to consumers. Government regulators inspect the food we eat, the water we drink etc. Do we want no accountablility of insurance companies? Can we really count on these companies to always protect the public interest with no oversight?
What happens now? Both parties will likely go back to their respective corners and resume the useless bickering. Democrats in the Senate will likely proceed to pass a health care bill through reconciliation. This procedure means that the bill can pass with a simple majority rather than a 60 vote threshhold. Won't that destroy everything that was accomplished through the summit? I don't think so. I think the summit because of its level of serious discussion has cleared the air and made forward movement possible. Some won't like it, but differences were aired and now the majority party and administration has a responsiblility to lead and govern. Just because Republicans have chosen to vote as a bloc to kill all administration legislation does not mean that Congress can shut down and cease operating until the next election.
Whatever the process, efforts at bipartisanship need to continue, but the determination of Republicans not to join should not prevent the administration from acting. Republicans not only had an opportunity to be part of the solution, but also had their serious ideas considered and included in the bill. As President Obama said, the voters elected the president and the congress to govern. Elections will take care of themselves. If the American people don't like what this administration does, they can vote them out. But worse than being voted out would be to do nothing.
I believe the summit did accomplish a number of things that are indeed good for the country. First of all it was a civil debate and a substantive debate. Keep in mind that this summit has followed months of non civil and non substantive debate. The meeting demonstrated that it is still possible for politicians in this country to speak to each other and act like grownups. Certainly there were a few Democrats and Republicans present who chose to continue the same old tired debate and recriminations, but on this day they were actually in the minority. Voters were able to hear cogent discussions of each side's arguments about health care. For many of us, I believe, it was the first time such meaningful arguments were heard.
What this civil debate demonstrated for those listening is that the extreme positions we have been hearing from both sides of the aisle do not represent with any degree of accuracy what the health care debate is really all about. The tea party and the Republican talking points that speak of death panels and government take overs are empty though perhaps dangerous rhetoric. Moderate and conservative Democrats who allow themselves to be talked in to voting no out of fear of losing their jobs are likely underestimating the American people. The summit will hopefully force responsible politicians to move away from rhetoric about socialism and focus on the legitimate differences that are worthy of their consideration.
The real substantive issues boil down to a surprisingly few but important points. There is of course the question of cost and whether in light of current economic circumstances and budget deficits, the country can afford such an expense. In regard to cost I would make a couple of points. First, there is never a good time to undertake such an expansion of health care. Clearly we have waited for decades and forces continue to be arrayed against its enactment. If health care reform is a good thing, then now is the appropriate time to act. Second, it strikes me that when it comes to money there is never enough money to help poor and middle class Americans. If there is a war to be fought there appear to be unlimited funds. If banks or corporations need to be bailed out the government has ample funds. If ordinary Americans are suffering or in need of help, however, we just can't afford to help them. Finally, the fact is that the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) says that this bill will actually reduce the deficit. It is of course possible that eventually the numbers won't add up, but CBO figures have been the neutral standard for both parties, so you can't accept the figures when they support your position, and ridicule them when they are not to your liking.
The second issue concerns the role of government and its appropriate degree of involvement. If, of course, you believe that government should have no role in health care or any other program to help Americans you will not like this or any health care bill. Yet we ought to at least be clear about what is actually involved here. If you want to talk about a government run health care program you might want to talk about Medicare. It is a government run program, yet, it is difficult to find many Americans who oppose it. Seniors in particular are adamant that their benefits in this program be protected. So apparently some government involvement is a good thing. In the case of so called Obama Care, there is no government run program. In fact the limited public option has been excluded from the bill. Government involvement here refers only to the regulation of private insurance policies. I repeat, we are talking about private insurance companies, not government programs. What is at issue is whether government should demand that insurance companies provide at least a minimum level of benefits to consumers. Government regulators inspect the food we eat, the water we drink etc. Do we want no accountablility of insurance companies? Can we really count on these companies to always protect the public interest with no oversight?
What happens now? Both parties will likely go back to their respective corners and resume the useless bickering. Democrats in the Senate will likely proceed to pass a health care bill through reconciliation. This procedure means that the bill can pass with a simple majority rather than a 60 vote threshhold. Won't that destroy everything that was accomplished through the summit? I don't think so. I think the summit because of its level of serious discussion has cleared the air and made forward movement possible. Some won't like it, but differences were aired and now the majority party and administration has a responsiblility to lead and govern. Just because Republicans have chosen to vote as a bloc to kill all administration legislation does not mean that Congress can shut down and cease operating until the next election.
Whatever the process, efforts at bipartisanship need to continue, but the determination of Republicans not to join should not prevent the administration from acting. Republicans not only had an opportunity to be part of the solution, but also had their serious ideas considered and included in the bill. As President Obama said, the voters elected the president and the congress to govern. Elections will take care of themselves. If the American people don't like what this administration does, they can vote them out. But worse than being voted out would be to do nothing.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Can Congress Legislate?
No! Can anyone govern these United States at this time? No! How did we get into this mess, and how long has it been going on? Can anything be done, and does anyone even care?
Gridlock in Washington is not a new phenomemon, and has in fact even been celebrated at times. There have been times when I have personally been grateful for gridlock when it prevented the other party from passing legislation I found disagreeable. Sometimes it is a positive thing to prevent government from moving too quickly or failing to consider all the possible ramifications of a particular policy. There is a value in having a loyal opposition.
Yet the constitution established our government on the concept of having the majority rule. There is a difference between slowing down legislation to ensure it makes sense, and simply stopping the government in its tracks. Even when Congress and the President actually shut the government down back in the 90's, it continued for only a few days. The government actually did go back to work. We have now turned the country upside down so that 41 Senators constitute a majority, and 59 or 60 Senators have become the minority party. I'm pretty sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind.
Some will say that nothing has changed. It has always been this way. Every party takes advantage of the rules. This is somewhat true, but there are some differences. What has occurred here is a decision by the minority to simply kill every item of a president's agenda, even if they actually think that a particular part of that agenda might be good for the country. The nice thing about the present strategy is that if it is successful and Republicans win back the Congress, you can rest assured that the new Democratic minority (or is it a majority) will use the same tactics to ensure that Republicans will also be unable to govern.
Do we need a new political party? Perhaps. What needs to happen of course, is that both political parties come together and craft legislation that can pass both houses of congress. We have not even touched on the absurd practice of a single Senator placing an indefinite hold on all judicial or agency appointments. Undoubtedly, this is a good way to shut down all phases of government. The only way out of this failure of government is for Senators to choose to make decisions based on what is good for the country, and not what is good for their political interests. Unfortunately, there is little indication that anything like this is about to happen.
Yet it needs to happen. We are playing a game with the future of our country. Energy independence, health care, climate change, immigration reform, financial regulation, and how we respond to these challenges will determine the future of our country. The current plan for responding to these challenges appears to be to do nothing. That is not good enough. Our country will suffer from a failure to move forward in these critical areas. We will be unable to compete with countries like China and India on alternative energy technologies and other important innovative practices. We will fall behind. We will fall behind because we have created a legislative structure that is making it impossible to govern.
Are we going to allow this impasse to continue? Will winning political points remain more important than the general welfare of our country? Where will the leadership and courage come from to move us out of this predicament and bring some sanity back to government? Bi-partisan coalitions need to emerge to pass meaningful legislation. Arcane Senate rules need to be updated to facilitate movement in COngress. America is waiting.
Gridlock in Washington is not a new phenomemon, and has in fact even been celebrated at times. There have been times when I have personally been grateful for gridlock when it prevented the other party from passing legislation I found disagreeable. Sometimes it is a positive thing to prevent government from moving too quickly or failing to consider all the possible ramifications of a particular policy. There is a value in having a loyal opposition.
Yet the constitution established our government on the concept of having the majority rule. There is a difference between slowing down legislation to ensure it makes sense, and simply stopping the government in its tracks. Even when Congress and the President actually shut the government down back in the 90's, it continued for only a few days. The government actually did go back to work. We have now turned the country upside down so that 41 Senators constitute a majority, and 59 or 60 Senators have become the minority party. I'm pretty sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind.
Some will say that nothing has changed. It has always been this way. Every party takes advantage of the rules. This is somewhat true, but there are some differences. What has occurred here is a decision by the minority to simply kill every item of a president's agenda, even if they actually think that a particular part of that agenda might be good for the country. The nice thing about the present strategy is that if it is successful and Republicans win back the Congress, you can rest assured that the new Democratic minority (or is it a majority) will use the same tactics to ensure that Republicans will also be unable to govern.
Do we need a new political party? Perhaps. What needs to happen of course, is that both political parties come together and craft legislation that can pass both houses of congress. We have not even touched on the absurd practice of a single Senator placing an indefinite hold on all judicial or agency appointments. Undoubtedly, this is a good way to shut down all phases of government. The only way out of this failure of government is for Senators to choose to make decisions based on what is good for the country, and not what is good for their political interests. Unfortunately, there is little indication that anything like this is about to happen.
Yet it needs to happen. We are playing a game with the future of our country. Energy independence, health care, climate change, immigration reform, financial regulation, and how we respond to these challenges will determine the future of our country. The current plan for responding to these challenges appears to be to do nothing. That is not good enough. Our country will suffer from a failure to move forward in these critical areas. We will be unable to compete with countries like China and India on alternative energy technologies and other important innovative practices. We will fall behind. We will fall behind because we have created a legislative structure that is making it impossible to govern.
Are we going to allow this impasse to continue? Will winning political points remain more important than the general welfare of our country? Where will the leadership and courage come from to move us out of this predicament and bring some sanity back to government? Bi-partisan coalitions need to emerge to pass meaningful legislation. Arcane Senate rules need to be updated to facilitate movement in COngress. America is waiting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
